Colonial Williamsburg Digital Library

Illustration 1.

The original compilation of photocopied documents is contained in a series of notebooks forming Appendix II to this report. Pages are numbered sequentially within each topic category. The transcribed, standard-format references form Appendix I.

Appendix I is divided into approximately the same topical sections as Appendix II. In each section of Appendix I, entries are arranged chronologically and assigned an item number (Illustration 1, a). A reference number (b) is given which 17 corresponds to the page number of the original source in Appendix II (this allows the reader to quickly reference the photocopy of the original source to examine the context of the transcribed quote). The date (c) of the quotation and location (d) where the action or observation took place are noted and followed by the direct quotation (e). The source (f) includes a full citation and, where applicable, the secondary source and individual who compiled the data. Any further comments (g) concerning the quotation or source are also noted.

Since many documents contain information related to several topical categories, and "see-also" or cross-reference entries are awkward, the standard-format version of any given document was duplicated as required for inclusion in each relevant section.

As we stress throughout this report, there is much more material to be gathered about black material culture, and we hope future research findings will be added to the appendices. As new material becomes available, it can be inserted into Appendix II and transcribed onto the standard form for entry into Appendix I. We recommend that new material be entered into Appendix I chronologically by original date, and that it be given Item Number designations using decimal numbers (i.e., a page sequence of 24, 24.1, 24.2, etc.).

The types of primary sources utilized included diaries, collected writings or papers of slave owners, travellers' 18 descriptions, business records, legal records, slave narratives (one or two from the eighteenth century, but the majority from the nineteenth century), paintings and illustrations, and archaeological recoveries. Each source we quote has its own merits and weaknesses, but a discussion of each of these sources and their biases will better indicate the difficulties in dealing with this topic. In general, the most serious limitation of these sources is that the majority were created by white planters or observers. The sources note only those matters of concern or interest to whites. They provide white perceptions of slave­associated objects and how slaves ordered and interacted with their personal surroundings, but they do not explain how slaves viewed their own material world. Few narratives by eighteenth­century slaves survive which present the slaves' point-of-view. without slave narratives, it is unlikely we will discover complete inventories of slave-owned goods or know what meaning and cultural importance slaves attached to their objects.

Furthermore, none of these sources are complete in themselves; each must be used in conjunction with the others to draw a more complete picture of the environment we seek to recreate. Each source is limited in some way by its specificity: diary observations, legal records, business transactions and even archaeological recoveries can only provide us with a glimpse of a specific attitude or occurrence and not enough sources survive to permit us to determine whether recorded evidence represents the typical or the extraordinary. A discussion of each type of 19 source will reveal the advantages and disadvantages of each.

Diaries are in some ways the best of primary sources. Intensely personal, they record the feelings and actions of a person who, while suspecting his writings will eventually be seen by other eyes, is probably honestly subjective in recording his life's passing. Thus, Landon Carter could vent his anger at his valued slave, Nassau, and record his disappointment at being hoodwinked by his spinning women. On the other hand, like many other diarists, Carter is most likely to record either unusual events or those observations which give him cause for thought. The less expository diary of Francis Taylor records the small mundane transactions of a rural plantation owner. Taylor, unlike Landon Carter, seems to have been on good terms with his family, neighbors, and servants.

A diary's strengths can also be weaknesses. Because of its personal nature, one diary cannot be accepted as representative of a time or place unless corroborating evidence is found in other primary sources. Thus, the day-by-day accounts of eighteenth-century Virginia life left by Landon Carter, Francis Taylor.and the other diarists should be used as evidence for general trends only with some degree of caution.

Collected writings and papers prove to be another helpful source. The points of view, common practices, and daily activities they reveal enlarge the understanding of our topic. From them we learn of George Washington's search for the best buy in slave blankets, the concern of Joseph Ball (a most 20 unrepresentative master, we believe) for his servants who were leaving England for a harsher life in Virginia, and Thomas Jefferson's ambivalent attitudes toward his slaves. Although they are not as candid as a diary might be, they still provide information that is unavailable in other ways.

Perhaps the most interesting accounts are those left by foreign travellers. coming from backgrounds far removed from the American experience, these travellers were distanced from the subject under discussion. Having, for the most part, no investment either intellectual or financial in the system, they felt free to describe from possibly a more objective viewpoint conditions they saw before them. This is not to say that these views were not biased — some of them clearly were very biased. But these accounts in some cases present a needed antidote to the more rosy descriptions left by those who lived their lives within the system.

Just how dangerous the process of generalizing from white owners' accounts and travellers' accounts can be is illustrated by the description of slave quarters on the Butler family plantations in the 1830s. Fanny Kemble Butler, an upper-class Englishwoman, described her husband's South Carolina slave quarters as,

…filthy and wretched in the extreme, and exhibited that most deplorable consequence of ignorance and an abject condition, the inability of the inhabitants to secure and improve even such pitiful comfort as might yet be achieved by them. Instead of order, neatness, and ingenuity which might convert even these miserable hovels into tolerable residences, there was the careless, reckless, filthy indolence which even the 21 brutes do not exhibit in their lairs and nests, and which seemed incapable of applying to the uses of existence the few miserable means of comfort yet within their reach. Firewood and shavings lay littered about the floors, while the half-naked children were cowering round two or three smoldering cinders. The moss with which the chinks and crannies of their ill-protecting dwellings might have been stuffed was trailing in the dirt and dust about the ground, while the back door of the huts, opening upon a most unsightly ditch, was left wide open for the fowls and ducks, which they are allowed to raise, to travel in and out, increasing the filth of the cabin by what they brought and left in every direction. (c. 1830s; Housing, Item #: 70.1)

Seven years later an English visitor to Fanny Butler's plantation described the slave cabins as "neat, and white-washed, all floored with wood, each with an apartment called the hall, two sleeping rooms, and a loft for the children." (c. 1830s; Housing, Item #: 70.1) Fanny Butler's husband may have provided new cabins within the span of seven years, but the descriptions are still of slave cabins on the same plantation within a short space of time. These quotations suggest that either conditions for slaves could rapidly change or that conditions were perceived differently according to the observer's perspective.

The accounts that could tell us the most — slave narratives — are also the hardest to find. The very nature of the slave system left its victims for the most part unable to read or write and thus not able to leave for their families or sympathizers accounts of life within this system from the slave point of view. Only a handful of accounts remain from the eighteenth century, and aside from adding to the evidence gained from other sources, they are too few to be of decisive help. In contrast, there are several hundred accounts of nineteenth 22 century slavery, most of them compiled during the Depression by the Federal writers' Project. Unfortunately, these describe the slave system nearly one hundred years after the period in which we are most interested and in themselves are subject to serious scrutiny because of the circumstances in which they were collected. While they are questionable sources from a socio­political standpoint, there probably was little incentive to modify recollections about personal possessions and household furniture. When used with some degree of caution, these accounts may indicate broad trends and conditions which bear our consideration.

In the course of this research, there were numerous times when we wished we could find a drawing of a Virginia slave quarter, dated about 1770, showing both the interior and exterior of the cabins. Discovering such a document would be invaluable in trying to decipher the sometimes vague descriptions left in the written sources. Alas, we have yet to discover such a drawing, but we were able to assemble a range of illustrations which show some aspects of the slave experience. They range from the crude to the finished, from the impressionistic to the realistic. Taken individually, each lets us imagine how a slave cabin might appear, indicating the possible shape of a chair, style of clothing, or an interesting activity. Used in conjunction with our other sources, these drawings and paintings add a visual dimension to our verbal picture of slaves' material culture.

23

Storekeepers' accounts and the ledgers kept by plantation owners themselves are valuable, though enigmatic sources. Necessity dictated that accounts be accurate. In an economy which depended upon a favorable harvest for profit, it was in the storekeeper's own interest to know how much he was owed so that any income from the sale of tobacco or other crops could be applied to the outstanding balance of the planter. Thus, an accurate listing of items bought by and sold on behalf of an individual are of great help in knowing what actually was purchased at one specific time. Likewise, it did not make economic sense to refuse to sell to those who could afford to pay, whether it be for "ready money" or on account, even if the customers were slaves. There is evidence many slaves made cash purchases from stores; unfortunately because of the accounting system used in the eighteenth century, these transactions are not identifiable. But we have found several instances in which slaves had the eighteenth-century equivalent of charge accounts with merchants in the Chesapeake. These records indicate that slaves were buying products of the type we never imagined they had the capacity to purchase.

Plantation owners, too, were running a business and they had to keep accounts of their household and agricultural expenses. This included the money spent in clothing, feeding, and caring for their slaves. Nathaniel Burwell's account books contain many notations along this line and give us good indications of the types and quantities of the basic commodities needed to operate a 24 large plantation and the expenses involved with running such an operation. They are of great assistance as a starting point in furnishing the quarters at carter's Grove. They are limited, however, in that there are few descriptions of the goods in question, and we have no way of knowing if some purchases were noted elsewhere or not noted at all. We are left with the nagging suspicion that something must be missing.

At first glance, legal records would seem to offer a comprehensive and relatively unbiased source of information for this study. Although woefully incomplete for some locations, other locations such as York County have records so complete as to overwhelm the researcher with enormous quantities of information about land ownership, personal property, family matters and legal disputes.

Laws regulating slave behavior and specifying punishment testify to the harshness of the system. Records of trials illustrate the lengths to which the government was willing to go to keep slaves in line. Probate inventories specify the numbers of slaves required to run even a small plantation and the investment in equipment such an enterprise required. The short­comings of legal records, however, are well-known. We see the results of events, not their causes, and so we must look elsewhere for the reasons why a law was passed, a slave was sold, or a crime committed. And probate inventories are as notorious for what is left out as for what is included.

Archaeological remains are at once the most concrete and the 25 most imprecise of our sources. Once recovered, the ceramics, metals and faunal remains can tell us things about usage patterns, object availability and diet which written sources never mention. Yet this information is very selective — only certain materials were deposited to begin with and only a portion of these have been preserved in the soil. There is also the problem that we have excavated only a few discrete, slave­occupied sites.

Once compiled, the sources support above all the belief that the experience of slavery in eighteenth-century Virginia varied tremendously. Socially, economically, and emotionally, the impact of slavery differed from master to master and slave to slave. It appears that the physical environment was just as variable. Some owners insisted on wooden floors for their cabins; others thought dirt floors sufficient. A few owners supplied meat on a regular basis; others used it as means of reward. At some quarters, planters supplied their slaves with all the basic necessities, but others demanded that slaves purchase their clothing from them. Many slaves supplemented their issued items through their own labor or cunning. Some slaves accepted the system, while others sought to overcome its inherent deprivations.

Looking at all of these sources, we were forced to conclude that they told us little, if anything, about black material culture in eighteenth-century Tidewater Virginia, but they told 26 us quite a bit about black-associated objects. That being the case, we needed to be as precise as possible in understanding and identifying those objects. We started by trying to identify those specific items to which our sources referred. Thus we became involved in what is always a problem when dealing with eighteenth-century documents —nomenclature.

Whenever we deal with periods much earlier than our own, the problems with nomenclature are significant. They are even more so when we try to understand people or objects we have little studied in only limited ways. One major topic — that of sleeping accommodations — provides an example of how our interpretation of eighteenth-century nomenclature affects our understanding of Virginia slave life. Although sleeping accommodations will be discussed in more detail later in this report, a study of the eighteenth-century nomenclature produces some disconcerting results.

Confusion begins when we try to understand what the eighteenth-century observer meant by "bed," "bedding," "pallet" and "bedstead." According to Samuel Johnson's A Dictionary of the English Language (1755), "bed" had the rather ambiguous definition of "something made to sleep on." This definition therefore leads to the conclusion that every time an eighteenth­century observer described the sleeping accommodations as a "miserable bed" or "simple bed," we can only determine that the slaves had a miserable or simple "something made to sleep on" and nothing more. Samuel Johnson defined "bedding" as meaning 27 primarily "the materials of a bed" and secondarily, as meaning "a bed." Therefore, whenever an observer mentioned "bedding," he might have meant the materials that made up the bed, or he could have been talking about "something made to sleep on." Johnson defined "pallet" as "a small bed; a mean bed" which means that all we know when an observer states he saw a pallet is that he saw a small or mean "something made to sleep on." The only related term that was apparently unambiguous in the eighteenth century was "bedstead" which was defined by Johnson as meaning, "the frame on which the bed is placed." (In this case, Johnson is using "bed" in the narrow sense, i.e., mattress. See Samuel Johnson, A Dictionary of the English Language, London: 1755) In conclusion we really only know exactly what type of sleeping accommodations were present in slave cabins when the source mentions bedsteads, and even that term refers to a general form and not a specific type. other descriptions are helpful only when they go on to describe in some detail the manner in which the sleeping equipment was arranged or built. Nomenclature, in this instance, is very important to our understanding of the sources.

28

Once we accepted that our sources could tell us only about types of objects — and that very imperfectly — it became increasingly important to talk about the "typicality" of the items described. If we could determine the most common articles that appeared on slave quarters, then we could represent in our interpretation the most common "object experience" shared by most slaves. The most obvious direction was to try and quantify our very diverse range of sources and come up with numbers which supported our conclusions. After some study, we seriously questioned whether traditional methods of quantitative analysis could be used in this project. The best example is a brief look at the compiled data on sleeping accommodations for slaves in the eighteenth century.

For the period 1700-1861, we have only 53 references to the objects associated with sleeping accommodations used by slaves. Of the 53 entries, 19 describe some form of bedframe; 2 mention "raised beds;" 15 describe "beddings" or "beds"; 5 detail "pallets;" 8 note that the sleeping accommodation was on the floor or ground; and 4 entries describe miscellaneous sleeping accommodations such as a bedplace, a bench, a trundle bed, and a plank. (See Sleeping Accommodations, Item #: 1-62.) Using a simple statistical formula we could determine what the "average" slave used for his sleeping accommodations. According to these figures, 36% slept on bedframes, 4% on "raised beds," 28% on "beds" or "bedding," 9% on pallets, 15% on the floor or ground, and 8% somewhere else. Obviously this method has a few problems.

29

Disregarding any "changes over time" our mathematical exercise has ignored, we still are faced with the fact that thirty or so observations made either at random or due to some observer's bias probably have no statistical validity when we consider that there were tens of thousands of slave "beds" in eastern Virginia during the eighteenth century. While the most frequently noted accommodation might be the most common (and we may have to make that assumption), the only "fact" the data truly supports is the range of bedding types.

Furthermore, we cannot assume, from such a small and random sampling, that omission indicates that certain objects or conditions did not exist. If probate inventories of blacks formed the database, then we would have better reason to believe that the omission of a bedframe probably meant that there was not a bedframe in the house. But since this database is a collection of random observations and not an inventory of every article owned or used by slaves, an omission is just that. We cannot know whether the omission of a description of sleeping arrangements means that there were no formal accommodations or just that the observer did not note it in the written record. In other words, in dealing with such fragmentary evidence for the subject of furnishing slave quarters, the absence of evidence for a certain item does not automatically mean that the item was not there. This viewpoint is corroborated by the fact that we know from many sources — diaries, letters, account books and legal 30 records — that slaves were issued clothing and blankets on a regular basis. None of these show up in inventories of quarters, and it is only because of their economic importance to whites that they appear in any records at all.

By the same token, we obviously cannot take the absence of data denying the presence of an object type and use that absence to suggest that the object did exist. Although we do have evidence of African influences in musical instruments and personal ornamentation, our sources show no evidence of African­derived objects or decorative patterns used by late eighteenth­century Virginia slaves. It is possible that slaves used the objects commonly available to them in African-derived traditions or ceremonies or even decorated their possessions with African­derived designs. But we cannot support the inclusion of Africanisms at the Quarter using the argument that there is no documentary evidence against them, while at the same time use a similar "lack of evidence" argument to exclude bedframes.

While we were trying to find answers through quantification, we were also interested in what the sources could tell us about change over time. Again, we believe that the sample size argues against this type of analysis. There indeed may be changes in black possessions and furnishings during the eighteenth century, and there may be even greater changes during the period 1800­ 31 1860, but the types of accounts which detail personal possessions are more numerous in the young Republic than before (travellers' accounts especially increase at this time), and our mainstay of nineteenth century evidence, the slave narratives, exist in comparatively limited numbers from before the antebellum period. Thus, the types of information that we have change over time, but we cannot determine whether the objects they record did as well.

In spite of our difficulties with quantifying the information we gathered, and with analyzing that information for changes over time, these sources did offer very concrete information about specific objects associated with slaves and the ways in which they were procured. It appears that slaves obtained most of their possessions from their owners — indeed, information about planter issue and supply is the best documented area of knowledge about slave possessions. There appears to have been a typical group of items considered standard plantation issue and supply — almost always items necessary for "sustenance," or "task performance": in other words the minimum needed by slaves to stay alive and do their jobs.

For the purposes of this report, items "issued" are defined as goods given by the master to their slaves which then became the slaves' property and were no longer considered the master's property. Items "supplied" are defined as goods "lent" by the master to the slaves for their use, but still considered the 32 property of the master.

Clothing, blankets, and food appear to have been standard items issued by the planter. Tools and cooking equipment seem most often to have been supplied. The idea of certain items being issued while others were supplied is further substantiated by the probate inventory study undertaken during this research. Although other documents confirm their presence, clothing, blankets and food rarely appear on any quarters in the probate inventories of white owners, but tools and cooking items are found on most. It makes sense that the "issued" goods would not appear in the inventories, because they had become the property of the slaves. Likewise, "supplied" goods did appear in the inventories, because they never stopped being the planter's property.

Store accounts, legal records and personal papers confirm that slaves acquired goods in ways beyond the standard plantation issue and supply system. One method was through participation in Virginia's market economy. This behavior is documented most often and with most detail in "The Diary of Francis Taylor," but store accounts, runaway advertisements, diaries and other personal papers corroborate such activities. By the sale of a variety of goods and personal services, slaves acquired money from planters and white neighbors. They used the cash they received to purchase items from their masters, stores, and perhaps each other. Most frequently, the references (appendixed) indicate that slaves purchased clothing or textiles with their 33 earnings, presumably to supplement their issued clothing. Other items they bought included food, tools, a looking glass, hardware, wood, shot, cooking equipment, drinking vessels, nails, "furniture," and alcohol. (see Market Economy, Item #: 1-97.)

Food products were the most common items that slaves sold. During their free time slaves raised poultry, pigs, and vegetables, at least in part for sale. As one traveller explained in 1745-1746, slaves cultivated "the little spots allow'd them."(1745-1746; Market Economy, Item #: 7.) One Virginian noted that slaves were well known to be the "general Chicken merchants" in the colony. (April 3, 1779; Market Economy, Item #: 37.) Francis Taylor, a planter in Orange county, Virginia, allowed his slaves plenty of Saturdays to attend to their gardens, and also purchased such items as carp, oysters, cabbages, and potatoes for his own table from them. (1795-1798; Market Economy Item #:67-72, 74, 76-81, 83, 86-95.)

Slaves also sold a variety of goods they had made such as furniture, trays, seeds, mats, baskets, cooking utensils, and soap. For two "small baskets, … Frank" received "1/6" from Francis Taylor. (September 10, 1747; Market Economy, Item #: 86.) Glassford & Company paid "Negroe Jack Belonging to Mr. Linton's Estate" cash for making one walnut chair, a cot, a "Hopper for Soap," a safe, and one wheel barrow." (October 21, 1759 - July 23, 1760; Market Economy, Item #: 8.) Many slaves had specialized skills which were utilized by plantation owners to provide clothing, shoes, housing, sleeping accommodations, 34 storage containers, and food preparation for the quarters. Slaves used these skills themselves to produce marketable commodities. We do not know if they also used these skills to provide the same objects for their own use.

In addition to merchandise, slaves sold their time and labor in exchange for cash. As Taylor explained, a slave might be paid for delivering "waggonage" if "his master allowed him such small matters." (May 30, 1788; Market Economy, Item #: 50.) As well as paying slaves for "bringing" goods from the store to his plantation, Taylor also paid Venus "10/. for delivering Sary of a male child." (September 3, 1797; Market Economy, Item #: 84.) Some slaves received tips for their assistance, especially during holidays. Philip Fithian, the tutor for Robert Carter's children, "gave Sam[,] Mr Carter[']s Barber, for shaving and dressing me, & for mending my shoes, two pisterines … [and] Martha who makes my Bed, for a Christmas Box, a Bit." (December 25, 1773; Plantation Life, Item #: 6.) Thomas Jefferson followed the same practice on his many visits to the Governor's Palace.

Slaves also obtained many items through barter. They often exchanged food products, crafts, or services for goods. Clothing and textiles are most frequently mentioned as the type of wares slaves received. Taylor exchanged a "Pr [pair] breeches" with Colonel Taliferro's Jack for grass seed. (August 17, 1788; Market Economy, Item #: 51.) Taylor's father gave Joe "3 ½ yds brown linen" for "plaistering" the dairy. (June 27, 1792; Market Economy, Item #:60.) Food, cowhides, and alcohol are also listed 35 in the documents as items obtained through barter; slaves also traded poultry and goods for furniture. Robert Carter of Corotoman, for example, noted a certain overseer who made "bedsteads & sells them[,] hath bot abundance of Goods[,] makes the people saw & Maul the timber that makes his bedsteads[,] makes abundance of them & Sells stools to Negroes for fowles " (April 4, 1727; Furnishings, Item #: 2.)

Because of the inevitable bias of the documentary sources, little information has survived concerning the exchange or sale of goods among slaves themselves. Landon Carter referred to "night shops," evoking the image of an underground economy, but it is unclear who was selling and who was buying at such places. (Landon Carter, Diary of Colonel Landon Carter of Sabine Hall, 1752-1778, ed. by Jack P. Greene, Volume II, pp. 648-649.) Descriptions of slave activities during free time reinforce the idea that slaves had a certain freedom of mobility. Slaves used their free time, among other things, to gather and celebrate through dance and music. Europeans commented that these celebrations continued far into the night, often lasting until the slave "exhausts himself, and scarcely has time, or strength to return home before the hour he is called forth to toil the next morning." (1784; Social Life, Item #: 5.) Some planters noted that the slaves gathered for a funeral, or that a couple married, but have remained silent about the kind of ceremony that accompanied these acts. It is clear that separated families still communicated, and slaves from several plantations gathered 36 for special events. Such mobility was a significant factor in slave participation in the market and barter economies. (See Social Life, Item #: 1-16.)

The sources strongly suggest that black participation in Virginia's market economy was taken for granted by most whites. It is difficult to determine whether this participation was a means by which slaves gained some control over their circumstances or was a situation forced upon them by their owners. Slaves' participation in the market economy was accepted by some whites to the point that they expected their slaves to supplement materials issued to them by the purchase of goods. Landon Carter explained that his slaves "always made and raised things to sell and I obliged them to buy linnen to make their other shirt instead of buying liquor with their fowls."(September 8, 1770; Market Economy, Item #:21) Carter also sold his excess pork and believed he had discovered "a good way of selling what I may have to spare out of my own sumptuous fare; and not to injure the small profits which I am content with." (April 20, 1777; Market Economy, Item #:32) Other planters may not have required their slaves to buy such basic necessities, but they still allowed, acknowledged, or even encouraged their slaves' participation in a larger economy.

It has long been thought that slaves acquired a substantial quantity of goods from their masters in the form of gifts or hand-me-down items. It is a long-standing Southern tradition that masters handed down gifts of old clothing or furniture to 37 their servants, a practice which has continued into the twentieth century. It came as a surprise, then, when the eighteenth­century sources did not indicate the wide-spread use of this practice by Virginia planters.

Only one planter in our sources is documented as giving hand-me-down items. Joseph Ball, who ran his Virginia plantations from his estate in England, gave his slaves hand-me­down furniture and clothes on several different occasions. When Ball sent his favored slave, Aron, to Virginia, he instructed his overseer to take "one of the worst of my old Bedsteads" and have it "cut short" to fit Aron's mattress. (February 18, 1743; Sleeping Accommodations, Item #: 8.) In 1745, Ball had "a Dozen of Cane Chairs in my House at Morattico" divided between two of his slaves. (July 17, 1745; Furnishings, Item #: 3.) Several years later he gave instructions for certain slaves to receive special items of old clothing. He wrote to his overseer that "the old Banjair & one pair of the Coloured Breeches are for Israel. The black velvet Breeches for will and the other pair of Breeches for Aaron." (October 7, 1758; Furnishings, Item #: 5.) We will probably never know whether or not the giving of outmoded furniture and other goods was a widespread practice or a rare occurrence. Even if it happened frequently, it was likely to go unrecorded.

The evidence reveals that yet another way slaves supplemented their standard issue was through "liberating" items. Although some thefts may have been just manifestations of deviant 38 behavior, other slaves committed illicit acts in an effort to circumvent the system of slavery: to provide means to escape, acquire desired goods, or participate in the market economy. Court cases dealing with thefts by slaves list a distinct group of stolen items. Most commonly reported were clothing, bolts of textiles, food, leather, tools, and objects of value, i.e., marketable goods. (See Illicit Behavior, Item #: 1a-49.)

In 1718 Sawney was indicted for stealing "several baggs of Meal[,] … two Mill Peaks of the value of 2 Shillings and one hatchett to the ax value of three Shillings … [and] sundry pieces of cart gear or horse harness." (1718; Illicit Behavior, Item #: 2.) William Plummer, "a mulatto slave," stole mostly clothing which included, "One great coate of grey broad Cloath[,] one Jacket of the same Cloath[,] and a pair of broad Cloath Breeches." (1724/5; Illicit Behavior, Item #: 4.) Harry of Richmond County was indicted for stealing "Four check'd Linin shirts, 1 pair of Britches, 1 pair Trousers, Three silk Handkerchiefs, two worsted caps and Sundry other things[;] to wit pins, Needles, Lace, Thimbles, Necklaces, Shirt buttons[,] Knives[,] etc." (1737; Illicit Behavior, Item #: 7.) These items differed little from the goods that were regularly issued to slaves, and those that did were items that could be readily exchanged for goods or cash.

Michael Nicholls has conjectured that these thefts may have been committed more as a means to escape than as a method of acquiring additional goods. Slaves stole textiles, leather, 39 small objects, and food that could be used for sustenance, bribery, or disguise during an escape. Sam, "a bright Mulatto Man Slave," used his stolen items in precisely that fashion. His master advertised in the Virginia Gazette that Sam had taken with him "his Bedding, a new spotted Rug which he had stolen, and several Yards of mixed coloured Broadcloth, cut from a whole Piece that he had stolen, the remainder of which he distributed amongst the Sloop's Crew to bribe them to Secrecy." (c. 1725­1775; Illicit Behavior, Item #: 5.)

Despite such insights into slave behavior and evidence that they purchased selected products of an English culture, we still know almost nothing about their feelings for these objects or even if these were the items they really wanted. We have little sense of how much "stuff" blacks had. Were they able to use their worn-out clothing and blankets for other purposes? When tools or equipment broke and could not be mended, did these items turn up in a slave's cabin to be used, in modified form, for their own purposes? How much were slaves able to scrounge, make themselves, or simply accumulate? Facing up to these great gaps in our knowledge, is it accurate or even fair to equate slave status with a dearth of material things? could not these people have accumulated enough over the years to amass a fair amount of clutter in their quarters, even though they did not, to 40 contemporary eyes, possess any wealth at all? And how were slave possessions arranged in their cabins? Were they jumbled or neat, crowded or sparse, dirty or clean? Were they as varied as we presume the personalities of their inhabitants to have been? What type of acculturation process was taking place in Virginia? To what extent and how quickly did white and black cultures meet, mingle, and merge? Did slaves exchange and combine different regional African traditions? If so, how did that affect their use of the objects available to them? For these questions, the sources remain silent.

Sources:

Our information regarding the sleeping accommodations of eighteenth-century slaves, like our knowledge of most other aspects of slave life, is based upon white observations and economic records. The largest number of references are contained in plantation records and planters' or travellers' letters and diaries. Most of the writers were Virginia planters, although our sources include comments by four foreign travellers.

The earliest comments on the subject made by slaves themselves are nineteenth-century narratives. These include early descriptions by John Brown (1810) and Frederick Douglass (1820). The balance of the narratives date from the mid­nineteenth century and include material from the Depression-era Federal and Virginia writers' Projects.

We located 61 different references, dating from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, referring to sleeping accommodations other than blankets. References to blankets were not considered since there is ample evidence blankets were standard issue to at least the majority of slaves, and our questions concerning beds and bedding focus on the presence or absence of more elaborate accommodations: bed frames, "mattresses," pillows, etc. Of the total number of quotes, only 53 refer to specific sleeping arrangements.

As noted in the Introduction, such a small number of references make it difficult to determine accurately the 45 "average" sleeping arrangements for slaves. We can, however, determine the range of sleeping accommodations that are documented in the surviving records.

Evidence and Analysis:

As mentioned above, analysis of the slim evidence for sleeping accommodations is made more difficult by the often ambiguous eighteenth-century nomenclature. Observers' terminology often leaves unclear what type of sleeping accommodation is being described, and amid all the confusion, our very small group of sources becomes even smaller. References to a "bed" or "beds" could mean anything from a pile of straw in the corner to a fully dressed bedstead. We had to fall back upon the few quotations that used precise terminology (i. e., "bedstead") or that gave physical descriptions of the objects.

The poorest sleeping arrangement a slave might have had was a blanket and the ground. The next step up would be the loosely defined "bedding." Bedding defined in the documents included blankets, hempen rolls, mattresses, and an occasional rug. Thomas Jefferson issued "a pot and a bed," to each couple that married. Jefferson's "bed" was a "hempen roll bed," probably a coarse linen mattress. (1809-1811, 1800; Sleeping Accommodations, Item #: 28, 26.) In 1771, a runaway slave took with him "his bedding," again suggesting textiles that could be rolled up and carried. (1771; Sleeping Accommodations, Item #: 16.) Edmund Jenings's overseer wrote in 1712 that "the bedding at present 46 will do—but 'tis necessary it be recruited by the next winter." "Bedding" in this case was defined by the overseer as the "bed," "rugs," and "blankets" of the slave. (1712: Sleeping Accommodations, Item #: 2a-5b.)

The issuance of bedding and the comments about it substantiate the presence of those textile materials, but unfortunately they neither confirm nor deny the presence of some sort of frame upon which the textiles might be placed. Unless the master was himself involved in the construction of such frames, he had no cause to mention them. If they customarily were built by the slaves, the master no doubt took their presence for granted. The same holds true for observers' accounts. If an observer takes a bedframe of some sort for granted, then he is more likely to note that people are sleeping on the ground than if their bedding is raised.

We do know that at least some slaves were sleeping on raised bedframes of some type. Landon Carter wrote in his diary that his slaves were nursing eight sick lambs, but that three were "already dead and except one, which constantly lies under [emphasis added] the woman's bed, the rest seem to be in a way of death." (February 3, 1776; Sleeping Accommodations, Item #: 17.) J. F. D. Smyth, an Englishman traveling through Virginia and other parts of the United States, described slave beds alternately as "a miserable thin chaff bed, somewhat raised from the floor," as a "bench," and as the "ground." (c. 1784: Sleeping Accommodations, Item #: 18-19.) Julian Niemcewicz, a visitor to 47 Mount Vernon, offered an even more indefinite description, but one which implies either a mattress and/or a frame, when he explained that the "husband and his wife sleep on a miserable bed, the children on the ground." (June 4, 1797; Sleeping Accommodations, Item #: 25.)

Other accounts give us a fuller description of bedframes. A traveller described one slave couple's sleeping accommodations as "a box-like frame made of boards hardly roughed down, upheld by stakes … some wheat straw and corn-stalks, on which was spread a very short-napped woolen blanket that was burned in several places, completed the wretched pallet of the enslaved couple." (pallet in this case must mean a raised bedframe and its accompany textiles; date unknown; Sleeping Accommodations, Item #: 1.) About 1810, John Brown described his previous sleeping accommodations as a slave in Southampton County, Virginia. He wrote, "We [6 children] all lived together with our mother, in a log cabin, containing two rooms, one of which we occupied … our sleeping place was made by driving a forked stake into the floor, which served to support a cross piece of wood, one end of it resting in the crotch the other against the shingle that formed the wall. A plank or two across, over the top, completed the bed-room arrangements, with the exception of another plank on which we laid straw or cotton-pickings, and over that a blanket." (c. 1810; Sleeping Accommodations, Item #: 29.) Both descriptions suggest very make-shift frames for bedding which could have been built easily by the slaves themselves.

48

Other references indicate that more formal bedframes were placed in the cabin on orders of the planter. George Washington directed "births" to be built into his cabins. ("Housing and Family Life of the Mount Vernon Negro," p. 4 in looseleaf file at Mount Vernon.) He delivered "4d nails to Mathew for fastening in a bed[?]," (December 31, 1787; Sleeping Accommodations, Item #: 22.) at one of his slave cabins. These bedframes must have been attached to the walls in some manner. Perhaps a similar arrangement was intended by Joseph Ball in 1754 when he designed a cabin for his slave Martha, whom he was sending to Virginia from England. He instructed that "a Cabbin [be] Built up in one of the Quarters, with a Bed place in it and a Door to the Cabbin (which must be larger than the Bed Place) " (c. 1754; Sleeping Accommodations, Item #: 10.)

At least one slave slept in a relatively well furnished, English-style bedstead. Joseph Ball, writing from England, directed that his slave Aron Jameson have a "Large Mattress Stuffed well with flocks and stitched with tufts," feather bolster with oznabrig cases, coverlets, and other old bedclothes. Ball further commented that "his [Aron's] Beding is quite new & clean and I would have it Kept So; and to that End would have him to ly in the Kitchen Loft when he is at Morattico; and in Some Clean Place when he is in the Forrest. I would forth with after his arrival have one of the worst of my old Bed Steads Cut short & fit for his Mattress, and have a Cord and hide to it."(We are uncertain what "cut short" means. It may mean cutting down the 49 side rails of the bed or shortening the posts; April 23, 1754; Sleeping Accommodations, Item #: 11.)

A question unanswered by the documents is to what extent the floor treatments of slave housing determined the type of sleeping accommodations. Our references do not indicate any "typical" preference by blacks themselves for sleeping directly on the ground or providing themselves with raised bedding. The sources do indicate, however, that at least one planter wanted his slaves raised off the ground. Robert Carter of Corotoman instructed his carpenters to ensure that his cabins "be made for my people that their beds may lye a foot and a half from the ground." (October 10, 1727; Sleeping Accommodations, Item #: 6.) Why Carter insisted on a raised floor can only be presumed.

We also do not know if or how lofts in cabins impacted on sleeping accommodations. A loft would have provided relatively dry bedding if it were desired, providing the roof did not leak.

While information about eighteenth-century sleeping accommodations is scarce, more is known about nineteenth-century arrangements. Slave narratives document a diverse array of bedsteads and bedding. Most often the slaves who slept on pallets or on the floor were children and house servants. The majority of adult field hands described homemade or built-in bedsteads as standard equipment for slave cabins. (c. 1820­1865; Sleeping Accommodations, Item #: 34-62.)

In conclusion, the only definite statement we can make about slave sleeping accommodations is that they must have varied 50 considerably. In the sources available to us, the most commonly described eighteenth-century arrangement is some sort of textile bedding supported by a (probably crude) built-in frame. We have only three eighteenth-century references referring definitely to sleeping on the "ground" (either directly or separated by something like a hide or rags). One other refers to sleeping on a barn "floor," material unknown, with straw.

Furnishing Recommendations:

Based upon the number of references to berths, built-in bedframes, and beds "somewhat raised," these types of sleeping accommodations should be the most prevalent among the furnishings of the Carter's Grove quarter. Their design should be based upon one or more of the relatively detailed descriptions cited above. Built-in frames would seem most appropriate for the west room of House 1, the Shed of House 1, and (because of the dirt floor and space limitations, and despite the "higher status") House 3.

To show the variety of bedding arrangements, a "cut down" and well-battered bedstead might be appropriate for one of the rooms of House 2 (west room, possibly for everyone sleeping there), with the east room inhabitants sleeping on the floor. The two men in the east room of House 1 can be accommodated on boards laid on the ground, while young adults and children in House 3 can sleep either on straw or rags laid on the ground and/or in the house loft.

"Bedding" can range from straw or rags on the ground or 51 floor for children, to mattresses in the form of straw-, cornhusk-, or feather-filled ticks for adults, whether placed on the floor or on a frame.

Sources:

This report contains only twelve references documenting the type of furniture found in slave cabins. Out of these, four are from the nineteenth century. Planters' diaries and letters seem to be the most productive eighteenth-century sources, and furniture is likely to be mentioned in nineteenth-century slave narratives. Locating additional eighteenth-century references is likely to prove difficult, but a more systematic search through nineteenth-century material no doubt will yield further information about trends in furniture types and quantities likely to be owned by slaves.

Evidence and Analysis:

This section is concerned specifically with seating, tables, and storage containers. The amount of information about such furnishings is so small that no definite conclusions can be drawn from it—either supporting the presence of furniture or substantiating its absence. Like so many other items owned by blacks, homemade stools, benches, or storage boxes may well have been beneath the notice of white observers and their presence never recorded. On the other hand, there are several descriptions, such as Ferdinand-Marie Bayard's, which suggest that at least some cabins had no seating or storage furniture. (1791, Sleeping Accommodations, Item #: 22.1)

What we do know from the eighteenth-century sources is 53 that slaves did have access to furniture. Robert Carter of Corotoman commented on an overseer who made "bedsteads & sells them[,] hath bot abundance of Goods[,] makes the people saw & Maul the timber that makes his bedsteads[,] makes abundance of them & Sells stools to Negroes for fowles. "(April 4, 1727; Furnishings, Item #: 2.) In the 1760s Glassford & Co. gave "Negroe Jack Belonging to Mr. Linton's Estate" credit for 1 walnut chair, a wheel barrow, a hopper for soap, and making a cot, a safe, desk pigeon holes, and bookcase shelves (1760, 1765; Market Economy, Item #s: 8, 15.) Many slaves had the skills to fabricate rudimentary furniture, and trained carpenters could have made quite sophisticated furnishings if they so desired.

Although the reference is vague—we are uncertain exactly what is meant by the word "furniture" in this case (it may mean simply small furnishing items)—Niemcewicz explained that at Mount Vernon, "a small vegetable garden was situated close to the hut. Five or six hens, each with ten or fifteen chickens, walked around there. That is the only pleasure allowed to Negroes: they are not permitted to keep either ducks or geese or pigs. They sell the chickens in Alexandria and with the money buy some furniture." (June 4, 1797; Furnishings, Item #: 8.)

We do not know if eighteenth-century slaves took advantage of their skills to make furniture for themselves, but Landon Carter referred in his diary to one type of furniture we are certain his slaves owned. He mentioned storage containers at the Sabine Hall slave quarters when he directed his overseer 54 Billy Beale to "search all their holes and boxes" for stolen items. (September 21, 1770; Furniture, Item #: 3.) "Holes" were the now-famous vegetable cellars or "pits" found at slave sites, and the "boxes" were probably wooden storage containers. Although we have no further description of these "boxes," it is not implausible that they could have included discarded chests, old crates, and rough home-made boxes.

A painting of a South Carolina slave quarter illustrates another type of furniture that may have been common in slave cabins. The painting depicts slaves making music and dancing in front of their cabins (c. 1800; Food-Related Equipment, Item #: 23.). Several slaves are seated on a bench. This picture, the reference to bartering stools for poultry quoted above, and the common practice among modern West Africans of sitting on low stools (discussion with Chris Fowles and Nanette Alvey, September 1988) suggests that stools and benches may have formed one of the only types of furniture most slaves owned. It is interesting to consider that such forms could have served as work surfaces as well as for seating.

During the twentieth century, antiques "pickers" have found sizeable quantities of antique furniture in black households. The standard story is that these pieces were no longer needed by the master or employer, and he or she handed them down. We do not know how widespread or longstanding a practice this is, but it occurred at least twice during our period. Joseph Ball—whether typical or extraordinary—recorded 55 the situation. In 1745, writing from England to his overseer, he explained, "There is a Dozen of Cane Chairs in my House at Moraticco[?]; I give them to Sarah and Hannah Blackmore; deliver them to them: let them throw up for the first choice, and then one take one, and another[,] another till they have taken them all." (July 17, 1745; Furnishings, Item #: 3.) As noted under "Sleeping Accommodations," Ball also gave Aron a bedstead.

Nineteenth-century slave narratives offer more information about slave furniture. Several narratives listed home-made beds, benches, stools and tables. (c. 1825-1860; Furniture, Item #: 4-8.) One informant even indicated that "in the quarters, we had furniture made by the overseer and colored carpenters; they would make the tables, benches, and bedsteads for everybody." (c. 1850-1865; Furniture, Item #: 8.) How closely such descriptions would have matched similar narratives by eighteenth-century slaves is unknown.

The nineteenth-century narratives do raise questions about eighteenth-century furnishings. If the types of furniture described as mid-nineteenth century furnishings were not to be found in earlier quarters, when and why did slaves decide that they did need tables and benches? Or were they present throughout the period (in varying degrees) and simply not noted? The answers to these questions are not be found in the present research, but further investigations may prove fruitful.

56

Furnishing Recommendations:

The evidence regarding furniture is so scarce that furnishing plans must rely strongly on intuition, with an intentional conservatism. There should be few large furniture items. It is likely that some sort of seating was common, but it was probably simple: homemade stools, benches, or logs. Chairs should be placed only in a favored slave's household. Given the total absence of information on tables in the eighteenth century, anything but a make-shift or well worn table (if that) in the quarter of favored slaves would be inadvisable. storage containers should be included, even if only old shipping crates or roughly nailed-up, five or six-board boxes, in order to represent the slaves's "boxes." Slaves who participated in the market economy might possibly have more furniture than those who did not.

Sources:

We have 27 references to food-related equipment. The majority of documentary references come from planters' record books, but the most detailed information about food-related equipment comes from the archaeological record.

Evidence and Analysis:

Written documentation provides very little information concerning the types of food-related equipment utilized by slaves. Plates, dishes, bowls, and mugs were ordinary items which excited little notice from white observers. When whites did note food-related equipment, they dealt mostly with cooking implements.

According to the documentary sources a slave's cooking equipment could range from elaborate to simple. Joseph Ball supplied his favored slave Aron with a "small iron pot and hooks and rack to hang it on, An Iron Skillet, … a small spit, an old pewter basin," a copper saucepan, and "a good Little powdering tub to be made on purpose." (April 23, 1754; Food­Related Equipment, Item #: 15.) The fact that Aron was given a copper saucepan, an item not owned by most whites below the upper middle class level, seems to suggest that Aron's situation was unusual. It is interesting that a single man should be given such elaborate cooking equipment.

58

At the other extreme are the quarters that may have been equipped with an iron pot and little else. A French visitor to Maryland and Virginia noted only "an old pot, tilted on some pieces of brick" as the cooking equipment of a slave cabin. (C. 1780; Food-Related Equipment, Item #: 18.)

Probably a more typical situation lay between these extremes. Cooperage appears in many documents and includes salting tubs and pails. Slaves were supplied butcher knives, mainly for agricultural purposes, but the knives could also be used for butchering, cooking, and eating. (September 20, 1816; Food-Related Equipment, Item #: 26.) Francis Taylor mentioned that after the death of his slave, Caslow, her "utensils for cooking etc were all carried off that night." (December 3, 1792; Food-Related Equipment, Item #: 22.) Niemcewicz noted that at Mount Vernon a slave had "a little kitchen furniture amid this misery—a tea-kettle and cups." (1798; Food-Related Equipment, Item #: 22.1.)

One nagging question about cooking equipment is to what extent can we depend upon probate inventory listings of cooking implements at quarters to indicate implements available for the use of slaves. Many inventories include entries reading something like "an old pot, hooks, and a frying pan". A similar problem is raised by an entry in Edmund Jenings' plantation account books listing "necessaries" issued to his various quarters. The combined "necessaries" issued by Jenings to five different quarters included iron pots, frying pans, pails, 59 "hominey" pestles, pot hooks, pot racks, and an iron kettle. (1712; Food-Related Equipment, Item #: 4.a-13.b.) Not every quarter received the same type or amount of "necessaries".

Jenings' "necessaries" are the same items that appear in probate inventory records of goods at quarters. It is possible these items were supplied to slaves—they formed a rudimentary cooking kit and were the bare necessities needed to haul water, grind corn, and cook by boiling. A major obstacle to this theory, however, is that the amount of cooking equipment assigned to quarters often seems relatively small compared to the number of slaves to be fed. It may be that the basic kit of implements was supplied for the overseer's rather than the slaves use.

In contrast to the evidence provided by documents, the archaeological record offers rich information concerning the type of ceramics and glasswares associated with food preparation and consumption. It gives more information on eating utensils than on cooking equipment. Patricia Samford best summarized the kind of eating equipment found on slave sites in her report on the Carter's Grove archaeological excavations:

"The artifact assemblages recovered from the Carter's Grove root cellars are domestic in origin. Treating the artifacts recovered from all of the pits as one unit shows the following functional breakdown:

Category	%
Ceramics	43
Bottle Glass	33
Table Glass	1
Cutlery	2
Architectural1	6
Tools2	1
Personal3	4
Tobacco Pipes	11
60
Total	101

The composition of the assemblage does not reflect the quality of household possessions which the Burwell family would have owned at the end of the 18th century. The predominant ceramic is undecorated creamware, with earlier forms of tableware, such as white salt glazed stoneware and delftware also common. Porcelain makes up 11% of the refined tablewares and this presence would appear to go against the theory that these items were slave possessions. It should be noted here that porcelain has been found within root cellars at Monticello (Kelso 1986), Kingsmill (Kelso 1984:205), Mount Vernon (Outlaw 1985), and on slave sites in South Carolina (Wheaton et. al.). William Pittman examined the porcelain from the features, however, and in his opinion the vessels, most dating to the mid-18th century, were of mediocre quality. There was one fragment (saucer rim) whose manufacture date fell around 1720.

Combining the ceramics, bottle glass, table glass, and cutlery groups gives a total of 79% kitchen or food and beverage related items. This high percentage is consistent with that shown by Wheaton et. al. as indicative of slave sites in South Carolina (1983:285).

Lumping the ceramics into one group for all of the Carter's Grove features shows the following breakdown:

Category	% (of total # of sherds)
Refined earthenwares	46
Delftware	11
Coarse earthenwares	7
Porcelain	7
Refined stonewares	15
Coarse stonewares	13
Colonowares	0
Total	99

61

The presence of English made ceramics within a supposed slave assemblage is not surprising. Root cellars throughout the area have largely contained ceramics of English and European manufacture. Even on slave quarters sites in the deep south, where slaves were more isolated from the Anglo-American culture, English ceramics are commonly found. For example, at the Yaughan and Curriboo slave house sites in South Carolina, excavations showed that non-local ceramics comprised between 7.2 and 15.3% of the total artifact assemblages (Wheaton et. al. 1983:333). English made ceramics were also found on slaves sites at Cannon's Point Plantation (Otto 1984), on st. Simon's Island, Georgia (Moore 1981), and Butler Island, Georgia (Singleton 1980),. Colonowares, supposedly of slave origin, were not well represented in the Carter's Grove assemblage. The only tow decorated specimens of colonoware recovered in Williamsburg, however, were from the root cellars.

When the tableware ceramics are broken down into types, the following percentages are shown:

TABLEWARES

Ceramic Type	% (of total # of sherds)
Undecorated creamware*	43
White salt glazed stoneware	23
Delftware	18
Porcelain	11
Undecorated pearlware	2
Decorated pearlware	2
Colonoware	1
Total	100

Most of ceramics within the root cellar assemblage show signs of unusually heavy usage. The creamware plates in particular are heavily stained and scratched, and in some places the glaze has been almost completely worn away. The same heavy wear is evident on many of the coarse earthenware vessels, and even on English white salt-glazed stoneware, which is a more durable ceramic type than any of the coarse or refined earthenwares.

Although there was some whiteware (with a terminus post quem of 1820) contained within the root cellar assemblages, these sherds were treated in the Carter's Grove excavation report as contamination. Thus, the general dating of the root cellar assemblages based on 62 the ceramic type of most recent manufacture (pearlware of varying forms of decoration with beginning dates of 1779-1790), indicates that the features were filled at the end of the 18th century. For this report, the whiteware (a total of 4 fragments, all of which were found in the uppermost layers of the cellars) has also been treated as contamination. It should be pointed out, however, that if these pits were actually filled after 1820, then the majority of the ceramics being discarded in these cellars had been manufactured over 50 years previously."

(Patricia Samford, Memo to Cary Carson, May 3, 1788, "Carter's Grove Slave Quarters Study," p. 4-7.)

The archaeological record also indicates that most European wares owned by slaves probably were not hand-me-downs from their masters. Ceramics found on slave sites frequently did not cross mend with those found on the site of the plantation house. Archaeological evidence also reveals information concerning eating utensils. Pewter spoons and forks, some with decorated handles, were found at the Carter's Grove slave sites. (c. 1750, c. 1760-1770s; Food-Related Equipment, Item #: 14, 16.)

Written records have not yet been found to substantiate where slaves obtained their ceramics (master issue, store purchases, second-hand markets, inheritance, barter?), and the records are silent with regard to other cooking and eating equipment slaves may have acquired. Cooking would have required stirrers, spoons, ladles and the like. spits could have ranged from a greenwood stick to a piece of bar iron. We do not know whether these were typically manufactured items or homemade ones, but it is likely slaves did provide themselves with wooden and possibly gourd utensils. Wooden spoons, bowls, and dishes would have been inexpensive or easy to make at home. Gourds could be 63 grown in slaves' gardens and used to make a variety of scoops, drinking vessels, and liquid containers.

Furnishing Recommendations:

The attached sources present evidence that slaves' cooking arrangements varied. Some cooked meals in their individual cabins; others had one cook for the whole quarter. It was decided to represent a quarter at Carter's Grove where each "household" of slaves did their own cooking. Based on that scenario, every house should have at least an iron pot (with its hooks if it is to be hung) and a few rudimentary cooking utensils.

If a range of accommodations is desired, items can include a variety of utensil types including frying pans, racks (trammels), spits, and kettles. Among the households there should be a variety of casks, tubs, pails, baskets, and mortars and pestles to hold and process issued corn, meat, and produce.

Ceramics should be placed in all rooms to comply with the archaeological record, and it seems likely all households also should have some small utensils: spoons (wood or pewter) and knives, possibly forks. Those individuals participating in the market economy or in a favored status should be shown with more varied and expensive items.

Evidence and Analysis:

In 1784 Thomas Anburey noted that the usual rations in Virginia were corn, bacon, and salt herring. (1784; Food, Item #: 57.) The sources in this section support Anburey's observation. Corn was by far the primary foodstuff issued to slaves, some sources indicating planters issued each slave a peck of corn a week. As one source explained, corn was "the only support of the Negroes, who roast it in the ear, Bake it for Bread, Boyl it when Hulled, the children and better sort breakfast with it and make farmity. The first they call Hominy, the Latter Mush." (1732; Food, Item #: 14.)

An owner might enrich the steady diet of corn with an occasional gift of bacon or salt herring. Some owners, such as George Washington and Landon Carter, used "meat" as a method of reward. George Washington issued meat "now and then." Landon Carter explained that he only issued meat "a bit now and then as they deserved it by their work and diligence." (June 18-21, 1792, October 10, 1774; Food, Item #: 75a, 45.) Other sources indicate 65 that special foods were issued during harvests, plantings, and holidays. (1788,1790,1813; Food, Item #:63,68,106.) At Christmas planters issued rum, brandy, goose or beef as a special treat to slaves. (1768, 1817; Food, Item #: 30, 107.)

J. F. D. Smyth, a visitor to Virginia, described the culinary prospects for slaves who relied solely on the planter's provisions:

The slave "is called up in the morning at day break, and is seldom allowed time enough to swallow three mouthfuls of homminy, or hoe­cake, but is driven out immediately to the field to hard labour… about noon he eats his dinner and he is seldom allowed an hour for that purpose. His meal consists of homminy and salt, and if his master be a man of humanity, he has a little fat, skimmed milk, rusty bacon, or salt herring to relish his homminy or hoe-cake . They then return to severe labour which continues in the field until dusk…It is late at night before he returns to his second scanty meal." (1784; Food, Item #: 58.)

While masters supplied corn, alcohol, bacon, herring, beef and occasionally sheep or ram, slaves frequently supplemented their diets through their own means. Written documents and faunal studies of archaeological excavations reveal that slaves gardened, raised at least poultry, and hunted and foraged for foodstuffs. Their diets included, in addition to the standard issue, vegetables, poultry, seafood, and game. The vegetables and fruits identified in the sources included potatoes, sweet potatoes, spanish potatoes, cabbage, onions, grains, "Indian Peese," "cimnells," and apples. Archaeological evidence along with written documents indicates that meats 66 obtained by slaves included poultry, fish, turtle, opossum, and pork. Store accounts attest that slaves occasionally purchased alcohol. Slaves may not have had many opportunities to indulge in elaborate feasts, but through their own labor and resources they secured a variety of edibles to supplement the rather bland plantation issue. (c. 1750, 1767-68, 1794-99; Food, Item #: 21­25, 29.a-29.b, 80-104.)

As Larry McKee explained in "Delineating Ethnicity from the Garbage of Early Virginians: Faunal Remains from the Kings Mill Plantation Slave Quarter," the archaeological record attests to "the oppression suffered by the slaves in eighteenth­century Tidewater Virginia. These people reacted to this treatment not by passive acceptance but by actively attempting to better their living conditions where they could and by trying to make the best of their less-than-ideal provisions." (c. 1750; Food, Item #: 21.)

Furnishing Recommendations:

The foodstuffs exhibited should be more diverse than standard.plantation issue. Almost all sources discussing food support the fact that slaves supplemented their food rations. The foods exhibited should correspond to the current season, but when seasonally appropriate, they should include potatoes, cabbage, onions, grains, poultry, pork, turtles, oysters, fish, and opossum. If prepared food is shown, we need to remember 67 that the type of cooking equipment exhibited impacts directly on how food appeared when it was brought to the table. (Any foodstuffs exhibited will have to be monitored carefully for infestation and rot.)

Sources:

Textiles are by the far the best documented objects in the study of slave-associated materials. We compiled 304 references. Of these, 153 come from planters' and travellers' diaries and papers. 99'are found in planters' record books. Newspaper runaway advertisements and pictorial sources comprise the third most numerous sources of information.

Evidence and Analysis:

Planters issued standard clothing on a seasonal and yearly basis to their slaves. Most often slaves received one set of summer clothing in the spring or early summer and one set of winter clothing in the fall.

Robert Carter of Nomini Hall described what was probably a typical distribution of clothing in 1788. In a rental agreement, he explained, "Each male Negro 9 years Old & upwards to have one Woolen Wastcoat & long breeches, two pair of woolen socks, one pair of summer breeches, two shirts, one Blanket, and one pair of Shoes. Each female Negro 8 years Old and upwards, to have one Woolen Jacket and Petticoat, one pair of Woolen Stockings, two Shifts, one Blanket, one summer Petticoat, and one pair of Shoes—Each Male Negro 8 years old and under, and each female Negro 7 years old and under to have one Woolen Frock. The males one Shirt, the females one Shift. The Summer breeches and Petticoats and Shirts and Shifts for Children to be given the 1st Monday in 69 June, the other Clothing and Bedding to be given the 1st Monday in December." (December 31, 1788; Textiles, Item #: 184.) Earlier he had instructed "Mr. Jones to Deliver out Shirts and Shifts to Supply one half of the Negroes at the Followg plantations the Oversr thereat to distribute the said Shirts and Shifts to the people who want the most viz Gemini[,] Taurus[,] Forest[,] Old Ordinary[,] & Coles point." (September 10, 1787; Textiles, Item #: 181.) Such actions suggest that shirts and shifts may have been issued as needed as well as yearly.

George Washington issued clothes annually. He described the type of clothing issued to one slave in a letter to his overseer: "Sarah Flatfoot (you call her Lightfoot) has been accustomed to receive a pair of shoes, Stockings, a Country cloth Petticoat, and an Oznabrig shift, all ready made, annually, and it is not meant to discontinue them: You will therefore furnish them to her." (February 1, 1793; Textiles, Item #: 230.)

While some planters issued finished clothing to their slaves, others provided textiles for slaves to make their own. Francis Taylor in Orange County often issued cloth to Hannah who made cl9thing for herself, her children, and other slaves. Taylor "let her have 5 yards green Cotton for Jacket & Petticoat." (1795; Textiles, Item #: 243.) On another day he gave Nanny "4 yards Linen for George & thread to make his Shirt & Cloaths." (1788; Textiles, Item #: 182.) Most planters issued cloth for making baby clothes. Both store accounts and planters' record books document that slaves had thread, scissors and pins 70 to use in the mending and making of clothes.

Landon Carter also used women slaves to cut and sew clothing. Typical of Carter, he found dishonesty and corruption involved in his production system, stating:

Really made a curious discovery [in] my family. I always thought my house wenches made the Virginian cloth given them last two years; but it seems, they have every other Year as much cloth as will make them t[wo] suits, so that just as all the other negroes have they have a suit every year, but the only difference is they keep their every other year's suit instead of my store. A mere deceptin and for Ladies to agree to this without discovering it is curious… . The weaver is also a rascal. He [torn] account of plain work in these long [torn] weeve more than 5 ¾ though it [torn] of Just spun flax. I will give [h]im no meat and then whip him.

I was desired to let this do [torn] out. I thought I trusted it to an experienced care, but I find people in their own cases are not careful out of what they have from others. These 3 were wenches have had 13 yards instead of 6 yards in the store. And it is remarkable the small wench [blotted] Prence has as much as the largest. So that this piece of cloth must have been cut off by mere guess and not measured. (May 15, 1776; Textiles, Item #: 135.)

Nathaniel Burwell and Francis Taylor employed tailors to make clothing for their slaves. (1765, 1766, 1769; Textiles, Item #: 60, 62, 72.) Taylor and his relatives cut out cloth for clothing, which he then sent to a local woman who made clothes for him and his slaves. (1792, 1796, 1797; Textiles, Item #: 221a-b, 252a-b, 257a-b.)

Other planters were even more ambitious and made not only their slaves' clothing, but also the cloth from which it was fabricated. Washington had several female slaves who were designated as seamstresses and charged with the manufacture of clothing. On several occasions Washington wrote to his overseer 71 concerning the manufacture of cloth and clothing. On July 13, 1794 he stated that Sarah "had better … be brought to the House again, until you see your way perfectly clear to get all the articles of clothing for the Negroes, ready in due season." (July 13, 1794; Textiles, Item #: 239,) By August he was questioning their progress when he wrote, "I do not perceive by the Spinning report, that any of the Girls are employed in making woolen cloaths for the people; nor do I know what cloth you have on hand (from the Weavers) for this purpose. All ought to be ready by the first of November, to deliver them." (August 10, 1794; Textiles, Item #: 242.) In March of the next year he was once again turning his attention to cloth manufacturing when he inquired "do you not mean to spin for linnen, the flax that has been raised on the Estate the last two years?" (March 1, 1795; Textiles, Item #: 247.) Washington had a large and involved system of manufacturing cloth and producing clothing on his plantations. (It is likely the home production of cloth was encouraged by decisions to cease buying English textiles or by the difficulty in obtaining imported textiles due to international situations affecting trade.)

Types of cloth used for slave clothing included brown linen, English and German Oznabrigs, brown cloth cotton, white Kendal cotton, coarse woolens, plains, brown rolls, and ticklenburg. George Washington indicated that Oznabrigs served for shirts and shifts, while rolls served for summer petticoats and trousers. (April 4, 1778; Textiles, Item #: 144.) Washington also bought 72 two qualities of linen. He issued the better quality to adults and the lesser quality to the children. (November 11, 1792; Textiles, Item #: 225.)

Planters issued shoes yearly, often in the fall. Every autumn Francis Taylor's shoemaker, Davy, was busy making shoes. (1794-1799; Textiles, Item #: 234, 243, 252a-b, 257a-b, 262a-b, 269a-b.) "Negroe shoes" were ordered from England and an early nineteenth-century source explained that once a year the planter provided shoes from Baltimore. (c. 1850; Textiles, Item #: 302.) How long one pair of shoes lasted is unknown, but there is evidence that slaves had them mended. The accounts of Robert Carter of Nomini Hall show that during the month of December, 1773, his shoemaker made 108 pairs of shoes and mended 11 pairs. (December 1773; Textiles, Item #: 94.) It is probable that slaves did not receive new shoes until they completely wore out their old ones.

The sources suggest that slaves often had more than two suits of clothing. In 1753, "Daniel a Negro Man Slave belonging to the said Charles Beale" stole from "Harry a Negro Man Slave" a large amount of clothing that included "one coat[,] two jackets[,] one pair of breaches[,] one pair of Stockings[,] one shirt, one handkerchief[,] and one hat." (1753; Illicit Behavior, Item #: 16.) Either Harry was running around naked or he had a large amount of clothing to be stolen besides what he was wearing on his back.

Slaves supplemented the standard issue of clothing by 73 purchasing old clothing from their masters and new cloth from merchants, and it is likely clothing circulated freely as second­hand goods available to both whites and blacks. Taylor sold his "old blue coat to Hudson[']s James" and his "old grey coat" and "old shirt" to Joe. (June 7, 1789, July 19, 1789, July 26, 1789; Market Economy, Item #: 54, 55, 57.) "Negro Jack at Foxes" preferred to purchase his clothing and textiles from the merchant Thomas Partridge. In 1737 he bought "3 Ells Dowlas," 2 yds stript Holland," thread, scissors, "2 yards Negatepants," "3 yds Plains," "1 pro Womens yarn Hoes," and "1 yd Swanskin." (1737; Market Economy, Item #: 5.) Landon Carter saved money by forcing his slaves to purchase clothing items directly from him, while Joseph Ball gave his slaves gifts of hand-me-down clothing. (September 8, 1770; Market Economy, Item #: 21; October 7, 1758; Furnishings, Item #: 5.)

The large influx of white clothing to supplement the standard slave issue suggests that slave clothing varied considerably from individual to individual. Runaway advertisements certainly attest to the variations in slave dress and suggest that many blacks were dressed in clothing similar to that worn by many middling and lower class whites. Runaway slaves were more often identified by the clothes they wore then by any other characteristic. (1768, 1769, 1771, 1773-1776; Textiles, Item #: 70, 74, 83, 80. It is likely that slave cabins contained a variety of personal clothing items in addition to the oznabrigs and brown rolls listed in plantation day books.

74

In addition to clothing, planters issued textiles in the form of bedding, the most commonly issued and the most essential items being blankets. The rate of issuance of blankets varied. While most sources agree that slaves received blankets on a yearly basis, Thomas Jefferson's records indicate differently: he "allowed them a best striped blanket every three years," (1806­1822; Textiles, Item #: 276) although he may, of course, have issued poorer blankets in intervening years. His was a different practice from that of George Washington, who issued two sizes of blankets quite regularly. Washington was obsessed with finding the best buy in blankets. When he finally purchased blankets, he issued the larger and better quality to adults and the smaller and lesser quality to children. (November 29, 1795; Textiles, Item #: 25.) Many planters made special issues of blankets to slaves who were ill or were mothers about to give birth, and there is some evidence that blankets as well as clothing were issued on an "as needed" basis: Francis Taylor issued new blankets to slaves who had worn out their old ones between yearly supplies. (1794-1799; Textiles, Item #: 234, 243, 252a-b, 257a-b, 262a-b, 269a-b.) Such practice is not, however, discussed in other planters' diaries and records.

With the possible exception of shoes, we have no evidence that any items of slave clothing were of patterns other than those worn by whites. Shoes described as "Negro shoes" in letters to John Norton and Co. were ordered by some planters, and although we are not certain of their design, several descriptions 75 from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and surviving shoes with slave associations suggest they were wooden-soled clogs with nailed-on uppers. Knitted Monmouth caps often were ordered for slave issue. Although the documentation supports the belief that most slaves' clothing types were not distinctive in and of themselves, it does not permit us to determine if ways in which slaves' wore clothing—garment or color combinations, headwraps, and so forth—were individually or group distinctive. (Linda Baumgarten, Curator of Textiles, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, has just written a detailed article concerning slave clothing. This article is included with the supplementary report materials.)

Furnishing Recommendations:

Clothing should be varied, a mixture of standard issue and additional clothing acquired by slaves on their own. It should include used "white" clothing and new homemade clothing. In addition to finished garments, furnishings should include small quantities of fabric for making clothing and used clothing bits as collected rags or components of newly constructed garments.

The clothing shown should reflect the season as well as the amount of clothing a slave might own who had a particular status or access to bartered or purchased clothing. Assuming the quarter inhabitants are going about their business clothed, the shown clothing should illustrate the balance of their garments. While sources do not indicate where clothing was stored, it is 76 likely to be either folded and placed in "boxes" or on shelves, or hung.

Sources:

We located 48 references to tools, aside from those included in probate inventories. The majority of the non-inventory references come from planters' record books.

Evidence and Analysis:

The types of tools found on a plantation depended largely on the specific tasks performed on there. Tools were distributed over the property based upon various work locations, the home base of workers, or special requirements for the tools: shelter, security, accessibility, etc.

Tools found at quarters were probably of two types. The first, and no doubt largest group, were the tools owned by the master and supplied to the slaves for their assigned jobs. These are the tools that are recorded in probate inventories and are most likely to appear in record books. The second category of tools were odds and ends accumulated by the slaves themselves—trade tools they used either in the execution of their formal skills, or, more likely, for household chores—cleaning, fire starting, simple wood-or metalworking. Notice of these tools rarely appears in the historical record.

Of the master's tools, some quarters, dealing only with agriculture, had only agricultural implements. The most common were hoes, axes, froes, wedges, grindstones, mill stones, sifters, plows and gear, and ox chains (See Tools, Item #: 1-48 78 and the probate inventory detail sheet printouts).

Few of the records consulted indicate why certain agricultural tools were issued at particular plantations. Only one set of records, those of Robert Carter of Nomini Hall, lists both the tools and the types of crops grown, and no difference can be seen between the type of crops raised and the type of tools used. What is unknown is whether he was raising similar secondary crops on all his quarters resulting in a need for the same kits of tools at all locations. More research is needed to determine how different crops influenced the type of tools used. (1789; Tools, Item #: 30-39.)

Quarters whose inhabitants included skilled workers—carpenters, coopers, smiths, shoemakers, textile workers, etc.—were likely also to be supplied with the trade tools needed by these artisans. It is interesting to note that cloth-making tools do not appear in the records until mid-century, suggesting that planters' became more involved in making slave clothing when disagreements with England began to intensify. (See Tools, Item #: 1-48.)

The presence of basic smithing or woodworking tools on a quarter, however, does not necessarily mean that someone living there was a formal smith or woodworker. A rudimentary kit of tools was needed for everyday maintenance of buildings and­agricultural tools, and it is likely a number of slaves had the very basic skills necessary to perform simple maintenance work—fabricating new hoe handles, for example.

79

One item that does not appear in inventories, written documents, or archaeological recoveries is the broom. As research has progressed on this project everyone had assumed that brooms were common items. Nineteenth-century pictorial accounts document them, but no evidence was found in this database to prove they existed in the eighteenth-century. Brooms may have been a common item in slave cabins, but the historical record does not document such a fact.

One quite common category of "tools" are the storage and carrying containers. Some of these are discussed under furniture, but quarters were also supplied with miscellaneous cooperage to hold agricultural products, and blacks probably provided themselves with baskets and scrounged bags for carrying and storage.

Furnishing Recommendations:

Since our furnishing scheme for the Carter's Grove quarter is based upon the premise that the quarter's inhabitants are principally agricultural workers, the quarter should be well equipped with the types of implements required to produce crops we know were grown at Carter's Grove. This would include hoes, plows, harrows, and associated gear as well as vehicles—a cart and possibly a wheelbarrow. Miscellaneous tools should also be present—saws, a grindstone, axes, froes, a mallet, wedges, scythes, reaping hook, knives, shovels and spades, odds and ends of woodworking tools, etc. Since one inhabitant is a carpenter, 80 his kit of specialized tools should be shown.

Among household tools should be flint and steel for fire-starting and, very likely, brooms. Cooperage, baskets, and bags should be shown.

The placement of tools is open to some discussion. Those tools which we present as being the slaves' property or supplied to them on a permanent basis should be shown in the household or in the communal outdoor space between the buildings. Other tools, used only as specific jobs require, and extra, in-store, implements should either be packed away in the foreman's house or possibly locked in the corncrib.

Sources:

Only twelve references include information on small personal items. Two of the references, however, are archaeological reports which include detailed lists of items found at Carter's Grove and Mount Vernon.

Evidence and Analysis:

Small personal items are well documented in the archaeological record. Mount Vernon archaeologists discovered on one of Washington's slave quarters a bone fan blade "decorated with simple geometric designs." (c. 1760-1770s; Furnishings, Item #: 6.) The Carter's Grove archaeological finds list included pipe fragments, mirror plate, a brass clock wind—pewter "key" attachment [?], hardware, pewter, buttons, shoe buckles, clay playing marbles, a chamber pot, coins, and clay beads. (c. 1750; Furnishings, Item #: 4.) Patricia Samford explained:

Several pipe stems from the root cellars had been reworked using a knife to make a mouthpiece from a broken stem end. In one example, the stem had been whittled into a mouthpiece approximately 2" from the bowl of the pipe… . This particular artifact also brings to mind the description by Ferdinand-Marie Bayard of the interior of a Virginia slave cabin, which includes the statement 'An old pipe, very short and a knife blade, which were sticking in the wall were the only effects that I found in the dwelling' (as cited in Vlach 1987:11)

Another trait which the Carter's Grove root cellars seem to share with the Kingsmill, Mount Vernon and Monticello root cellars is the large number of buttons recovered from their fills. The Carter's Grove features contained 29 buttons, largely undecorated 82 copper alloy examples. For contrast, a domestic assemblage from a trash pit at the Dr. Barraud House dating to the late 18th century, contained one button

(Patricia Samford, Memo to Cary Carson, May 3, 1788, "Carter's Grove Slave Quarters Study," p. 6.)

Why slaves had so many buttons and where the buttons came from are impossible to determine without supporting data from written accounts. Buttons may have been used as toys for children, as game pieces, or as decorations. What is more likely, however, is that slaves collected rags, the fabric was used to make clothing or bedding, and the surplus buttons became odds and ends around the quarter.

Archaeological evidence cited above substantiates that slaves ate game and seafood. They must have possessed fishing c equipment, traps or snares, and, in some cases, may have had access to firearms. It is likely the fishing equipment, traps, and snares were inexpensive commercial items, homemade items, or, most likely, a combination of the two.

Written accounts also document the possession and use of small personal items. Store accounts document the purchase of mirrors, penknives, scissors, thread, and needles. (1761, 1767­68; Furniture, Item #: 2; Food, Item #: 29a-29b.) Landon Carter's slave, Nassau, had his own razors (in this case, are "razors" actually fleams?). (Gerald W. Mullin, Flight and Rebellion: Slave Resistance in Eighteenth-Century Virginia, p. 78. ) John, a slave, sold a merchant, William Allason, two bedsteads in exchange for clothing and "1 Looking Glass." Washington instructed his overseer to supply one of his slaves 83 with a comb so his hair would grow long and he would look proper when he entered the ranks of household servant. (May 1, 1796, Furnishings, Item #: 7.) A house slave at Monticello had a looking glass in her possession. (May 30, 1830, Furnishings, Item #: 9.) Joseph Ball supplied his slaves with pipes. (October 7, 1758, Furnishings, Item #: 5.)

A few slaves owned musical instruments. Ball sent a "Banjair" [banjo] from England for "old William[?]" . (October 7, 1758, Furnishings, Item #: 5.) Pictorial sources also document drums and violins. Runaway advertisements list slaves who had or could play violins or other musical instruments. ( 1745, 1752, 1768, 1769, 1772, 1774, 1779, Skills, Item #: 6.1, 7.1, 2.1, 14.1, 16, 27.1, 45.1, 53.1.)

Aside from the marbles found on archaeological sites little information was found concerning toys used by slave children in the eighteenth-century. Once again it is the nineteenth-century slave narratives that offer some light on this subject. According to one woman, "Marbles, 'mumble pegs,' tops, and other 'toys that poor children had'" were common items. (c. 1825-1865, Furnishings, Item #: 11.)

More research is required to determine how slaves obtained small personal items and in what amounts. If individuals were accumulators, there no doubt were many opportunities to pick up discarded or broken objects. Second-hand goods appear to have circulated freely in white circles, and based upon the comments about selling or bartering goods, there were presumably 84 "infra­economies" among blacks themselves, their scale and sophistication varying from place to place. If they so desired, many blacks could have availed themselves of these sources of goods, and over the years accumulated sUbstantial quantities of items, the total monetary value of which, from a white perspective, would have been insignificant.

It is important to determine how slaves stored their personal items. Did slaves store their goods in "boxes" and "holes," or did they display them in some manner?

Furnishing Recommendations:

Based upon both the documentary and archaeological evidence, blacks frequently possessed small personal items. This should be reflected in the furnishing of Carter's Grove. Items should include combs, pipes, pocket knives, fans, razors, musical instruments, hunting and fishing equipment, sewing equipment, and some form of rudimentary lighting equipment (rushes? fat lamp?). The cabins that contain children should have toys in evidence.