Journal of Ethnobiology 31(1): 89109

Spring/Summer 2011

PROVISIONED, PRODUCED, PROCURED: SLAVE SUBSISTENCE STRATEGIES AND SOCIAL RELATIONS AT THOMAS JEFFERSONS POPLAR FOREST
Jessica Bowes
Enslaved African and African Americans in the American South during the 17th through 19th centuries lived within a social order established by plantation owners and reinforced through the control of food. Therefore, the ways slaves acquired their food and other subsistence goods demonstrates aspects of the plantations social relations. This article examines the connection between slaves subsistence strategies and plantation social relations at Thomas Jeffersons Poplar Forest through the analysis of macrobotanical remains. Excavations at Poplar Forest uncovered a sub-floor pit of an antebellum slave cabin that was occupied from the 1840s through 1858 and possibly as late as the abolition of slavery. The seeds and wood indicate that the slaves subsistence strategies included provisioning or receiving food from the plantation owner, production or slaves growing their own food, and procurement or the gathering of wild plants. By comparing the results from this sub-floor pit to analyses of macrobotanicals dating to Thomas Jeffersons ownership, I investigate aspects of plantation social relations at Poplar Forest and offer a better understanding of the social and natural environment in which the enslaved African Americans lived. Key words: paleoethnobotany, slave subsistence, plantation social relations, Poplar Forest Virginia ` Au cours des XVIIe et XIXe siecles, les esclaves africains et afro-americains du sud des Etats-Unis vivaient selon un ordre social particulier. Ce dernier etait etabli par les proprietaires de plantations et constamment renforce par le controle de la nourriture. Aussi, une etude portant sur la facon dont les esclaves obtenaient leur nourriture et autres biens alimentaires permettrait dillustrer quelques aspects des relations sociales evoluant au sein des plantations. Cet article examine donc la relation entre les strategies de subsistance des esclaves et les relations ` sociales au Thomas Jeffersons Poplar Forest. Les fouilles archeologiques sur ce site ont mis a jour une fosse sous ` une habitation occupee par des esclaves avant la guerre de Secession, soit dans les annees 1840 a 1858, et ` probablement jusqua labolition de lesclavage. Les graines et le bois provenant de cette fosse indiquent que les strategies de subsistance des esclaves incluaient lapprovisionnement par le proprietaire, la production de leur propre nourriture par la culture de certaines plantes et la collecte de plantes sauvages. En comparant les ` resultats de lanalyse de cette fosse avec dautres analyses de macrorestes vegetaux datant de la periode ou Thomas Jefferson etait proprietaire, je peux examiner certains aspects des relations sociales sur la plantation de Poplar Forest et offrir une meilleure comprehension de lenvironnement social et naturel dans lequel les esclaves afro-americains vivaient.

Slavery boomed in the American South during the late 17th through early 19th centuries. Many of the enslaved Africans and African Americans were forced to live and work on plantations where owners constantly reinforced their control. Patterson (1982:1) synthesizes the relationship between the slave and the slave-owner writing, slavery is one of the most extreme forms of the relation of domination, approaching the limits of total power from the viewpoint of the master, and of total powerlessness from the viewpoint of the slave. However, this domination often did not culminate in a single individual fully controlling the enslaved because, power relations are always two-way; that is to say,
Jessica Bowes, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY (e-mail: JBowes@syr.edu). Recipient of the 2009 Barbara Lawrence Award.

90

BOWES

Vol. 31, No. 1

however subordinate an actor may be in a social relationship, the very fact of involvement in that relationship gives him or her a certain amount of power over the other (Giddens 1979:6). It was within this context of power that slaves and their white owners, plantation managers and overseers interacted. Entwined in the slave-owner relationship, enslaved Africans and African Americans and plantation owners regularly redefined the parameters that characterized slavery for each plantation. The decisions made by the seemingly powerful and powerless, the owner and the slave, reverberated within the slave-master relationship and what is recovered archaeologically are tangible representations of this relationship. Many plantation owners manipulated the daily life of their slave labor in an effort to reinforce the social order that kept the enslaved inferior and reliant on their owners (Blassingame 1972). Among plantations, slaves access to food varied. Many planters were not concerned with their slaves nutritional requirements or the palatability of their diet, but with efficiency, specifically how to economically feed slaves in order to receive the desired amount of labor from them (McKee 1999). Owner-supplied, or provisioned, foods established both plantation control the management of the business and social control the power over the enslaved (Lange and Handler 1985). However, provisioned foods were not the only means of sustenance for enslaved communities. Franklin (2001:93) writes, while the food provisioning system controlled by slave owners played a major role in slave diets, it neither ruled their palates nor dictated how they attached meaning to food. At some plantations, slaves were encouraged to produce their own food in garden plots adjacent to their houses, and from some zooarchaeological analyses it is clear that slaves procured their own food by hunting wild animals (Crader 1990). The varied ways of acquiring food on plantations reflect levels of social control. Using faunal remains, McKee (1999) created a model of the food supply to understand the plantation social order. His analysis indicates a relationship between the source of slaves meat and the owners attitude toward the sources legitimacy. For instance, rations were controlled by the owner and therefore viewed as an acceptable source of food, whereas stolen food took control from the owner and was discouraged (McKee 1999). Subsistence strategies can illustrate some dynamics of slave-owner power relationships. Owners expressed their control through provisioned foods. Slave owners established control simply by producing the necessary surplus needed to feed slaves, and the ability of an owner to provision his slaves is indicative of superior skill, vitality, and/or control over the labor of others (Wiessner 1996:6). Because the provisioned rations were often grown with the labor of the enslaved but appropriated by the owners, these goods illustrate the owners control as they managed the resources the slaves accessed. Food and other subsistence goods the slaves gathered from the various environments around the plantation or grew in their own gardens reflect their own, albeit small, control over their lives. In some instances, slaves were encouraged to supplement their diet with wild resources (procured) or those cultivated (produced) in their own yards and gardens (Heath and Bennett 2000; Westmacott 1992). Procured wood and other plant parts gathered from noncultivated plants reflect the slaves relationship with the environment and their

Spring/Summer 2011

JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY

91

ability to move across the landscape. Produced plants illustrate slaves interaction and connection with the immediate dwelling and yard, an area easily accessed and utilized. These yards were laden with meaning as a slave yard is said to be, at once a part of the domestic compound and a mediating space between the natural, public world and the constructed, private world of the dwelling (Heath and Bennett 2000:38). So slaves maintained some control in this buffer area between the slave cabin and the surrounding plantation. The role of plants in slave foodways is poorly understood. Botanical remains from archaeological sites provide information about slave subsistence and plantation social relationships that complement existing studies, which have largely focused on documentary records or faunal remains (although see Mrozowski et al. 2008). Primary documents help fill in the gaps regarding the plant portion of the diet and can complement the more common archaeological faunal analyses, which are often privileged because bones have higher survivorship rates in archaeological contexts (Crader 1990; McKee 1999; Scott 2001; Singleton 1995). However, documents alone do not properly represent the practices on the plantation nor fully describe how plants were used; as McKee (1999:225) notes, it is curious that in their obsession with production measurement and cost recording, the planters did not keep a running tally of the flow of food to the quarter, signifying the need for archaeological research on such topics. The paleoethnobotanical analysis presented here explores the subsistence strategies of the enslaved African American population at Thomas Jeffersons Poplar Forest during the mid 19th century. Specifically, I investigate three strategies, provisioning, procurement and production, using botanical remains recovered from a sub-floor pit within a slave dwelling that was occupied from the 1840s through 1858, and possibly as late as the abolition of slavery in 1865. Provisioned goods are those supplied by the owner or manager while procured goods are gathered from surrounding habitats. Production refers to resources grown in the slaves gardens, typically located near their homes. I then compare the plant portion of the diet to that of the enslaved community of Thomas Jefferson, who occupied the site several decades earlier. The various datasets are used to access social relationships throughout the various occupations of the site, and to uncover attitudes towards slaves during the late 18th and early 19th century and those leading up to the Civil War. Poplar Forest: Jefferson and Hutter Occupations Martha Wayles Skelton Jefferson and her husband Thomas Jefferson inherited the 5,000-acre Poplar Forest (Figure 1) along with 135 slaves in 1773, after the death of Marthas father (Heath 1999:9; Heath et al. 2004). At this time, Thomas Jeffersons public life was at his main home, Monticello, in Charlottesville, Virginia, and Poplar Forest served as his retreat. He was largely absent from the plantation, managing from afar through letters to overseers as was common for plantations in the Piedmont (Heath 2004). Jefferson was not unusual, as some landowners with well-established property in the more developed coastal regions also owned secondary plantations in the Piedmont. As such, many did

92

BOWES

Vol. 31, No. 1

Figure 1. The Location of Poplar Forest in Bedford County, Virginia.

not continuously reside on their Piedmont properties, resulting in a slave ownerrelationship based on distance (Morgan 1988). However, Jefferson became more involved in Poplar Forest activities after starting construction on the octagonal main house in 1806 (Heath et al. 2004; McDonald 2000). After Jeffersons death in 1826, 1,100 acres of Poplar Forest and several enslaved individuals were left to his grandson, Francis Eppes, who then sold the plantation to William Cobbs. Cobbs resided on the plantation with his family and in 1842 his daughter, Emma, and her husband, Edward S. Hutter, began managing the property, a responsibility that extended well beyond the abolition of slavery in 1865 (Heath et al. 2004). Edward and Emma Hutter lived at Poplar Forest with their children. They raised livestock and grew wheat (Triticum sp.) and clover (Trifolium sp.). Hutter added tobacco (Nicotiana sp.) to the crop rotation in an attempt to offset the costs of rebuilding the main house after a fire in 1845 (Hutter 1846). The Hutters maintained a small number of slaves, between 10 and 30, and there was little family growth among the slave population leading up to abolition (Heath et al. 2004:5). Edward Hutter listed the birth and deaths of his slaves in his farm journal in the same manner as he recorded his livestock, however family correspondence suggests a bond beyond merely chattel-owner. In a letter to Edward dated September 30, 1846, his father writes about the Hutters black family and comments on the recent death of a slave (Hutter 1846). The Hutters youngest son reported that when Federal troops arrived in Bedford County in 1864, they took all they could from Poplar Forest except 10 faithful negroes (Heath et al. 2004:5). It is possible that the slaves were viewed as family. The enslaved African American community is a central part of the ongoing archaeological research at Poplar Forest. Several excavated slave quarters and related features contribute to the understanding of African American life on the plantation (Heath et al. 2004, 2005; Raymer 1996, 2003). Prior macrobotanical research at Poplar Forest from the North Hill Site and the Quarter Site sampled slave dwellings and related features dating to Jeffersons occupation (Raymer 1996, 2003). The remains indicate that the enslaved African Americans were foraging and exploiting the naturally occurring wild plants for fuel, food, and medicine (Raymer 2003:72), which may have been obtained from the local environment or transplanted into the slaves gardens. These analyses provide

Spring/Summer 2011

JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY

93

Figure 2. The Location of North Hill, Quarter Site, and Site A at Poplar Forest. Map courtesy of Poplar Forest.

comparative data for the current project and allow for the exploration of plantation management and social relationships at Poplar Forest from the Thomas Jefferson and Edward Hutter periods. Botanical Sampling and Analysis of the Hutter-Era Slave Cabin For this analysis, I focus on the botanical materials recovered from a sub-floor pit associated with a mid-19th century slave cabin. Excavations at Site A (Figure 2) revealed a structure with a pit (Feature ER2352/4) and a stone filled feature interpreted as a possible hearth (Heath et al. 2004). The sub-floor pit measured approximately 3 ft. by 3 ft., but an unknown portion of the pit was missing due to plowing in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Its stratigraphy consisted of 11 lenses and layers, excluding intrusive elements like rodent burrows, planting holes and plow scars (Heath et al. 2004). Artifact analysis

94

BOWES

Vol. 31, No. 1

suggests that the sub-floor pit was filled by discrete dumping episodes over a short period of time (Heath et al. 2004:21). Subfloor pits are a common feature of slave dwellings. The size, shape and quantity of pits within a cabin varied, although many were located near a hearth. Samford (2007:8) postulates that sub-floor pits reflect the ethnic heritage and food preference of the enslaved Igbos in Virginia since their first appearance is linked to the importation of labor from Africa. Sub-floor pits were multifunctional, which meant that slaves could store and conceal objects, such as food, personal items and stolen goods, from their overseers and owners. EdwardsIngram (1999:158) states, root cellars may have participated in slaves search for autonomy, and possibly served as a form of resistance, which may account for planters discouraging the use of such pits (Singleton 1995:124). Interior sub-floor pits in Virginia were generally replaced with larger exterior pits by the first quarter of the 19th century (Samford 2007:9). The sub-floor pit analyzed here dates from 1840, possibly through the abolition of slavery in 1865, and perhaps represents one of the last examples of an interior sub-floor pit from Virginia. The discovery of charred peach pits (Prunus persica (L.) Batsch) in the screens during excavations of Site A prompted the flotation of the entire pit matrix (Heath et al. 2004:21). The soil was first screened through J inch mesh and then floated in a Flote-tech flotation machine. Overall, 295.75 liters of soil were floated to yield 123 light fractions. I examined approximately 50% of the light fraction flotation samples (61 light fractions from 150.60 liters of sediment) and all seeds collected during screening. Only charred plant remains were analyzed since they typically indicate intentional human activity and reflect cultural action (Miller 1989; Mrozowski et al. 2008). The small numbers of uncharred seeds were not analyzed because they usually are modern contaminants, the result of rodent (Miller 1989) or earthworm activity (Canti 2003). All charred seeds, related plant parts and tissues (2mm and larger) were removed for identification. Following Asch et al. (1972), I randomly selected and identified 25 pieces of charred wood larger than 2mm from each flotation sample. Wood and seeds were identified as specifically as possible, but because some remains were distorted from the original charring, as well as poor preservation, they were classified as unidentifiable. Due to their small sizes, nutshell fragments were rarely identified. Botanical materials were identified using printed references (Cappers et al. 2006; Hoadley 1990; Martin and Barkley 1973), the United States Department of Agriculture plant database (http://plants.usda.gov) and the University of Massachusetts Bostons extensive comparative collection. A more complete description of the methods can be found in Bowes (2009). This botanical material is not the in situ remains of plants stored in the pit, but is more likely refuse. Charred wood initially used for fuel may be recovered archaeologically in its original location, either the hearth or oven, or in a secondary deposit, such as a midden where the refuse was swept or tossed (Smart and Hoffman 1988). Deposits associated with fuel used for cooking may also harbor seeds and other plant structures accidentally burned in the cooking process. Although the possible hearth was not analyzed for macrobotanical materials, the presence of a hearth or chimney in the cabin may explain how the botanical materials recovered from the sub-floor pit became charred.

Spring/Summer 2011

JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY

95

Archival documents that relate to the plantations provisioning practices, alongside the recovered botanical remains, delineate which foods were provided and demonstrate the slaves supplementation practices (McKee 1999). I consulted an income and expense journal kept by Edward Hutter from July of 1856 through December of 1862, a farm journal that dates from January 1844 through December 1854, and slave management literature. This literature, published in American farm journals from the mid to late 19th century, was a forum where southern planters could share ideas on how to achieve agricultural perfection, including the perfection of slavery. A large portion of the excerpts relating to food deal with the importance of providing slaves with a large quantity and variety of vegetables. Together these documents help frame how owners in the South perceived plant foods, and, to a lesser degree, indicate the plants Hutter may have provisioned. Results of the Macrobotanical Analysis The sub-floor pit contained the remains of edible fruits, field and garden crops, other seeds, nuts and wood, which reflect a variety of activities including food consumption, medicinal practices, domestic uses of plants and fuel use (Table 1). Much of the botanical material relates to food. All the analyzed samples contained an amorphous material that was probably parenchymatous tissue. Although some pieces had a noticeable curve to them, nutmeat was ruled out based on micromorphological characteristics. I charred fresh and dried specimens of common root crops, including white potatoes, sweet potatoes, carrots, turnips and squash, and found a strong, but not definitive, similarity between the unknown tissue and the charred potatoes. Thus the slave foodways appear to combine starchy crops such as millet, maize, and wheat, along with wild and cultivated fruits, and cultivated and gathered greens, vegetables, and nuts (Bowes 2009). Some plants recovered contain parts that may have been utilized for both their dietary and their medicinal benefits. Assigning plants to rigid categories as either food or medicine, however, detracts from these dual uses, but by analyzing how the slaves came across such plants enables the archaeologist to acknowledge their role as possible medicine and to also understand the greater social relations at work. In his journals, Hutter recorded which slaves were ill and the duration of their illness, and he recorded having purchased medicine on several occasions. However, these documents do not specifically state whether the slaves were given this medicine or if some other form of treatment was provided by Hutter. Some of the procured plants from the botanical assemblages may indicate medicinal practices. Jimsonweed, a hallucinogenic plant found in samples from Rich Neck slave quarters, an 18th-century plantation near Williamsburg, Virginia, was interpreted as a possible pain reliever (Mrozowski et al. 2008). Charred wood comprised the largest category of botanical remains. A total of 1,525 pieces of wood was analyzed. Of the examined wood, 68% was hardwood, 2% was softwood and 30% was unidentifiable. Of the hardwood, 72% could only be identified to hardwood or a sub-type of hardwood (such as ring-porous and diffuse porous), while the remaining 28% was identified either to genus or species. Hardwood was present in all layers with oak and chestnut (Castanea sp.)

96

BOWES

Vol. 31, No. 1

Table 1. List of Identified Useful Taxa from Site A, Poplar Forest. Common Name Grains Millet Sorghum Wheat Corn Nuts Hazelnut Black Walnut Acorn Fruits Watermelon Cherry Peach Raspberry Elderberry Blueberry Grape Other Jimsonweed Mint Sorrel Ground Cherry Plantain Knotweed Purslane Cinquefoil Nightshade Wood Maple Birch Hickory Chestnut Ash Black walnut Tulip poplar Red mulberry Pine Oak Black locust Elm Scientific Name Panicum miliaceum L./ Setaria italica (L.)P.Veauv. Sorghum sp. Triticum sp. Zea mays L. Corylus sp. Juglans nigra L. Quercus sp. Citrullus lanatus (Thunb.) Matsum. & Nakai Prunus sp. Prunus persica (L.) Batsch Rubus sp. Sambucus sp. Vaccinium sp. Vitis sp. Datura stramonium L. Mentha sp. Oxalis sp. Physalis sp. Plantago sp. Polygonum sp. Portulaca sp. Potentilla sp. Solanum sp. Acer sp. Betula sp. Carya sp. Castanea sp. Fraxinus sp. Juglans nigra L. Liriodendron tulipifera L. Morus rubra L. Pinus sp. Quercus spp. Robinia pseudoacacia L. Ulmus sp. Subsistence Strategy Produced Produced Provisioned Produced Procured Procured Procured Provisioned Procured Provisioned Procured Procured Procured Procured Procured Procured/Produced Procured Procured Procured Procured Procured Procured Procured Procured Procured Procured Procured Procured Procured Procured Procured Procured Procured Procured Procured

as the most ubiquitous at almost 82%, followed by ash and yellow poplar at about 55%. The only identifiable charred softwood was pine (Pinus sp.). These remains reflect the use of wood for heating and cooking. Slave Subsistence Strategies The charred seeds and fuel wood remains from this pit can be categorized by plant type as it relates to slaves use, such as food, fuel and medicine, but when placed into the categories relating to subsistence strategies, provisioning, production and procurement, a fuller and more informative picture of enslaved lifeways develops.

Spring/Summer 2011

JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY

97

Provisioned Plant Foods Provisioned foods are those given to slaves by their owners, and documents show significant variation in the types and quantities supplied. A Virginia planter in 1837 suggested the need for vegetables as a staple in slave diets and referred to slave owners who do not utilize the fertile Virginian soils to grow them for their slaves as poor providers (Breeden 1980:93). One former slave stated that masters understood that slaves worked best on a full stomach (Perdue et al. 1976:181), but according to formerly enslaved Armaci Adams of Hampton, Virginia, Dey never give you nough ter eat (Perdue et al. 1976:3). Leaving slaves hungry seems to have been counterproductive, as fewer rations encouraged some slaves to steal (Perdue et al. 1976:266). Some of the plant remains from Poplar Forest provide evidence of provisioned foods (Table 1). Edward Hutters farm journal records that he planted sweet and Irish potatoes (Hutter Farm Journal, 18441854, hereafter HFJ), and if the amorphous charred botanical material in the samples is potato, it could be evidence of a provisioned food. One planter indicates the value of potatoes for slave children stating, No better diet can be provided for little negroes than sweet potatoes as the common adage runs, they are milk, bread and meat for them (Breeden 1980:106). Watermelon could also be a provisioned food. It was commonly cultivated in African American gardens, but documents show that Edward Hutter was planting watermelon at the time of the cabins occupation (HFJ). So it is possible that the watermelon the slaves were consuming came from Hutters own garden. Peaches were grown at Poplar Forest during Jeffersons ownership through Hutters occupation (Hutter Income and Expense Journal, 18571862, hereafter HIEJ). A letter from Edward Hutters father conveys his fondness for the plantation and its orchards stating, we daily speak of those fine peaches which you feed your swine!! (Hutter 1844). Peaches consumed by the enslaved African Americans were perhaps provisioned by Hutter directly or taken without his approval. Levi Pollard, a former slave from Richmond, Virginia, recalled helping himself to peaches and apples from the plantation orchards; and although pears were reserved for the owners family and off limits, he regularly pilfered them (Perdue et al. 1976:227). Although the owner controlled access to the orchards, restrictions to these areas did not necessarily entirely deter stealing. Hutter cultivated wheat at Poplar Forest (HFJ), and its presence in the archaeobotanical assemblage of Site A probably indicates food that was provisioned. A wheat rachis fragment, a by-product of crop processing, was uncovered in the pit and links the charred wheat grains from the assemblage to their growth or processing on the immediate plantation. The crop food remains recovered from the sub-floor pit suggest a mix of staple grains with wheat provisioned by Hutter and others probably grown by the slaves in their own gardens. Produced Plant Foods Gardening was often encouraged by plantation owners (Mrozowski et al. 2008), and Edward Hutters slaves produced some of their food in their own

98

BOWES

Vol. 31, No. 1

gardens. McColley (1964:60) notes the relationship between slave gardens and owner provisioning writing, some [planters] observed the practice of excusing their slaves on Saturday afternoons so they might work their own gardens. Where this was done, the rations supplied by the planter would be reduced proportionally. Some slave owners recommended gardening to combat idleness, while others felt it encouraged theft when the gardens were not fruitful, or that slaves should rest for their next day of work (Breeden 1980). Hutter wrote that his slaves had small gardens or patches, and frequently noted, Holiday-Negroes working patches in his farm journal (HFJ). Not only did he encourage gardening, but he also helped the slaves sell their crops. It was fairly common in Virginia for slaves to sell surplus fruits and vegetables as well as handmade goods in the markets. On November 25th, 1845 Hutter wrote, hauld up Negroes corn & shucked it and on May 12th, 1847, Sent Negroes corn to market (HFJ). The archaeological maize remains possibly come from plants grown by the slaves in their own gardens, rather than that grown by Hutter, and suggests the slaves were providing themselves with at least one staple food. Documents indicate they also cultivated oats, which were sold (HIEJ), although there is no evidence for this in the botanical materials from Site A. Plants grown in the slaves gardens and then sold to owners or in markets (Stewart 2006) may have offered what Heath and Bennett (2000:42) refer to as a form of economic autonomy. Although a few planters endorsed giving slaves land and granting them complete control over it, the majority who allowed gardening either restricted sale of the slaves surplus to themselves or managed the sale of the goods in the market (Breeden 1980). It is unclear the extent to which Hutter managed his slaves gardens, but his comment that he sent the corn to the market suggests that he had some control over its sale and possibly the profits. The sorghum and millet uncovered from the sub-floor pit are also likely remnants of the slaves gardening activities. Sorghum is an introduced species that came from Africa to North America with the slave trade (Whit 2007). Both sorghum and millet are historically linked to people in western Africa and enslaved Africans in North America, and were commonly used in animal feed (Prance and Nesbitt 2005). Millet became a popular grain in 18th-century gardens (Leighton 1986), and both crops could have been grown in the slaves patches to be consumed by the slaves or fed to their poultry. Gardening relieved pressure from the plantation owner to provide adequate provisions, but may have been encouraged to promote a slaves psychological attachment to the land and deter runaways (Pulsipher 1990). The corn, sorghum and millet from the Site A slave dwelling suggests that the inhabitants widely supplemented the provisioned diet. Hutters comments in his journals suggest he supported such practices by the slaves, therefore lifting his burden to provide for them. Procured Plant Foods Slaves also supplemented their diet by gathering plants from the local environment. They may have transplanted plants from the wild into their gardens (Glave 2006) or simply encouraged the growth of useful plants in their

Spring/Summer 2011

JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY

99

native setting. Slave foraging is rarely recorded in plantation primary documents (McKee 1999) and this activity may be linked with poor plantation provisioning (Mrozowski et al. 2008). However, supplementation may illustrate self-autonomy (Mrozowski et al. 2008:33) and be a way that slaves resisted uniformity (Edwards-Ingram 1999:156). Procurement, or supplementation, at Poplar Forest included the gathering of wild fruits, herbs, nuts and fuel wood. Although purslane, mint and knotweed, recovered at Site A, were commonplace in early American gardens (Sumner 2004), these taxa, as well as plantain, could also reflect encouraged or tolerated weeds gathered from disturbed habitats, such as the areas around the cabins or in gardens and fields. Purslane and plantain are noted for their use in salads (Medve and Medve 1990), while mint was cultivated for oils, flavoring and medicine (Cox 1985). Some species of knotweed were cultivated for their edible leaves and young shoots (Coffey 1993). Some of the fruits, such as grape and cherry, uncovered in the sub-floor pit may represent gathered wild species rather than provisioned domesticates. However, distinguishing between wild and domestic varieties of cherries and grapes can be difficult, especially as a variety of cherry trees grew at Poplar Forest (Poplar Forest 2004). Wild grape also commonly grows around the plantation (Raymer 2003), indicating that these fruits were likely gathered. The raspberry, blueberry and elderberry fruits from the pit were probably gathered from the forest margins, or from abandoned or successional fields. Fuel wood is a necessary subsistence item within the procured category. Many of the species of wood recovered in the Site A assemblage prefer moist, fertile, well-drained soils. Because of their burning and heating efficiency, hardwoods are typically valued over softwoods for fuel. The analysis of the subfloor pit indicates that the slaves were generally able to obtain hardwood fuel. However, there is a wide variation in heat values within the hardwood category. Oak and hickory have the highest heat values, and their presence throughout most of the pit indicates that the slaves were consistently able to get excellent fuel wood (Figure 3). Nonetheless, the wood analysis suggests they burned a wide variety of fuels including those producing little heat, such as pine, tulip poplar and chestnut. Pine is a very poor fuel source, with the poorest overall quality rating, and softwood only comprises 2% of all the wood identified. Fuel wood is briefly mentioned in the slave management literature by a few planters who suggest that it is cruel to force slaves, at the end of a hard work day, to procure their own fuel wood (Breeden 1980:101, 120). Regardless, there is no indication that Hutter provided fuel. It is more than likely that the slaves foraged for easily available wood such as fallen limbs or trimmings from the core of the plantation grounds. Comparison of Hutter-Era and Thomas Jefferson-Era Botanical Remains Prior macrobotanical analysis at Poplar Forest provides an opportunity to compare the subsistence strategies of enslaved African Americans at different times and to better reconstruct the slaves daily life under Thomas Jefferson and Edward Hutter. This comparison illustrates the fluidity of power and social

100

BOWES

Vol. 31, No. 1

Figure 3. Relative Proportions of Wood Types by Layer from Site A, Poplar Forest.

relations under slavery and emphasizes the individual planters importance in the relationship. Slaves, as a subordinate workforce, defined themselves not only within an overarching framework of slavery, but also within the more intimate context of the slave-owner relationship. Slaves had to renegotiate this relationship as their masters changed, when they were sold to a new owner and plantation or sold with a plantation, and when societal attitudes about slavery evolved. The similarities and differences in the botanical data related to the earlier owner, Jefferson, and the later owner, Hutter, demonstrate how slave communities responded to whether the slave owner was in residence at Poplar Forest. The plant remains also illustrate how changes in the local environment impacted subsistence and how continuity in subsistence strategies may be visible in an enslaved community across multiple owners. The botanical remains from two slave quarters at Poplar Forest dating to Thomas Jeffersons ownership, North Hill and Quarter Site, contribute to the discussion of subsistence strategies at Poplar Forest (Raymer 1996, 2003). Although different recovery strategies were utilized, flotation for both Hutter and Jefferson era sites as well as water screening for some Jefferson era contexts (Heath and Lee 2008; Raymer 1996), the samples from both North Hill and the Quarter sites provide comparable data (Bowes and Trigg in press). This study reanalyzes the botanical remains from the four features that are functionally most similar to the Hutter period pit to eliminate discrepancies stemming from different activities. The North Hill Site had a sub-floor pit dating from 1777 to 1785, and an exterior pit that dates from 1790 to 1810, and the Quarter Site had a sub-floor pit and a structure that date 1790 to 1812 (Figure 2). The North Hill subfloor pit represents a time referred to here as Early Jefferson, while the North Hill exterior pit and the Quarter Site pit and structure are referred to as Later

Spring/Summer 2011

JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY

101

Table 2. Taxonomic Richness from Hutter and Jefferson-Era Contexts. Date Thomas Jefferson 17771785 17901810 17901812 17901812 Edward S. Hutter 18401858 Feature 1546 A-G 1476 B-D 829 1206 ER2352/4 Site North Hill North Hill Quarter Site Quarter Site Site A Description Sub-floor pit Exterior pit Sub-floor pit Structure Sub-floor pit Taxonomic Volume of Soil Richness Analyzed 31 7 7 10 37 136.5 L 70.5 L 6L 527 L 150.6 L

Jefferson. These provide a partial botanical timeline for Thomas Jeffersons ownership, however no slave quarters or deposits of plant remains dating to the end of Jeffersons occupation (18121826) have been recovered at Poplar Forest. The earliest botanical materials (early North Hill Site) date to a period when Jefferson was an absentee owner, while the later materials (Quarter Site, later North Hill Site) reflect the use of plants during major changes in plantation activities, such as the building of the main house (Heath 2004). Some plants were present in all the eras, Early Jefferson, Later Jefferson and Hutter, demonstrating some continuity in plantation activities and habitats accessed by slaves (Bowes and Trigg in press). For instance, corn was recovered in all the features, while wheat, peach and grape were found in at least one feature from each period, suggesting that corn and wheat were staple grains from Jeffersons through Hutters occupation. But, all the time periods examined (Early Jefferson, Later Jefferson and Hutter) have seeds unique to them: Early Jefferson had rye (Secale sp.), oats (Avena sativa) and strawberry (Fragaria sp.); Later Jefferson had common beans (Phaseolus sp.), sunflower (Helianthus sp.), huckleberry (Gaylussacia sp.) and persimmon (Persimmon sp.); and Hutters period had watermelon, blueberry and mint. The uniqueness of these plant types may be the result of deposition and preservation, however they may also reflect changes in habitats accessible to slaves as well as changes in the slave communities preferences. The Jefferson era contexts also provide evidence of the three subsistence strategies: provisioned, produced and procured. Jefferson provisioned plants such as corn and wheat, while sorghum and millet were possibly produced, and huckleberry and persimmon were likely procured. Examining diet breadth, the number of different foods in the diet, is one way to investigate control of slaves food and their subsistence practices. In particular I use taxonomic richness to assess not only the need to broaden the diet but also the slaves ability to do so. I calculate richness by counting the number of taxa comprising each features assemblage. The richness for all five features was calculated (Table 2). As the analysis shows, although some of the features yielded large quantities of soil for analysis, high soil volume does not correlate with increased taxonomic richness. Some of the larger features had fewer taxa overall (Table 2). The richness of the feature associated with Jeffersons early absentee ownership (17771785) is similar to the sub-floor pit dating to Hutter. The features with the highest richness (1546 A-G, ER2352/4) are the earliest and latest dated features sampled for botanical analysis, with the highest from the sub-floor

102

BOWES

Vol. 31, No. 1

Figure 4. Taxonomic Richness of Feature Contents by Subsistence Strategy.

pit from Hutters occupation (at 37), and the next highest (at 31) from the earliest sub-floor dating to Thomas Jefferson, from the North Hill Site. In contrast, the later Jefferson features (17901812) reflect a drastically reduced richness. These findings may allude to similarities in plantation management between Hutter and an absentee Jefferson. To better understand the subsistence strategies of Thomas Jeffersons slaves, the taxonomic richness was broken down by the three strategy categories: provisioned, produced and procured (Figure 4). The inclusion of certain plant remains in this analysis from the Jefferson-era features relies on Raymers (1996, 2003) initial interpretation of use. Some taxa included in the overall richness assessment were excluded for this analysis. Although the wood primarily comes from fuel and is related to food preparation, I focus on plants used as foods and medicine. Furthermore, plants identified to family were also excluded, as they may represent a variety of plants which crosscut the subsistence strategies. Noneconomic grasses, such as ryegrass (Lolium sp.), wheatgrass (Agropyron sp.) and goosegrass (Eleusine sp.) and certain other weedy species including sorrel, nightshade (Solanum sp.), privet, ground cherry and fanpetals (Sida sp.), interpreted by Raymer (1996, 2003) to have been accidentally introduced into the features, were excluded as their origin is probably unrelated to the slaves subsistence. When the botanical data from Hutters slave cabin are analyzed in relation to those from Thomas Jeffersons occupation, a timeline of Poplar Forest plantation social relationships emerges. The procured category provides the most informative data with the greatest number of taxa (Figure 4). The earliest feature

Spring/Summer 2011

JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY

103

(1546 A-G) and the latest (ER2352/4) have a richness of 14 and 13, respectively. The next highest richness (6) dates to Jeffersons later ownership, when he was more involved in plantation activities. Richness calculations illustrate that slaves under an absentee Jefferson were supplementing their diet with gathered foods more than the slaves in Jeffersons later years. Specific taxa gathered while Jefferson was away include elderberry, sumac, vervain (Verbena sp.), carpetweed (Mollugo sp.), dock (Rumex sp.) and amaranth (Amaranthus sp.). These taxa generally grow in forest margins and the mature forest, habitats that lay beyond the plantation core grounds suggesting that the slaves were moving beyond the immediate plantation fields when Jefferson was absent (Bowes and Trigg in press). The initial taxa richness comparison demonstrates that there is a similarity between Hutters ownership and Jeffersons absentee occupation, but by breaking the richness down by subsistence strategy (Figure 4), it becomes clear that how the slaves supplemented their diet seems to be what is most directly impacted during Jeffersons later years. This may correlate with plantation activities such as a change in overseers and differing access to habitats as land was cleared for planting and landscaping (Bowes and Trigg in press). Jefferson continually altered the landscape for ornamental reasons, and on his death, only a portion of the original plantation grounds were left to his grandson. Plantation activities, such as landscape modifications, would impact areas that slaves could access for food. McKee (1999:219) states that slaves were active agents in defining their food supply, while slave mobility increased when plantation owners or masters were away (Morgan 1988). Jefferson seems to fit the mold of an early Piedmont plantation owner who was largely absentee, and his slaves exploited the wild environment to a greater degree during his absence. The similarity between the absentee Jefferson assemblages and the assemblage from Hutters occupation is telling of slave management styles. Jeffersons Garden Book (Betts 1944) illustrates his systematic and highly regulated approach to plantation management and this legendary obsession for detail and control (McDonald 2000:177) affected how he managed his slaves. This seems to be evident in the botanical assemblage from Poplar Forest with a noticeable decrease in slaves active supplementation of their diet after the construction of the main house began. Jefferson is likened to other scientific planters (Sanford 1994:126) who sought to maintain order on the plantation and who worked to make it run in a perfunctory and standardized manner. Hutters practice of hiring out his slaves suggests he may have regulated his plantation less rigidly than Thomas Jefferson. It appears that while Jefferson was an absentee owner his slaves exploited the environment to supplement their diet, but when he increased his role in plantation affairs, these procurement practices decreased, possibly reflecting Jeffersons more rigorous management style. By the time Edward Hutter became the manager, Poplar Forests enslaved community once again supplemented their diet more broadly. Hutters management of Poplar Forest was typical of contemporaneous slave owners. The slaves were divided based on work, either as field or house slaves, and were regularly hired out; by 1854 the majority of slaves were leased at Poplar Forest, rather than working in the fields (Heath et al. 2004:5). Some southerners felt that renting a slave did not encourage the same emotional bond as owning a

104

BOWES

Vol. 31, No. 1

slave and that the master-slave relationship was threatened as slaves were no longer directly benefiting from the rigid control of one owner; slaves were becoming empowered by having a say in who their master was and by hiring themselves out on their own time to earn money that could be used to buy freedom (Faust 1991; Goldfield 1991). Regardless of these feelings of unease, one document notes that during the 1850s one-third of working slaves were hired out (Goldfield 1991). This practice may also have offered Hutters slaves access to a variety of habitats, perhaps enabling an increased ability to gather plants farther from the plantation grounds (Bowes and Trigg in press). Hutters slaves were procuring their own foods, supplementing their diet beyond what was provisioned and what they grew themselves, which seems to have been a common practice not only for the time but throughout American slavery, especially at Poplar Forest. With regards to the slaves ability to procure plant foods from the environment, any personal endeavors within the power laden slave-master relationship can attest to some form of autonomy, especially when the slaves had choices. Lukes (1974:5455) discusses the agency in such autonomy stating, one assumes that although the agents operate within structurally determined limits, they nonetheless have a certain relative autonomy and could have acted differently. Slaves use of plants for medicinal reasons further reflects autonomy and illustrates their role as agents of their own wellbeing. Edwards-Ingram (2001:42) writes that plants were used to treat illness as well as, to control risks including the potential misfortunes of daily life, and in efforts to evoke and tap spiritual forces to work on their behalf. Although the slaves may have restrictions placed upon their movement, these restrictions may not have fully prohibited procurement. Furthermore, the procured plants, those selected under the structurally determined limits, can serve as signifiers of slave choice. Therefore, not only does the slaves supplementation of their diet allude to a level of freedom, the plants they chose to procure also reflects their personal decisions. Analysis of the plant remains also offers some perspective regarding the dissemination of knowledge about local plants useful for food and medicine. Perhaps the slaves at Poplar Forest chose certain plants merely because they were convenient, and certainly their presence in the local environment enabled their procurement. However, the overlap in the plants chosen by Jeffersons and Hutters slaves may illustrate continuity in the slave communities use of certain plants. Slaves under Jefferson and Hutter used plants such as knotweed, purslane, raspberry and grapes. Similarly, jimsonweed, a medicinal plant, was recovered in all three eras from Poplar Forest. This evokes questions regarding the enslaved communitys medicinal practices and suggests the slaves took action to ensure their own well-being. Stewart (2006:10) writes, slavery shaped the environmental attitudes and values of both masters and slaves and perhaps the knowledge of the local landscape circulated within the enslaved communities and contributed to the reason Hutters slaves utilized the same wild plants in 1850 that slaves under Jefferson used in 1780. This continuity may reflect sustained practices among the enslaved populations. As Poplar Forest was bought and sold, some enslaved individuals remained on the plantation and were included in the transactions (Heath et al. 2004). Although Hutters slaves

Spring/Summer 2011

JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY

105

did not necessarily once belong to Jefferson, a community presence was established, which lasted throughout Poplar Forests multiple owners. Conclusion In order to enforce the status of slave, masters had to subjugate Africans and African Americans by entwining them in a power struggle in which owners regularly reiterated their superiority. By maintaining the social order of master and slave, plantation owners were able to exploit human beings for labor while earning a profit (Aptheker 1993; Patterson 1982). If we examine how these social and power relations manifested themselves in the slaves subsistence strategies and mobility, we can glimpse their autonomy. Owners attempted to control the movements and actions of their slaves, affecting how slave autonomy was expressed. Slave management strategies were influenced by broader trends among slaveholders but were also highly individual and were influenced by the planters own opinions and views. Slaves under an absentee Jefferson were somewhat mobile and supplemented their diet with a variety of procured plants. Jefferson did not neglect the management of Poplar Forest during this time but rather hired overseers and through letters he instructed them regarding plantation activities. Perhaps it was Jeffersons absence, or the attitudes of individual overseers, which allowed for this broader exploitation of plants. During the later Jefferson era, the variety of slaves procured plants decreased. Perhaps more frequent visits, a change in overseers, or changes to the landscape are the root of this reduction. Regardless, all of these activities are the result of plantation management by Jefferson. When the plantation changed hands to Edward Hutter, the Poplar Forest enslaved community once again supplemented their diet more broadly. The enslaved African Americans gathered food, fuel, and possibly medicines from around the plantation, while they received food from the plantation owner and cultivated some of their own vegetables and herbs. That slaves supplemented their diets with a range of resources seems to reflect Hutters management style and his practice of hiring out slaves, rather than the result of inadequate provisioning. This research shows that by viewing the data in terms of subsistence strategies such as provisioning, production and procurement, we can propose how the plants were acquired and how both the activities and the plants fit into the broader social context. Using this approach in the analysis of the Site A subfloor pit macrobotanicals proved useful for understanding the occupants of a particular cabin and their relationship within the plantation community. But the broader implications of this framework helped us elucidate the power relations between slaves and their owners and, in particular, what enslavement was like under Jefferson and Hutter. The use of land by plantation owners and managers directly impacted the way slaves used the environment and affected their interaction with the landscape. Hutter managed a much smaller plantation than Jefferson with more finite resources, and his actions, such as clearing land for agricultural fields, would have also affected how the slaves experienced and

106

BOWES

Vol. 31, No. 1

utilized the environment. Incorporating other archaeological evidence, such as the faunal analysis on the Hutter-era sub-floor pit when completed, will inevitably further illuminate plantation subsistence strategies and social relations. Few botanical studies address how subsistence strategies relate to social relations. However, as this research shows, such correlations can be made and can elucidate aspects of power and control in a plantation setting. By bringing macrobotanical data into discussions often relying on material culture, faunal remains, and primary documents archaeologists can support, or even challenge, existing interpretations. Furthermore, this model can be applied to other sites relating to slavery to access social relationships. Hold-Cavell (1996:19) writes that, status and power relations play an important role in human life and by understanding these relations archaeologists can better access the lifeways of enslaved African Americans.

References Cited
Aptheker, Herbert 1993 American Negro Slave Revolts: 50th Anniversary edition. International Publishers, New York. Asch, Nancy, Richard I. Ford, and David Asch 1972 Paleoethnobotany of the Koster Site: The Archaic Horizons. Reports of Investigations No. 24. Illinois State Museum, Springfield. Betts, Edwin Morris 1944 Thomas Jeffersons Garden Book 1766 1824. The American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia. Blassingame, John 1972 The Slave Community. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Bowes, Jessica D. 2009 Provisioned, Produced, Procured: Slave Subsistence Strategies as Indicators of Plantation Social Relations at Thomas Jeffersons Poplar Forest. M.A. thesis (Anthropology). University of Massachusetts Boston, Boston. Bowes, Jessica and Heather Trigg In press Social Dimensions of 19th-Century Slaves Uses of Plants at Poplar Forest. In The Landscapes and Lives of Thomas Jeffersons Poplar Forest: The Historical Archaeology of a Central Virginia Plantation, eds. Barbara J. Heath and Jack Gary. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Breeden, James O., ed. 1980 Advice Among Masters The Ideal in Slave Management in the Old South. Greenwood Press, Connecticut. Canti, M.G. 2003 Earthworm Activity and Archaeological Stratigraphy: A Review of Products and Processes. Journal of Archaeological Science 30: 135148. Cappers, R.T.J., R.M. Bekker, and J.E.A. Jans 2006 Digitale Zadenatlas Van Nederland: Digital Seeds Atlas of the Netherlands. Barkhuis Publishing, Groningen. Coffey, Timothy 1993 The History and Folklore of North American Wildflowers. Houghton Mifflin, New York. Cox, Donald D. 1985 Common Flowering Plants of the Northeast. State University of New York Press, Albany. Crader, Diana C. 1990 Slave Diet at Monticello. American Antiquity 55:690717. Deagan, Kathleen 1996 Environmental Archaeology and Historical Archaeology. In Case Studies in Environmental Archaeology, eds. Elizabeth Reitz, Lee, A. Newsom and Sylvia, J. Scudder, pp. 559376. Plenum Press, New York. Edwards-Ingram, Ywone 1999 The Recent Archaeology of Enslaved Africans and African Americans. In Old and New Worlds, eds. Geoff Egan and R.L. Michael, pp. 155164. Oxbow Books, Oxford. 2001 African American Medicine and the Social Relations of Slavery. In Race and the Archaeology of Identity, ed. Charles E. Orser Jr., pp. 3453. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Spring/Summer 2011

JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY

107

Faust, Drew Gilpin 1991 Slavery in the American Experience. In Before Freedom Came: African American Life in the Antebellum South, eds. Edward D.C. Campbell Jr. and Kym S. Rice, pp. 119. The Museum of the Confederacy, Richmond and University of Virginia Press, Charlottesville. Franklin, Maria 2001 The Archaeological and Symbolic Dimensions of Soul Food: Race, Culture, and Afro-Virginian Archaeology of Identity. In Race and the Archaeology of Identity, ed. Charles E. Orser Jr., pp. 88107. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Gibbs, Patricia A. 1999 Little Spots allowd them: Slave Garden Plots and Poultry Yards. The Colonial Williamsburg Interpreter 20(3):913. Giddens, Anthony 1979 Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure and Contradiction in Social Analysis. University of California Press, Berkeley. Glave, Dianne D. 2006 Rural African American Women, Gardening, and Progressive Reform in the South. In To Love the Wind and the Rain: African Americans and Environmental History, eds. Dianne, D. Glave and Mark Stoll, pp. 3750. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh. Goldfield, David R. 1991 Black life in Old South Cities. In Before Freedom Came: African American Life in the Antebellum South, eds. Edward, D.C. Campbell Jr. and Kym S. Rice, pp. 123 153. The Museum of the Confederacy, Richmond and University of Virginia Press, Charlottesville. Groover, Mark D. and Timothy E. Baumann 1996 They Worked Their Own Remedy: African-American Herbal Medicine and the Archaeological Record. South Carolina Antiquities 28:2132. Hally, David J. 1981 Plant Preservation and the Content of Paleobotanical Samples: A Case Study. American Antiquity 46:723742. Heath, Barbara J. 1999 Hidden Lives: The Archaeology of Slave Life at Thomas Jeffersons Poplar Forest. University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville. 2004 Quarter Site: Background. The Digital Archaeological Archive of Comparative Slavery. Available at: http://www.daacs. org/ (verified 2 February 2011).

Heath, Barbara J. and Amber Bennett 2000 The Little Spots Allowd Them: The Archaeological Study of African-American Yards. Historical Archaeology 34(2):3855. Heath, Barbara J. and Lori Lee 2008 Comparative Analyses of Three Subfloor Pit Assemblages at Poplar Forest. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Historical Archaeology Conference on Historical and Underwater Archaeology, Albuquerque. Heath, Barbara J., Randy Lichtenberger, Keith Adams, Lori Lee, and Elizabeth Paull 2004 Poplar Forest Archaeology: Studies in African American Life, Excavations and Analysis of Site A, Southeast Terrace and Site B, Southeast Curtilage June 2003 June 2004. Report to the Public Welfare Foundation. 2005 Poplar Forest Archaeology: Studies in Plantation Life and Landscape, Excavations and Analysis of Site B, Southeast Curtilage June 2004August 2005. Report to the Public Welfare Foundation. Hoadley, R. Bruce 1990 Identifying Wood: Accurate Results with Simple Tools. The Taunton Press, Newtown. Hold-Cavell, Barbara 1996 The Ethological Bases of Status Hierarchies. In Food and the Status Quest: Interdisciplinary Perspective, eds. Polly Wiessner and Wulf Schiefenhovel, pp. 1932. Berghan Books, Providence. Hutter, Christian Jacob 1844 Letter to Edward S. Hutter, Aug. 29th, Hutter Family Letters. Private collection, Poplar Forest, Virginia. 1846 Letter to Edward S. Hutter, Sept. 30, Hutter Family Letters. Private collection, Poplar Forest, Virginia. Hutter, Farm Journal 18441854 Private collection, Poplar Forest, Virginia. Hutter, Income and Expense, Journal 18571862 Private collection, Poplar Forest, Virginia. Lange, Frederick W. and Jerome S. Handler 1985 The Ethnohistorical Approach to Slavery. In The Archaeology of Slavery and Plantation Life, ed. Theresa A. Singleton, pp. 1532. Academic Press, Orlando. Leighton, Ann 1986 American Gardens in the Eighteenth Century: For Use or for Delight. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston.

108

BOWES

Vol. 31, No. 1

Martin, Alexander C. and William D. Barkley 1973 Seed Identification Manual. University of California Press, Berkeley. McColley, Robert 1964 Slavery and Jeffersonian Virginia. University of Illinois Press, Urbana. McDonald Jr., Travis C. 2000 Constructing Optimism: Thomas Jeffersons Poplar Forest. Perspectives in Vernacular Architecture 8:176200. McKee, Larry W. 1999 Food Supply and Plantation Social Order. In I, Too, Am America, ed. Theresa A. Singleton, pp. 218239. University of Virginia Press, Charlottesville. Medve, Richard J. and Mary Lee Medve 1990 Edible Wild Plants of Pennsylvania and Neighboring States. The Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park. Miller, Naomi F. 1989 What Mean These Sees: A Comparative Approach to Archaeological Seed Analysis. Historical Archaeology 23(2): 5059. Minnis, Paul E. 1981 Seeds in Archaeological Sites: Sources and Some Interpretive Problems. American Antiquity 46:143152. Morgan, Philip D. 1988 Slave Life in Piedmont Virginia, 1720 1800. In Colonial Chesapeake Society, eds. Lois Green Carr, Philip D. Morgan and Jean B. Russo, pp. 433484. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. Mrozowski, Stephen A., Maria Franklin, and Leslie Hunt 2008 Archaeobotanical Analysis and Interpretations of Enslaved Virginian Plant Use at Rich Neck Plantation. American Antiquity 73:699728. Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2011 United States Department of Agriculture Plant Database. Available at: http:// plants.usda.gov/ (verified 2 February 2011). Patterson, Orlando 1982 Slavery and Social Death: A Comparative Study. Harvard University Press, Cambridge. Perdue Jr., Charles L., Thomas E. Barden and Robert K. Phillips, editors 1976 Weevils in the Wheat: Interviews with Virginia Ex-Slaves. University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville. Poplar, Forest 2004 Documented Plants at Poplar Forest, Revised 2004. Unpublished Report, On File

with The Corporation for Jefferson Poplar Forest, Poplar Forest, VA. Prance, Sir Ghillean and Mark Nesbitt 2005 The Cultural History of Plants. Routledge, New York. Pulsipher, Lydia Mihelic 1990 They Have Saturdays and Sundays to Feed Themselves: Slave Gardens in the Caribbean. Expedition 32(3):2433. Raymer, Leslie E. 1996 Macroplant Remains from the Jeffersons Poplar Forest Slave Quarter: A Study in African American Subsistence Practices. New South Associates Technical Report #402. Stone Mountain, Georgia. 2003 Archaeobotanical Analysis from Data Recovery Excavations at the North Hill and Quarter Sites, Jeffersons Poplar Forest: A Study of Enslaved African-American Subsistence Patterns. Report Submitted to Corporation for Jeffersons Poplar Forest. New South Associates Technical Report #781, Stone Mountain, Georgia. Samford, Patricia M. 2007 Subfloor Pits and the Archaeology of Slavery in Colonial Virginia. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Sanford, Doug 1994 The Archaeology of Plantation Slavery in Piedmont Virginia: Context and Process. In Historical Archaeology of the Chesapeake, eds. Paul A. Shackel and Barbara J. Little, pp. 115130. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington DC. Scott, Elizabeth M. 2001 Food and Social Relations at Nina Plantation. American Anthropologist 103: 671691. Singleton, Theresa A. 1995 The Archaeology of Slavery in North America. Annual Review of Anthropology 24: 119140. Smart, Tristine Lee and Ellen S. Hoffman 1988 Environmental Interpretation of Archaeological Charcoal. In Current Paleoethnobotany, eds. Christine A. Hastorf and Virginia S. Popper, pp. 167205. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Stewart, Mart A. 2006 Slavery and the Origins of African American Environmentalism. In To Love the Wind and the Rain: African Americans and Environmental History, eds. Dianne D. Glave and Mark Stoll, pp. 920. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh.

Spring/Summer 2011

JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY

109

Sumner, Judith 2004 American Household Botany. Timber Press, Portland. Westmacott, Richard 1992 African-American Gardens and Yards in the Rural South. The University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville. Whit, William C. 2007 Soul Food as Cultural Creation. In

African American Foodways, ed. Anne L. Bower, pp. 4558. University of Illinois Press, Urbana and Chicago. Wiessner, Polly 1996 Introduction: Food, Status, Culture, and Nature. In Food and the Status Quest: Interdisciplinary Perspective, eds. Polly Wiess ner and Wulf Schiefenhovel, pp. 118. Berghan Books, Providence.