Historical archaeology research designs for Gamble Plantation, Ellenton, Florida

Historical archaeology research designs for Gamble Plantation, Ellenton, Florida

Material Information

Historical archaeology research designs for Gamble Plantation, Ellenton, Florida
Silpa, Felicia Bianca
Place of Publication:
[Tampa, Fla]
University of South Florida
Publication Date:


Subjects / Keywords:
Judah P. Benjamin
Robert Gamble
Applied anthropology
Historic preservation
Dissertations, Academic -- Anthropology -- Masters -- USF ( lcsh )
non-fiction ( marcgt )


ABSTRACT: This thesis is a research design that will serve as a baseline for further research and as a more inclusive interpretation at the Judah P. Benjamin Memorial at the Gamble Plantation Historic State Park in Ellenton, Florida. It reviews the history and archaeology of Robert Gamble's nineteenth-century enslaved labor-worked sugar plantation, focusing on how the demands of this capitalistic enterprise were expressed in the plantation's culture and on the landscape. This thesis reviews the literature on the archaeology of slavery in the United States and the Caribbean to provide a critical lens through which new directions in research might be seen and conceived. At the same time, it reviews the archaeological and historical resources associated with the plantation. The thesis is motivated by the following main research question: What was the nature of slavery on the Gamble Plantation? Subsidiary questions include the following: How was slavery evident in the plantation landscape? What were the day-to-day lifeways and activities of the enslaved labor force on the Gamble Plantation? While direct evidence of slave life at the Gamble Plantation might be scant, through a consideration of the literature we can infer how slave activity might be reflected in the archaeological record. It offers research methods to assist in obtaining answers to how is this plantation's landscape built which might illustrate slavery activity. The thesis also proceeds from the assumption that Gamble Plantation's history can be made more complete and relevant to park visitors. Public presentation is critically examined and stakeholders are identified. It concludes with suggestions on how can a more comprehensive and inclusive history can be told.
Thesis (M.A.)--University of South Florida, 2008.
Includes bibliographical references.
System Details:
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
System Details:
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
General Note:
Title from PDF of title page.
General Note:
Document formatted into pages; contains 162 pages.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Felicia Bianca Silpa.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
002004864 ( ALEPH )
352884829 ( OCLC )
E14-SFE0002684 ( USFLDC DOI )
e14.2684 ( USFLDC Handle )

Postcard Information



This item has the following downloads:

Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam Ka
controlfield tag 001 002004864
003 fts
005 20090527112256.0
006 m||||e|||d||||||||
007 cr mnu|||uuuuu
008 090527s2008 flu s 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0002684
GN397.5 (Online)
1 100
Silpa, Felicia Bianca.
0 245
Historical archaeology research designs for Gamble Plantation, Ellenton, Florida
h [electronic resource] /
by Felicia Bianca Silpa.
[Tampa, Fla] :
b University of South Florida,
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains 162 pages.
Thesis (M.A.)--University of South Florida, 2008.
Includes bibliographical references.
Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format.
3 520
ABSTRACT: This thesis is a research design that will serve as a baseline for further research and as a more inclusive interpretation at the Judah P. Benjamin Memorial at the Gamble Plantation Historic State Park in Ellenton, Florida. It reviews the history and archaeology of Robert Gamble's nineteenth-century enslaved labor-worked sugar plantation, focusing on how the demands of this capitalistic enterprise were expressed in the plantation's culture and on the landscape. This thesis reviews the literature on the archaeology of slavery in the United States and the Caribbean to provide a critical lens through which new directions in research might be seen and conceived. At the same time, it reviews the archaeological and historical resources associated with the plantation. The thesis is motivated by the following main research question: What was the nature of slavery on the Gamble Plantation? Subsidiary questions include the following: How was slavery evident in the plantation landscape? What were the day-to-day lifeways and activities of the enslaved labor force on the Gamble Plantation? While direct evidence of slave life at the Gamble Plantation might be scant, through a consideration of the literature we can infer how slave activity might be reflected in the archaeological record. It offers research methods to assist in obtaining answers to how is this plantation's landscape built which might illustrate slavery activity. The thesis also proceeds from the assumption that Gamble Plantation's history can be made more complete and relevant to park visitors. Public presentation is critically examined and stakeholders are identified. It concludes with suggestions on how can a more comprehensive and inclusive history can be told.
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
Advisor: Brent Weisman, Ph.D.
Judah P. Benjamin
Robert Gamble
Applied anthropology
Historic preservation
Dissertations, Academic
x Anthropology
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?e14.2684


Historical Archaeology Research Designs for Gamble Plantation, Ellenton, Florida by Felicia Bianca Silpa A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Department of Anthropology College of Arts and Sciences University of South Florida Major Professor: Brent Weisman, Ph.D. Kevin Yelvington, Ph.D. Philip Levy, Ph.D. Date of Approval November 12, 2008 Keywords: slavery, Judah P. Benjamin, Robe rt Gamble, applied anthropology, historic preservation, anthropo logy of museums, Mana tee River settlement Copyright 2008, Felicia Bianca Silpa


Dedication This thesis is dedicated to all the men in my life: Daniel, Scott, Geoffrey, Marc, and Alex.


Acknowledgments I acknowledge and thank my thesis comm ittee. Dr. Brent Weisman, Dr. Kevin Yelvington, and Dr. Philip Levy made this thes is possible. In addi tion to the guidance, they also provided me with diverse and chal lenging models of anthropological studies. I thank Dr. Uzi Baram. As my undergraduate advisor, he gave me the foundation to build upon. As my friend and colleague, he was alwa ys willing to listen and discuss issues regarding anthropology as a whole an d Gamble Plantation specifically. I thank Dr. Amy Reid, who listened endlessl y to my brain swimming and whose advice enabled me to communicate what I wanted to achieve. I acknowledge and thank Dr. Elzie McCord, Jr. who supplied his knowledge of Florida botany and southern African American perspe ctives. Our many discussions allowed me to see things other than through my limited experiences. I acknowledge and thank the staff members of the Judah P. Benjamin Memorial at the Gamble Plantation Historic State Park. Form er Park Supervisor, Don Bergeron, and Park Rangers Wayne Godwin, Ted Unger, and D on Dutcher were willing to share their knowledge and time with me. I thank Daniel Hughes for his untiring help. He was always there to offer advice and discussions during all stages of this thesis. His willingness to share his ex periences and books was invaluable. I acknowledge Dr. Deborah Varos, Dr. Just us Doenecke, Dr. George Luer, Barbara Bardy, Dixie Schmidt, Kelly Scudder, Sherry Svekis, John Jaffer, other friends and family members who provided resources, encour agement, and were willing to read this evolving thesis. I acknowledge and thank Pearlene McCord and her family and friends who accepted me as family. They were willing to share intimate life experiences and it is from their experiences that I learned some of th e differences between assimilation and accommodation. I thank members of the Anthropology Departme nt of the University of South Florida. Last, but certainly never least, I must tell the world how much I appreciate my husband and sons for their patience and encouragement. They were there for me on days when I felt overwhelmed by the process.


i Table of Contents Chapter 1: Introduction....................................................................................................... 1 Aims and Purpose of this Study ..............................................................................1 About This Thesis....................................................................................................6 Chapter 2: A History of the Gamble Plantation...................................................................9 Virginian Roots........................................................................................................9 Planter Migration to Middle Florida......................................................................12 The Armed Occupation Act of 1842......................................................................19 Slavery at the Gamble Plantation...........................................................................30 Conclusion.............................................................................................................32 Chapter 3: The Gamble Plantation in the Local Environment...........................................33 FloridaÂ’s Environment...........................................................................................34 Soil.........................................................................................................................35 The Manatee River.................................................................................................37 Confronting the Environment................................................................................39 Land Use Over the Years.......................................................................................42 Plantation Plants.....................................................................................................44 Conclusion.............................................................................................................47 Chapter 4: An Inventory of the Plantation Today.............................................................49 Geographic Location of the Plantation..................................................................49 The Mansion..........................................................................................................50 The Cistern.............................................................................................................53 The Four Compartment Unknown Tabby Feature.................................................54 The Patten House...................................................................................................55 The Sugar Mill.......................................................................................................56 Previous Archaeological Research........................................................................61 Conclusion.............................................................................................................61 Chapter 5: Landscapes of Power: Histor y and Culture in Plantation Archaeology..........66 Landscapes of Power: Planta tion Spatial Organization.........................................70 Slave Housing Locations.......................................................................................76 Slave Housing........................................................................................................79 Labor......................................................................................................................87 Foodways...............................................................................................................94


ii Worldview and Religion........................................................................................99 Resistance............................................................................................................102 Proposed Archaeological Methods......................................................................105 Conclusion...........................................................................................................112 Chapter 6: Presentation of the Past.................................................................................114 Presenting the Past at the Gamble Plantation......................................................114 My Approach.......................................................................................................118 Critical Analysis...................................................................................................124 Conclusion...........................................................................................................127 Chapter 7: Conclusion: Archaeology for Whom?..........................................................129 Stakeholders.........................................................................................................130 Conclusion...........................................................................................................132 References..................................................................................................................... ...134 Appendices..................................................................................................................... ..147 Appendix A: Plant Study of Gamble Plantation.................................................148 Appendix B: Plant Study of Gamble Plantation Sugar Mill...............................153 Appendix C: “Florida as A Sugar State” (Gamble 1888)...................................160


iii List of Tables Table 1 Map Unit Legend for Manatee County, Florida (FL081) (Courtesy of USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 2008:9).......................................................................................35 Table 2 Plantation Artifact Patterns from Georgia and South Carolina (taken from Joseph 1989:58).........................................85 Table 3 Manatee County Stakeholders..............................................................131


iv List of Figures Figure 1 GambleÂ’s Hill located on the James River in Richmond, Virginia.................................................................................11 Figure 2 Annotated Map of Middle Florida, 1843 (taken from Svekis 2005)........................................................................13 Figure 3 Original Sales Book Plats circa mid 1800Â’s to early 1900Â’s. GLO Survey Plats notated with State of Florida Land Sales entries circa mid 1800Â’s to early 1900Â’s. ...............................................41 Figure 4 1940 aerial photograph t ile 47 Palmetto Quad at 50% zoom (PALMM Collection)...........................................................43 Figure 5 1957 aerial photogr aph at 100% zoom Tile 13. (PALMM Collection.)...............................................................44 Figure 6 Gamble Mansion 2008 (taken by Silpa, 2008).......................................52 Figure 7 GambleÂ’s Cistern locate d on the Eastern Section of the Mansion (taken by Silpa, 2008)..............................................................53 Figure 8 GambleÂ’s four compartment unknown feature (taken by Silpa, 2008).................................................................55 Figure 9 The Patten House (taken by Silpa, 2008)................................................56 Figure 10 Men Pose at the Ruins of Gamble Sugar Mill 1903 06108A (Manatee County Library)........................................................58 Figure 11 Gamble Sugar Mill (taken by Silpa, 2008).............................................60 Figure 12 Carved clay br icks at the Gamble Sugar Mill (taken by Silpa, 2008)...........................................................61 Figure 13 1802 Mutual Assurance Greys Castle located in Richmond, Virginia (The Library of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia)...............................................................................73 Figure 14 GambleÂ’s 1868 Hand Drawn Map (Manatee County Library)......................................................................74 Figure 15 Gamble Mansion before restoration (Manatee County Library)......................................................................75 Figure 16 Magnified view of out building (Manatee County Library)......................................................................76


v Historical Archaeological Research Desi gns for Gamble Plantation, Ellenton, Florida Felicia Bianca Silpa ABSTRACT This thesis is a research design that will serve as a baseline for further research and as a more inclusive interpretation at the Judah P. Benjamin Memorial at the Gamble Plantation Historic State Park in Ellenton, Florida. It revi ews the history and archaeology of Robert Gamble's nineteen th-century enslaved labor-worked sugar plantation, focusing on how the demands of this ca pitalistic enterprise were expressed in the plantationÂ’s culture and on the landscape. This thesis reviews the l iterature on the archaeology of slavery in the United States and the Caribbean to provide a critic al lens through which new directions in research mi ght be seen and conceived. At the same time, it reviews the archaeological and historical resour ces associated with the plantation. The thesis is motivated by the following main research question: What was the nature of slavery on the Gamble Plantation? Subsidiary questions include the following: How was slavery evident in the plantation la ndscape? What were the day-to-day lifeways and activities of the enslaved labor force on the Gamble Plantation? While direct evidence of slave life at the Ga mble Plantation might be scant, through a consideration of the literature we can infer how slave activity might be reflected in the archaeological


vi record. It offers research methods to assist in obtain ing answers to how is this plantationÂ’s landscape built which might illustrate slavery activity. The thesis also proceeds from the assu mption that Gamble PlantationÂ’s history can be made more complete and relevant to park visitors. Public presentation is critically examined and stakeholders are identified. It concludes with suggestions on how can a more comprehensive and incl usive history can be told.


1 Chapter 1: Introduction Historical Archaeology -as the archaeological study of historically documented time periods -holds a similar ambition to add “t he rest of us” to history and to make the history useful (Little 2007:14). Hearing the heretofore silent men and women of the past seemed to open new vistas of history, and for me, this real ization made histor ical archaeology a deeply relevant subject (Orser 1996:159). Kind! I was dat man’s slave; and he sold my wife, and he sold my two chill’en ... Kind! yes, he gib me corn enough, and he gib me pork enough, and he neber gib me one lick wid de whip, but whar’s my wife? whar’s my chill’en? Take away de pork, I say, take away de corn, I c an work and raise deese for myself, but gib me back de wife of my bosom, and gib me back my poor chill’en as was sold away (unnamed source quoted in Mintz and Kellogg 1988:67). Aims and Purpose of this Study This thesis is a research design that will serve as a baseline for further research and as a more inclusive interpretation at the Judah P. Benjamin Memorial at the Gamble Plantation Historic State Park in Ellenton, Florida. It revi ews the history and archaeology of Robert Gamble's (1843-1858) nineteenth -century enslaved labor-worked sugar plantation, focusing on how the demands of this capitalistic enterprise were expressed in the plantation’s culture and on the landscape. This undertaking is done in order to understand the complexities of the social re lationships and the dynamics of the human lives involved with this plan tation. The thesis reviews th e literature on the archaeology of slavery in the United States and the Cari bbean in order to provi de a critical lens through which, it is hoped, new directions in re search might be seen and conceived. The thesis traces the history of the plantation from a working sugar plantation in the midnineteenth century to its renovation and re -emergence as a memorial commemorating the Confederate Secretary of State, Judah P. Benj amin and as a Florida state park by the early


2 twentieth century where, nowad ays, visitors are taken on gui ded historical tours of the mansion by park rangers and volunteer docents. At the same time, the thesis provides an accounting of the archaeological and historical resources asso ciated with the plantation. In what follows, I critically examine the depi ction of the past in th ese tours and in other ways history is represented at the park. I do so in order that mo re of the plantation’s history – and a more complete history – mi ght be known and become more relevant to today’s park visitors and potential visitors. In the history and ar chaeology of the Gamble Plantation, and in the historic representations at the park, the emphasis has largely been focused on the person and accomplishments of the plantation owner Robert Gamble, his family, and Judah P. Benjamin. Missing, to a large extent, is a consideration of the number of enslaved African Americans who fo rmed the core of th e nineteenth-century plantation’s labor force, who cleared the dens e Florida forests, who tilled the cane fields, harvested and processed the sugar cane in the boiling house and sugar mill, and whose labor erected the buildings th at are now part of the park’s memorialized landscape. Almost nothing is known about or depicted of their lives, the hardships they confronted, how and where they lived, their relationships of kinship and family, and the way they worshipped their gods. The thesis is motivated by the following main research question: What was the nature of slaver y on the Gamble Plantation? Subsidiary questions include the following: How was sl avery evident in the plantation landscape? What were the day-to-day lifeways and activ ities of the enslaved labor force on the Gamble Plantation and how can these be recovere d in the present? What, in other words, can be reconstructed as “anthropology of sl avery” on the Gamble Plantation and how can that information be made relevant? This th esis also examines the question: Who are the


3 stakeholders in today’s memorial and park? And it concludes with the question: How can a more comprehensive and incl usive history be told there? The answers to these questions revolve around an integration of historical and archaeological approaches that I advocate here. The Histor ic Sites Acts of 1935 passage offered opportunities for historia ns and archaeologists to wo rk together. Historical archaeology’s initial goal was public edu cation and interpretation. Dubbed as the handmaiden of history in its formative years, it provided details about the architecture and landscapes of famous people and places. It offers opportuni ties to study people documented in recent American history and is a means in which we can learn about ourselves (Orser and Fagan 1995:5). Over time, the discipline became its own subfield of archaeology with the goal s developing beyond interpretation and reconstruction to include challenging documentary supported hist ory, reconstruction of cultural lifeways, development of archaeological methods, and anthropologically examining modernity and globalization: As one of the humanities, (like history) historical archaeology seeks knowledge and understanding to gain insight into the human conditions. As a social science, (within the broader field of the applied an thropology), historical archaeology’s goals are to systematically investigate, describe, and explain human behavior. As part of anthropology, histor ical archaeology is becomi ng closely aligned with applied anthropology, which seeks to apply th e lessons of research to real world issues. [Little 2007: 21] Historical archaeology also borrows from other disciplines in the humanities. The literary criticism term “close read” can refer to how one can cull from primary sources information that can augment data obtai ned from the archaeological record. Deagan offers a point that is useful to the study of slave plantations: She says that the use of historical data alone for interp retation allowed for representation of “a one


4 sided view of colonialism a nd capitalism” (Deagan 1998:54). Often the historical records were written by biased Euro-American author s with “class-centered purposes in the complex societies” (Leone 1996:131). Th e non-literate voices were overlooked. These biased records often times do not illustrate a sense of connections, complexities, and dynamics in an American history that is fill ed with inequalities. Through the discipline of historical archaeology, we can anthr opologically examine the struggles of the nonliterate, disenfranchised, and undocumented silent voices that have been erased from their histories. It offers insight into the daily lives of people that have been forgotten or politically ignored and would not have app eared in historical documents. Hicks and Beaudry (2006:3) illustrate this benefit in their introduction to the Cambridge Companion of Historical Archaeology They write: In all cases, historical archaeologist bring awareness of how much of daily life remains undocumented, unspoken, and yet is far from insignificant and often leaves material traces. [Hicks and Beaudry 2006: 3] Much of the plantation histor y of the Judah P. Benjamin Memorial at the Gamble Plantation Historic State Park has been lost. However, historical archaeology can provide meaning and significance to the “material traces ” to which Hicks and Beaudry refer. As we will see, plantation archaeology has come a long way since its inception with the work of Charles Fairbanks in the late 1960s Such that Ferguson is able to write (1992:xxxvi): “the archaeological record is abou t as close to the slave’s personal story as we can get.” Yet, historical archaeology ca nnot supply all of the answers. As noted by Singleton, it does not replace historical and oral research. She writes Historical archaeology is an interdisciplinary pursuit wherein archaeological findings are used in conjunction with written, oral,


5 cartographic, pictorial, and other sour ces to gain insight into the past. [2006:269] A benefit of blending archaeology and hist ory is the shift from the study of the social elite to allowing us to view history as a “two side d version of cultural contact” (Deagan 1998: 54). Why is all of this important? History is recreated with every presentation about the past at the Judah P. Benjamin Memorial at the Gamble Plantation Historic State Park. But this presentation is incomplete. Planta tion archaeology studies offer “a microcosm of the broader society"(Wilke 2004: 110) and it is important to incorporate this data in public presentation. Embedded within nationalism is the deep seeded need to narrate the past in iconic presentations. Frequently, planta tion museum settings create heroes of plantation owners and their elite society while diminishing or eliminating altogether the multi-vocality of other members of the commun ity within the historical context. A critical theoretical approach opens discussions about slavery as a tool of capitalism. With a dialectic approach, slavery can be viewed with plantation owners, labor can be viewed with profits, and oppression can be viewed with resistance. While public audiences come to plantation museums to hear the stories connected with the famous people, they are entitled to receive the br oader picture. It is important to include all elements of the past. Little clearly stat es this argument: Whether learning about the past takes place in historic places or in the classroom, one of the pervasive ironies of our time is that we insist on editing our understanding of the past, often focusing nearly exclusively on what is judge good or patriotically a ppropriate. But, indeed, how can we expect to learn from the past if we don't see it complete with mistakes and disgraces as well as actions we judged to be heroic? [2002: 11]


6 Misconceptions and half truths about the pa st will continue until the story that is told becomes inclusive and not just a “catalogi ng of planter material culture” (Silpa 2003: 93; Burnham 1995:63). African Americans and ot hers will continue to avoid historical sites that highlight the owner and neglect the histories of th e people who built the mansion, cabins, dependencies, mills, and drainage canals. Today’s visitors at the Gamble Plantation see visible features from the nineteenth century, including the Greek Revival mans ion, the cistern, the four compartment unknown tabby feature, the sugar mill, and re mnants of extensive drainage canals (described in Chapter 4). One of the most not able drainage canals is the large ditch that marks the eastern boundary of the park with a north/south orientation. This canal is the “permanent creek” that twenty years after it s creation Robert Gamble mentions as he wrote about raising sugarcane in Florida. While these drainage canals represent Gamble's slaves’ major modification of the environment to fit his large-scale landscape, they also represent his involvement in a capitalistic enterprise and the slave labor necessary for him to participate within the nine teenth-century global economy. How can this history be told without telling the history of the enslaved laboring population whose work made it all possible? About This Thesis This thesis proceeds from the assumption that this history can be told – through organizing of the known primary documents a nd sources, through a c onsideration of the previous archaeological investigations at the Gamble Plantation, and through a process whereby this information is utilized in historical reconstruc tion in the light of


7 comparative archaeological studies of planta tion slavery in the United States and the Caribbean. The thesis also proceeds from th e assumption that this history can be made more complete and relevant to the visitors to the park. Further, when history is made relevant it will appeal to those potential vi sitors who are at present uninterested or indifferent to the kinds of stor ies presently narrated there. The substance of the thesis begins in chapter 2 where I examine the primary and secondary historical sources to discuss Robert GambleÂ’s Virginian heritage, his familyÂ’s role in the migration of Virginian planters to Middle Florida, Robert GambleÂ’s settlement along the Manatee River, and past ownerships of the plantation. In chapter 3, I situate the Gamble Planta tion in the local environment, and show how Robert Gamble modified the environment so that he could best capitalize on his cash crops that were marketed within the global society. Next, in chapter 4, I provide a detailed de scription of the built environment at the Gamble Plantation, as well as a survey of archaeological investigations of that environment. Chapter 5 reviews the literature on plantati on slavery in the U.S. South and in the Caribbean in order to work toward answers to the research questions posed above. It examines the literature on plantation landscap es in order to best identify areas where slave activity might be found. While direct ev idence of slave lif e at the Gamble Plantation might be scant, through a consideratio n of the literature we can get an idea of how slave activity might be reflected in the archaeological record and of how to best proceed to move forward with archaeological research. It concludes with offering


8 research methods that assist in obtaining answers to how is this plantationÂ’s landscape built. Chapter 6 is a description and critical anal ysis of how the past is presented at the Gamble Plantation and park today. I show how the tours are conducted and the kinds of claims that are made, and that are not made about the past, and then I provide a firsthand account of how the tours might be conducte d in order to provide a more inclusive and critically subversive history. Finally, chapter 7, I ask the politically ch arge question, Archaeology for whom? It introduces a discussion of poten tial stakeholders and in whose interest a more complete history and historical representation will benefit.


9 Chapter 2: A History of the Gamble Plantation “ In 1844 I carried ten of my negro [s ic] men to the river and commenced operations… In 1849 I erected my first set of sugar works; they were of frame; the boiling house 40 x 30 feet, the draini ng-house 60 x 30, the mill-house 30 x 30. [Gamble 1888] The above quote is taken from a historic al narrative written by Robert Gamble thirty years after the sale of the Gamble Pl antation. This narrative is devoted to the description of his experiences as a sugarcane planter in nineteenth century Florida. While this document offers great insight into the di fficulties of raising s ugarcane on the Florida frontier, missing from this document are the na mes, histories, and descriptions of the daily lives of the enslaved people who accomp anied Gamble and help create the Manatee River settlement history. A benefit of Histor ical Archaeology has been the shift from the study of the social elite to an thropologically examining the struggles of the non-literate people erased from their histories. This chapter will discuss Robert Gamble’s Virginian heritage, planter migration to Middle Flor ida, Gamble’s settlement along the Manatee River, and past ownerships of the plantation. Virginian Roots The story of the Gamble family in Vi rginia reads like a novel of European aristocracy transferred to the Virginian plan ter class. His matern al great-grandfather, John Grattan, wealthy prior to his immigrati on from Ireland to Virginia, amassed a fortune in the mill and the mercantile business. John Grattan left Ireland due to religious and governmental intolerance described by J ohn Grattan Gamble (1779-1852) in a family journal as “injustice he deemed he had suffe red at the hands of the Government” (Gamble


10 Family Papers 1898: 2). Grattan “was the first person to cross the Blue Ridge in a carriage” and settled in Rockingham, Vi rginia (Gamble Family Papers 1898:3). He was described by John Grattan Gamble as a firm, cold individual distant from family and society. I can well remember how much of awe his manners impressed upon me in childhood & I have no recollection of ha ving been ever seated on his knee, or of having been caressed by him as a child in the way I feel impelled to caress my Grandchildren. Although I can remember such evidences of affection in our Grandmother. Old ag e and its attendant bodily infirmity did not sweeten these manners & I have suspicion that the marriage of our Aunt Nancy to a man in no respects he r equal was in great degree a wish to seek a more happy times. Mr. Grattan was a man of much consideration in the co untry although personally he held himself aloof from social intercourse except with a few families forming what may be styled the aristocracy of Rockingha m & Augusta. [Gamble Family Papers 1898:6] Robert Gamble’s paternal grandfather, Captain Robert Ga mble (1754-1810), was the son of a successful Virginian farmer. Captain Gamble attended Liberty Hall, known today as Washington and Lee University. He established friendships with politically and socially prominent Virginians early in his li fe. He settled in St aunton, Virginia after completing his education. He joined the pa triots during the Amer ican Revolution and was promoted to the rank of Captain (Schene 1974:9). Captain Gamble formed a prosperous mer cantile partnership in Staunton with his brother-in-law, Robert Grattan following the war. He moved to Richmond, Virginia in 1793 and purchased Greys Castle in 1799. Gr eys Castle was a Georgian style house located on a rise above the James River co mmonly known as Gamble’s Hill (Figure 1) (Schene 1974:11).


11 Figure 1 GambleÂ’s Hill located on th e James River in Richmond, Virginia Captain Gamble dissolved his business part nership with Grattan prior to his move to Richmond and established another prosperous mercantile business with his two sons, John Grattan Gamble and Robert H. Gamble. Captain Gamble reconnected his earlier fr iendships with the Virginian elite after his move to Richmond. His children secured family ties through marriage with members of the elite society. His eldest son, John Grattan Gamble, married Nancy Peyton Greenup, the daughter of KentuckyÂ’s former governor, Christopher Greenup. Robert H., his second son, married Letitia Breckenri dge, General BreckenridgeÂ’s daughter. Elizabeth married William Wirt, Attorney Gene ral for Presidents James Monroe and John Quincy Adams, while Agnes Sarah married W illiam H. Cabell, the Governor of Virginia (Schene 1974:11-4).


12 John Grattan Gamble was educated at Princeton University. He served as secretary to Chief Justice John Marshall in 1797 when Marshall was minister to France. His first wife, a daughter of a wealthy Eng lish merchant, died in Europe in 1810. He married his second wife, Nancy Peyton Gree nup, in 1813 after his return to the United States (Schene 1974:12-13). Robert Gamble, the son of John Grattan Gamble, was born in 1813 at his paternal grandfatherÂ’s house. There he spent most of his childhood until his fatherÂ’s move to Middle Florida in 1827. The Embargo Act of 1807 and the War of 1812 contributed to the ruin of Captain Robert GambleÂ’s RichmondÂ’s mercantile business. John Grattan and Robert H. inherited their fatherÂ’s mercantile business. Partially in an attempt to offset losses incurred in the mercantile business and partially in an atte mpt to capitalize on the planter migration pattern to Middle Florida, the brothers move d family and their slaves to Jefferson County in 1827 (Schene 1974: 15-17, 61-63, 67). Planter Migration to Middle Florida Americans felt confident with rapid west ward expansion following the purchase of Florida through the Adams-Onis Treaty ( 1821). Florida boundari es were initially divided by the Spanish during their second ow nership. When Florida became a U.S. territory, Florida remained informally divide d into three areas. East Florida was bounded by the Atlantic Ocean and the Suwannee Rive r. Middle Florida (Figure 2) was bounded by the Suwannee and the Apalachicola Rivers. Planters preferred Middle Florida for


13 their agricultural enterprises. People were dr awn from as far as the tidewater areas of Maryland to South Carolina in an attempt to replace depleted plan tations with the red clay hills of Middle Florida known as superi or cotton land. The new territory offered speculative ventures, potentia l political careers, and fe rtile lands (Baptist 2002:22; Shofner 1976:16-18; Dovell 1952:322-24). Figure 2 Annotated Map of Middle Florida 1843. (taken from Svekis 2005) Jefferson County historian, Jerrell H. S hofner, presents the Middle Florida frontier settlement as a “crucible of demo cracy” (1976:35). Within this crucible of democracy, a person’s title and class distinct ion did not matter as much as the person’s ability and willingness to face the challenges of wilderness settlement. Self reliance, self confidence, and human equality gave the white settlers the opportunity to advance within the Middle Floridian so cial and economic structure. While this crucible of democracy offered the early Floridian settle rs the opportunity to advance and succeed, members of the social elite with greater fi nancial resources and le tters of introductions found settlement to their advantage.


14 Some of VirginiaÂ’s, MarylandÂ’s, and Ca rolinaÂ’s oldest families were among the original families settling in the Leon and Je fferson Counties. The Gambles were listed with such families as Randall, Randolph, Call, Gadsden, Murat, and Wirt (Dovell 1952: 325; Shofner 1976:17-23; Matthews 1983: 151152; Schafer 1996:213). These families brought with them their ideology based on the plantation system and frequently continued a lifestyle much like the ones left behi nd (Shofner 1976:35). With this move many perspective Middle Florida planters forced thei r slaves to migrate as well. The Gamble brothers were no exception. They brought thei r families, bags, carts, mules, and their Virginian slaves. The plantation system allowed for planters to control the political, social, and economic arenas of the newly forming te rritory (Baptist 2002:4 ; Dovell 1952: 322; Shofner 1976:85). Though some of the Florida planters held other professions, social status was attained through pl antation ownership. Membership in the political arena was near impossible without owners hip of land and slaves. A nd those public officials who did not own plantations were aware of the social and econom ic needs of the planters (Matthews 1983:151; Dovell 1952: 332). Planters assumed economic control of Fl orida. The basis of the economy in Middle Florida was the agriculture producti on of cotton, tobacco, and sugarcane that was sold on the global market (Baptist 2002:21; Shofner 1976:85). Cotton was the primary cash crop. FloridaÂ’s climate and soil promoted extremes in cotton growth. Dovell argues that Sea Island co tton stalks reached ten to tw elve feet in height with planters receiving triple the prices compared to standard southern cotton prices (Dovell


15 1952: 321-364). However, Florida planters never realized the potential of cotton agriculture due to the overpr oduction of cotton (Dovell 1952:363). John Grattan Gamble and Robert H. Gamb le purchased land in Middle Florida for themselves, their brother-in-law William Wirt, and Maryland friend and relative through marriage, Thomas Randall in 1826. William WirtÂ’s interest and subsequent purchase of property promoted the growth of Middle Florida due to his position as the Attorney General of the Un ited States (Shofner 1976:21). Robert H. Gamble arrived in Jefferson County in 1826 and established Weelaunee Plantation. His cash crops varied over th e years from cotton, tobacco, and sugarcane John Grattan Gamble arrived in Tallahassee wi th his family and slaves on December 24, 1827. He moved to Jefferson County on Ch ristmas Day where he established Waukeenah Plantation. The Gamble brothe rs extended their land purchases from 800 and 600 acres (respectively) to own title to 10,000 acres of valuable land. Through successful land acquisitions they positioned th emselves to control future county land purchases and politics in two-thirds of the township (Shofner 1976:26-27). Some sugarcane plantations flourished on th e east coast of Florida prior to the Second Seminole War (1835-1842). These plantations were destroyed by the Seminoles during the War and the east coas t sugar production never recovered (Dovell 1952: 329). Middle Florida proved to be poorly su ited for growing sugarcane due to the short growing seasons and the initial cost of the sugar processing equipment (Shofner 1976: 85-88). John Grattan Gamble and his br other, Robert H Gamb le, are listed as some of the few Middle Florida planters w ho invested in the installation of sugar


16 refinery equipment to make sugar, molasses, and rum (1976: 85-88). Robert H. Gamble invested large sums of money devoted to sugarcane agriculture. He purchased large tracts of land, sugar refinery equipment, a nd augmented his initial force of 87 Virginian slaves to a total of 108 slaves. The sugar re finery included a brick furnace, large boiling pans, and a method for separating the molasse s from the sugar. Rum was made from the residue. Skilled white laborers were utilized to build and repair the refinery. Bricks were made on site in a kiln that was c onstructed in 1833. Hogsheads for storing the sugar were made in the plantation cooperage Water from the Welaunee Creek powered the saw and grist mill (Shofner 1976: 87). By the mid-1830Â’s the risks involved with sugarcane agriculture caused planters to abandon it as a cash cr op though cultivation for private consumption continued. Even though the 1844-45 drop in cotton prices rekindled an interest in s ugarcane agriculture, it was neve r again considered a major cash crop in Middle Florida. Tobacco agriculture for cigar wrappers was also a cash crop on the GamblesÂ’ plantations in the 1840s. Robert H. Gamble started as early as 1834 growing tobacco but it took until 1844 and GambleÂ’s sale of $20.00 per 100 pounds of tobacco before other Middle Floridians began to have an inte rest in growing tobacco. West Indian and Cuban tobacconists familiar with tobacco cu ltivation were introduced to help the planters in this venture. Cigars made on GambleÂ’s planta tion were sold to purchasers Birtchett and Sunderburger in Tallahassee and John T. Farish in New York. GambleÂ’s production exceeded hundreds of thousands of cigars throughout the 1840s (Shofner 1976: 116). Tobacco agriculture in Middle Fl orida ended by the time of the Civil War (Shofner 1976:476).


17 Planters lead the social li fe that thrived in Middle Florida (Matthews 1983:151; Shofner 1976: 41; Dovell 1952: 333). They util ized fashionable hospitality to welcome other equal upper class Floridians and travel ers to their homes. Even with the class mobility noted among the early Middle Florida settlers, there was a clear avoidance of social contact with lesser class members known as the “crackers” (Shofner 1976:41). Many of the tidewater planters brought w ith them their cultural landscape ideals to Middle Florida and modified the environmen t to fit their cultural landscape. Shortly after the Gamble brothers’ arrival they cleared the land for agriculture in the “Virginian style” (Shofner 1976:30). This Virginia n style required the removal of “nearly everything from the field” (1976:30). What tr ees that were not utilized for construction of buildings and fences were either burned or girdled. Gang slave labor provided the necessary work force to clear, fence, and pl ant. Thomas Randall’s gang prepared over 50 acres in three months (1976: 30). Robert H. Gamble’s slaves drained a 250-acre pond to obtain an already cleared fiel d. Gamble had slaves prepare the land for sugarcane by housing cattle on the fields during the winter season prior to planting. The Union Bank was chartered in 1833. Declared a major blessing by many Middle Floridians in 1835 it would later become the downfall of many of the planters in the 1840s. John Grattan Gamble was elected bank president. The bank issued territorial bonds to supplement money used for loans. These territorial bonds bore a maximum of six percent interest and were sold internati onally in order to rais e the necessary operating funds. Loans were secured by Middle Florid a lands and this speculative investment appeared safe. Shareholders used their land, slaves, and othe r assets as collateral as an


18 option for paying for stock. Stockholders coul d borrow a maximum of two-thirds of their bank stock. Three month residency in the territo ry was the only requir ement needed to be a stockholder. Within the first year Ga mble sold $1 million of stock and $500,000 of territorial bonds. Robert H. Gamble wa s the largest stockholder worth $83,000 followed by John Grattan Gamble with $75,000 (Shofner 1976:108). The planters expected the Union Bank to prosper. Funds borrowed on the stock allowed Robert H. Gamble to purchase an a dditional two groups of slaves to augment his working force. John Grattan Gamble purch ased Neamathla Plan tation in Leon County and the slave force to work it. However, the panic of 1837 and the ensuing national depression, unsound loaning procedures, fluc tuating cotton pri ces, and the Second Seminole War destroyed chances of prospe rity. The Union Bank suspended specie payment during the 1837 panic. The depression that affected the rest of the county hit Florida later and lasted longer. All Floridians were affected by problems that confronted the banks. Many of the debtors defaulted on their bank payments. The Union Bank had only $13,000 in reserve specie with $550,000 in circulation by 1840. Expenditures for travel and supplies to the north were prohi bitive. John Grattan Gamble paid $3.33 for every dollar spent on John Jr.Â’s northern medical education (Shofner 1976:110-111). To add to the problems experienced by the Floridians, they also faced uncontrollable natural disasters. Middle Florida crops were de stroyed in the 1839 drought. A yellow fever epidemic hit Tallahassee in 1841. Two seve re storms (1842 and 1843) swept through Middle Florida and damaged crops in Madison, Leon, and Jefferson Counties. The 1843 storm did little destruction to Tallahassee though, because the town had already been severely damaged by fire earlie r that year. Success of the bank debtors was the only way


19 the bank could survive. However, by 1843 the bank had to institute law suits across Middle Florida for the defaulted payments because few planters recovered from the losses that occurred from the 1836 cotton overproduction and mark et decline, the economic downturn, and the unforeseen natu ral disasters (Shofner 1976:111; Schene 1974: 64-65). The Armed Occupation Act of 1842 The Manatee River settlement was a re sult of The Armed Occupation Act of 1842. The Act granted 160 acres of unsettled land north of Palatka and south of Newnansville to heads of families who could obt ain a permit, build a house, cultivate five acres of land, and maintain the residence for five consecutive years (Matthews 1983:128; Dovell 1952:234). This Act allowed for the set tlement of the Florida frontier with armed occupationists. The cost and time devoted to the Second Seminole War (1835-1842) had been disastrous for the United States and th e passage of the Act was intended to push the remaining groups of Seminole further south into the Everglades or to encourage them to emigrate west (Brown 1999:84). While the Armed Occupation Act attracted many subsistence farmers, merchants, professionals, military men, fishermen, and skilled craft people, there were a few Middle Florida planters who utilized the Act as a method to recuperate lost family fortunes (Matthews 1983: 129-47). Like the Middle Florida migratio n of the 1820s, the planters, such as Joseph and Hector Braden, Willia m Pinkston Craig, William Wyatt, and the Gamble brothers, Robert, John Jr., and William, expanded to the frontier with economical, political, and social motivations They viewed the rich hammocks known


20 for its light sandy soil and the temperate c limate as ideal land for sugarcane (Dovell 1952:416; Matthews 1983:149; Rivers 2000:98; Rolla nd et al. 2004: 3-8). They created sugarcane plantations along the Manatee Ri ver in the newly opened South Florida frontier. Slaves provided the labor necessary for these owners to participate within the global market of sugar and molasses producti on. Oaks harvested for shipment on these plantations also contributed to the planterÂ’s income. These agricultural products were shipped to New Orleans, St. Mark s, Florida, and New York City. Relationships between the planters existed prior to their move to the Manatee River area. While the Bradens (Joseph and H ector) originated from Virginia and moved to Middle Florida, it is unknown if they had connections with the Gambles prior to their move to Middle Florida. Th eir relationships were well cemented in Middle Florida though. John Grattan Gamble was president of the Union Bank while Hector Braden, a prominent lawyer, held the position of dir ector of the bank. Historian, Janet Snyder Matthews, speculates that the social contacts held by the Gamble Family while in Middle Florida continued following Robert GambleÂ’s move to the Manatee River area (1983: 152-5). Samuel Reid, one of the government surve yors, assisted in the land division along the Manatee River in 1843. He recorded hi s observations of large ponds and first rate hammocks as he surveyed sections eight a nd seventeen in township thirty-four south, range eighteen east. ReidÂ’s observations and measurements were later published as the township map (Rolland et al. 2004:3-8). Thes e observations were noted about land that Gamble would later own.


21 Six thousand acres along th e Manatee River/Sarasota Bay were choice areas for settlement. One hundred permits were gran ted to Hillsborough County that included the Manatee River area (Dovell 1952:424). Fift y claims were filed for lands along the Manatee River and Sarasota Bay (Rolland et al. 2004:3-8). Th e riverbank hammocks were selected for tight settlement clusters with more claims on the north side of the Manatee River noted than on the south (Matthews 1983:129). When Robert Gamble arrived in 1844 with ten male slaves other Armed Occupationists were already present. He em ployed a skilled brick mason to direct and train his slaves (Gamble 1888; Matthews 1983:152; Schene 1974:28-29). He filed for preemptive status for his home on March 12, 1846 (Matthews 1983: 154). Gamble did not receive free land from the government. Instead, he purchased land acquisitions from other occupationists fo r $1.25 per acre. His initial purchase was the northwest quarter and lot two of sect ion seventeen, Township 34 South, Range 18 East which amounted to 207.60 acres. He er ected the mansion on this parcel. His brother, Dr. John Gamble, Jr., attained the western half of section eight, Township 34 South, Range 18 East which totaled 320 acres (Matthews 1983: 149-152; Rolland et al. 2004: 3-8). This area was the site of Gamble Â’s first sugar mill and the combined total acreage exceeded 500. Over time Robert Gamb le and his brothers, John Jr., and William acquired 3450 acres of non-contiguous land on the north and south side of the Manatee River for a total investment of $10,000 (S chene 1974:35; Matthews 1983: 154-156). GambleÂ’s cash crop was sugarcane though he grew corn, sweet potatoes, grapes, citrus, and guava (Matthews 1983:154). In addition to the sugarcane, oak timber


22 harvested on the north and sout h sides of the Manatee River were sent to New York for shipbuilding. Palms were shipped to the Texas Gulf for building wharfs. He was known to compost bagasse, manure, and trash on future planting sites and probably, like his uncle, also penned cattle on these future sugarcane fields. While sugarcane requires tremendous amounts of wa ter during its growi ng season, it does not thrive if its roots sit in water. Gamble had his slaves clear the dense hammocks for cultivation and drain the wetla nds by constructing sixteen mile s of drainage canals which included the creation of a “perma nent creek” (Gamble 1988). His first sugarcane harvest was in 1849. Un fortunately, fire destroyed the harvest, the crops in the fields, and his wooden sugar mill. Gamble was paid $15,000 in insurance money and rebuilt his mill by 1850 but this time he constructed it of red brick and tabby By late arrival from Manitee, [sic] South Florida, we were sorry to learn of the entire destruction by fire of the sugar works upon the plantation of Col John G. Gamble, of this city. The fire was accidental, and, although every precaution was thought to be taken, it had made considerable progress before it was discovered. The engi ne, and appurtenances, the buildings, some eighty hogsheads of sugar, a quant ity of molasses, staves, &c., were destroyed. Insurance to the amount of $15,000 had been effected at New Orleans, but still the loss to Col. Ga mble is heavy, amounting, as he thinks to some $5,000. On the same night th e sugar works of Mr. Gates, in the Manitee [sic] settlement were also destroyed, and no doubt by accident. Mr. Gates works were much smaller, and the extent of his loss is not stated. [Tallahassee Floridian and Journal, 24 February 1849] This short column, when read closely, re veals information that is not available about the plantation operations. If every pr ecaution was taken, then how did the fire start? Was it a fluke thunder storm that occurred during the Florida winter months? While one fire is plausible as accidental, it is difficult to perceive that at two separate


23 locations these fires erupted accidentally in the same even ing. Was it slav e carelessness because of exhaustion? Are we, in the 21st century, witnessing slave resistance either through feigned ignorance or deliberate arson that was not recorded by the dominant society? Did these fires start out as controlled fires ordered by the masters that went out of control? Of interest is that John Grattan Gamble is credited for the plantation ownership and not Robert Gamble. The insurance company awarded Gamble $15,000 for damages. Presumably, this large infusion of money funded the rebuilding a nd the new machinery for the mill. Schene argues that while the new sugar refinery and equipment cost Gamble $25,000, the land cost $5,000 and the slaves cost $53,000, Gamble still netted a profit of $9,000 a year later in 1850 (Schene 1974: 54) The harvest yielded 230 hogsheads of sugar and 10,000 gallons of molasses with 320 acres under cultivation by 89 slaves (Matthews 1983:163; Schene 1974:54). This harvest was a 287.5 % increase over the previous year. Beyond all that is mentioned, it must be ta ken into considera tion that brick and tabby were utilized to rebuild this mill. Red brick requires kiln firing while tabby air dries over six to eighteen months. Additionally, crop replanting to mitigate the loss of the damaged fields and the amount of work required for Gamble to achieve a 287.5% increase would indicate that slave labor for the year 1849-1850 was intensive.


24 In addition to the 1849 fire, Gamble’s success was marred by hurricanes, poor business decisions, and a fluctuating sugar market. He faced two hurricanes, 1846 and 1848. His brother William was killed on the Manatee River during the 1848 hurricane. Several days of frost in 1851 damaged the s ugarcane crop which resu lted with a drop in one-third of the harvest. The planta tion exceeded the 1850 harvest in 1852 and 1853 which encouraged Gamble to expand his cu ltivated areas and augment his labor force (Gamble 1888:28; Matthews 1983:165). One of the few extant documents written by Ga mble is an article titled "Florida as a Sugar State”. This article covers Gamble’s life as a sugarcane planter thirty years earlier and offers insight into the plantation and its function that includes labor performed by the slaves, and the impediments encountered on the Manatee River frontier. A copy of it is located in the Appendix of this thesis. Gamble also wrote an article title d “Florida Ship Canal” for the DeBrow’s Southern and Western Review promoting the construction of a canal between the Indian River and Tampa Bay. The canal would have fa cilitated a direct sh ipping route to the Atlantic seaboard (Rolla nd et al. 2004: 3-26). John Grattan Gamble died in 1852 and Robert Gamble was made executor of his father’s estate. Robert Gamble spent a cons iderable amount of time in Tallahassee as he attempted to manage his father’s Le on and Jefferson County estates. The Third Seminole War (1855-1858) forced Robert Gamble to arm his slaves (Brown 1991:106-107; Matthews 1983: 211, 213, 291). Though Gamble never


25 experienced any attack at his plantation, the home of fellow planter and friend, Dr. Joseph Braden, was raided on March 31, 1856 by a small Seminole war party (Camp 1979: 55-60; Matthews 1983:224). The Seminoles stole some of Braden’s slaves and miscellaneous spoils during the invasion. During this time period, a small military group consisting of a sergeant, a corporal, and eightee n privates were stati oned on the plantation (Matthews 1983:234). Additionally, sugarcane mark et prices dropped to less than seven cent per pound throughout the 1850’s. Cost to the sugarcane planters averaged between four and six cents per pound to produce the sugar. The “ideal” one cent per pound profit margin did not include losses from weather fluctuations equipment repairs, and other unforeseen expenses. Financially secure planters poten tially could have ridde n out the fluctuating sugar market but by 1852 Gamble had alrea dy mortgaged his property and slaves. The credit firm, McConochie & Donne l of New Orleans, foreclosed on a portion of Gamble’s property for an overdue note of $5,000 in 1852. Additional foreclosure proceedings were brought against him in 1854 by the R.L. Maitland & Company, also of New Orleans (Rolland et al. 2004:3-24). Gamble moved to Tallahassee in 1856 a nd left Allan MacFarlan, his brother-inlaw, in charge of the plantation (Schene 1972:56). MacFarlan assumed the mortgages and ownership of the plantation. Nathaniel P. Hunter served as plantation overseer for both Gamble and MacFarlane (Matthews 1983:238; Rolland et al.2004:3-28). Despite these attempts to save the plantation, the Gambles were forced to sell. On December 18, 1858, the estate of John Grattan and Nancy P. Gamble, Robert Gamble, Catharine


26 Gamble Hagner, and Allan MacFarlan sold the 3450 acres to the part nership of Louisiana sugar planters John Cofield and Robert Davi s for $190,000. Included in the sale was “the sugar house and other improvements and with the machinery, engines, saw mills, grist mills, dwelling houses, and other improvement s” and “ all the mules, oxen, cattle, wagons, carts and farming utensils of every description” (Deed Book A, p.78-81, Clerk of Court Manatee County Courthouse). The 185 slaves were listed individually by name and assigned sale number. Of the 185 slaves sold, forty-one came from the Nehamathla Plantation in Leon County. John Cofield was born in North Carolina in 1812 and moved to New Orleans in 1837 where he established a plantation. He me t Robert McGuinn Davis, a New Orleans banker, and formed a partnership in the 1850s Through that partnership they purchased the Gamble Plantation. Cofield and his wi fe, Ann L., moved to the plantation in 1859 and hire George W. Graham as plantation ove rseer. The plantation increased its number of slaves to a total of 190 by the time of the 1860 Manatee County census. Ninety-eight male and ninety-two female slaves were lis ted under Cofield’s ownership. Rolland et al. (2004:3-46) argue that Cofield and Davis eith er started moving the slaves and equipment to Louisiana or selling them because a year la ter the tax assessor noted only 11 slaves and $10,000 worth of equipment remaining on the plantation. Sugar production reduced to the amount of eighty hogsheads by 1861. It app ears that Cofield and Davis participated in the Florida cattle industry to offset losses accrued from sugar agriculture. In February, 1861 they sold 800 head of cattle to John Curry for $3,700. Cofield returned to Louisiana in 1862.


27 The confederate government commandeered the plantation in the spring of 1862 (Schene 1972:58). Captain Arch ibald McNeill was assigned to the plantation as overseer and lived in the mansion with his family unt il 1873. Sugarcane agri culture continued on the plantation until the Federal troops dest royed the sugar mill in 1864. McNeill also supplied the Confederate government with cat tle and corn produced on the plantation (McDuffee 1961:130, 133; Schene 1972:59; Ma tthews 1983:241, 264-270; Rolland et al. 2004:3:46-47). Allan MacFarlanÂ’s executors fo reclosed on Cofield and Davis in 1871 for non-payment of the mortgage and in 1873 Cofield and Davis lost the plantation. Captain McNeill is also noted for his role in helping the Confederate Secretary of State, Judah P. Benjamin, escape from the Un ited States following the Civil War. Arrest warrants were issued for the Confederate Ca binet. In May, 1865 Judah P. Benjamin arrived at the plantation aski ng for asylum and sought McNeill Â’s assistance to flee to Cuba. McNeill connected Benjamin with bl ockade runner, Captain Frederick Tresca, who lived in the Manatee Village (Davis 2001: 354-356). Benjamin escaped with Captain TrescaÂ’s help to Bimini. From Bimini, Be njamin escaped to Cuba where he secured passage to England. MacFarlan and Gamble maintained intere st in the plantati on during the Cofield and Davis ownership. MacFarla n wrote to George Patten in 1868. His letter contains criticism of McNeillÂ’s farming abilities and th e lack of management skills to prevent the plunder the plantation had received. Dear Sir! Your favor of the 17th Ultimo and 4th Instant have been received. The former reached this wh ilst my official duties absorbed all my attention, and since my return from Charleston in discharge of these


28 duties my health has been such as to prevent my writing. Moreover the statements that you make took me so mu ch by surprise that I felt, as I now feel, at a loss what to do. On yesterday I was consulting with a friend as to the propriety and expediency of sendi ng a special agent to confer with you and if necessary to proceed to Man itee. I fear, the old residents who consider the land exhausted of the elements necessary to make sugar" are utterly ignorant of that which they affirm, and that Captain McNeill "could not make sweet potatoes" indicates to me that Captain McNeill could not make sweet potatoes on the best sw eet potato land in South Carolina or Georgia. It is one of th e best places for making sw eet potatoes that I ever saw and when managing the Estate of Col. Gamble I saved, in one or two years, over fifteen hund red dollars by having a la rge field of potatoes planted in sections at different tim es giving us potatoes of fine quality throughout the entire year, having no tr ouble in saving th em as we dug as we wanted. The other reside nts said then that corn could not be made and yet in the face of this I ma de more than was needed Â… As to the absence of all dema nd for land by purchase, I can only give the opinion that until a few enterp rising settlers take hold and make some improvements, realize the mildness of the climate, prove that by raising stock, fishing and oyster gath ering, cheap living with good health attach to the locality, there will be little or no demand for lands. Besides in this particular case the residents w ho seem to have appropriated nearly everything about the sugar house even the bricks of the chimney, are not yet satisfied with the amount of pl under already had and I have no doubt throw every obstacle and every disc ouragement in the way of parties desiring to purchase. It is a very unusual thing for an agent to disparage the property of his princi pal and it is equally unusua l for a faithful agent to allow the property of his principal to be plundered and destroyed as seems to be the case in this instance. I must confess that I have but little confidence in Captain McNeill and that when I first read your letter my indignation was fully aroused at wh at I believed to be his base misrepresentations and faithless con duct. But I have dwelt long enough on these matters and I now will submit a proposition premising that I still think my original one very low -I w ill agree to take six thousand dollars for the plantation proper, not includi ng the Tierra Ciea tractÂ… [MacFarlan 1868] Instead of the original $6,000.00 asked by MacFarlan, Patten purchased the plantation in December 1873 for $3,000 at public auction (Deed Book A, p.418-423; Matthews 1983:356, 359-360,364).


29 Patten sold some sections of the plantati on for large farm tracts and other sections for housing subdivisions. It is noted in the park tour presentation that Patten named the Township Ellenton after his daughter. In one correspondence to sell the mansion, he describes the condition of the planta tion at the time of his purchase. Â…There had been cleared and cultiv ated by Gamble 1300 acres of which 1000 was planted in sugar cane and 300 in the form of farm products for supplies. At the time of my purchase it had been destroyed by Federal troops from blockading vessels. The s ugar house valued at $100,000 was burned with fences and Negro houses, and the plantation was entirely abandoned. Since my purchase I have laid off and sold many farms of from 10 to 40 acres which have been put into cultivation with vegetables a truck farms of which are also planted with orange trees and cu ltivated between the rows. [Patten 1888] The Patten heirs divided the remaining es tate. Dudley Patten inherited the mansion. In 1895 Dudley Patten built the Vi ctorian house to replace the deteriorating mansion. The mansion was abandoned after the Patten family moved into their new house. The Manatee County ordered the property, which included the mansion and only three acres, to be sold for tax purposes in 1910. James Romeo Wood purchased the property in 1914 for $1,600 and sold the property to Armour Fertilizer Works in 1920. Under the management of the Armour Fertili zer Works the mansion was utilized to house raw manure during composting which contributed to greater deterioration (Almy et al. 2004:3-22). The United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC) raised money to purchase and preserve the mansion. They purchased it in 1925 and donated the propert y to the State of Florida in 1927 as a Confederate memorial dedicated to Benjamin (Baker 1978:7). The


30 mansion’s connection with providing asylum to Benjamin during his escape from the United States was the reason the UDC purchased the house in 1925 and saved it from further deterioration. Oral history taken from one of the park rangers is used to support information about the park’s initial history. Park Ranger, Wayne Godwin, (Godwin, personal communication 2008) started working for the pa rk in the 1970s. He stated that the mansion was utilized as a C onfederate museum with self-g uided tours. Park rangers would collect twenty-five cents from visitors at the mansion’ s doorway. In the late 1970s a tour script was developed a nd interpretive tours replaced the passive self-guided tours. Slavery at the Gamble Plantation There is limited historical and archae ological information left behind that addresses the lives of Gamble’s slaves. Gamb le stated that he entered the Manatee River frontier in 1844 with ten male slaves (Gambl e 1888). He increased the number of his slaves, which included women and children as he expanded the plantation. One hundred eighty–five slaves were listed as property when Gamble sold the plantation in 1858. Alan MacFarlan, Gamble’s brother-in-law responded to George Patten’s inquiry concerning the former Gamble Plantation in 1868. Information about the landscape, and early settlers can be obtained by reading this document. What this document also reveals is a description about the changes in the sl ave quarters’ construction materials utilized during Gamble’s ownership and while unde r the supervision of MacFarlan. As to the fencing there is some difficulty but not such as to be insurmountable. We never had pine ra ils brought down the river but used the pine logs of which doubtless plen ty remain. I fully understand the difficulties about building materials, mo re especially the lumber. As for


31 other material the abundance of she lls and the facilities for making the best lime from oyster shells, houses for dwellings and other purposes can be easy built by Tabi [sic]. Before I took charge the negro [sic] houses were of Palmetto thatched with Palmetto leaves. If we cannot find more evidence from the historical documents, we need to rely on historical archaeology to supply the missi ng information. And our imaginations are needed to supply the logical inferences. Fo r one example of many, we might start in looking for evidence of the slaves and their day to day activitie s where they lived – in the slave residences. Historian Janet Snyder Matt hews states that Gamble erected 57 slave cabins constructed of Palmetto and that ch and tabby (Matthews 1983:169). While multiple archaeological excavations have been conducted on the plantation and its surrounding areas, the archaeology has yet to reveal the slave quarters. Why is it important that the slave quarte rs be found? Historical archaeologists have illustrated that the interior and exteri or areas surrounding the slave cabins can yield important and tangible information about sl ave living conditions (H eath 1999:27-8; Otto 1984:9; Singleton 1991:152). While the trend in archaeology of the African Diaspora is to move away from the study of oppression to a study of freedom that illustrates agency, what would archaeological information tell us about Gamble's enslaved population? Undocumented history supported by archaeologi cal investigation ha s the potential to open new avenues of thought about Gamble's enslaved population and also complicate local histories. Data obtained from slave cabins could provide in sight into the daily lifeways of the enslaved people who have been so sufficiently erased from their history. We will pursue these and other questions in subsequent chapters.


32 Conclusion This chapter examined Robert GambleÂ’s history starting from his Virginian roots and traces his path to Middle Florida, hi s settlement along the Manatee River to his eventual return to Tallahassee in 1856. Prim ary and secondary historical sources reveal information about the Gamble family movement yet remain silent about the slaves that the Gambles forced to migrate from Virginia to Middle Florida. It is unknown if some of these original Virginian slaves were include d in Robert GambleÂ’s move to the Manatee River. We do know that the slaves at the Manatee River plantation experienced instability due to the management of multiple owners and overseers prior to their final pre-Civil War forced migration to New Orleans. It is speculated that the slaves were either sold in Louisiana or integrated on other sugarcan e plantations owned by Cofield and Davis. Slaves experienced the harsh re alities of plantersÂ’ cap italistic endeavors on sugarcane plantations, especially in the Caribbean and Louisiana. In chapter five, this thesis reviews the historical and archaeological literature concerning slavery. Aspects of labor on sugarcane plantations in the Caribb ean and Louisiana are discussed. It draws from other archaeological models that ha ve examined slave lifeways and creates inferences of potential results that can be anticipated fr om archaeology at the Gamble Plantation. It is hoped that through archaeological research a broader version of Gamble PlantationÂ’s history which w ill include the slavesÂ’ histories can be brought forward. The next chapter examines Gamble PlantationÂ’s local environment. Environmental factors impact settlement vi ability. Humans modify the environment conducive for settlement. Evidence of sl ave activity can be revealed through the examination of environment.


33 Chapter 3: The Gamble Plantation in the Local Environment Environmental factors can determine the li ving and cultural viab ility of a site. Changes in the environment including climate, vegetation, and fauna can encourage favorable human activity while adverse condi tions may not sustain occupation. Humans are known for modifying the environment to meet their needs. Shared communal contacts are reflected within the landscape and frequently, the expressed landscape and environment influences the communa l activities (Winberry 1997:11). Robert GambleÂ’s imperative was to part icipate in the economic enterprise of global exportation of primarily sugar and molasses and second arily oak timber. When he wrote about the plantation, he described the land as very wet and in need of an extensive drainage system in order to grow sugarcane. That this work was undertaken indicates the presence of enslaved labor, but not in any straightforward or unprobl ematic way. Thus, it is important to understand the human-environm ent interaction in order to answer our research questions regarding slav ery at the Gamble Plantation. Humans leave behind traces of their pr esence. Some of the traces become conscious reminders of the past and highlight stories of their creato rs. Other traces are sometimes dropped or discarded as people a ssumed their daily lives. Some features deteriorate with age and collapse upon themselves as time passes. Either way remnants of human stories are left behind for future generations to tease out the tangled web of obvious and hidden histories. In order to understand the circumstances of a place, it becomes necessary to catch the im age of the present like a single exposure of a picture.


34 FloridaÂ’s Environment Florida is divided into te n physiographic sections. These sections are further divided into districts and subdi stricts. The Central Highla nds, the Tallahassee Hills, the Marianna Lowlands, the Western Highlands and the Costal Lowlands constitute the natural topographic divisions (USDA 1981:2). Ellenton, Florida lies in the area referred to as the DeSoto Slope. The DeSoto area lie s within the broad coastal region of Tampa Bay and the Manatee River. The subdistrict ha s broad coastal plains that are disrupted by swamps and drainage systems subject to ar eas of wet prairies, flatwoods and cypress swamps (Rolland et al.2004: 2-1). The climate of the Manatee River area is subtropical. Its close proximity to the Gulf of Mexico and low eleva tions influences the temperatur e. Thus, it is characterized by high relative humidity, long summers and shor t warm winters. The Gulf of Mexico tempers the climate and protects the area from winter frost. The warm moist environment is conducive for ag riculture including winter ve getables and citrus (USDA 1981:1). Winter temperatures that fall below freez ing levels are confined more to the eastern sections of Manatee County. Areas around bodies of water are considered frost free and are suitable for growing cut flower s, tomatoes, cabbage, peppers, escarole, lettuce, cucumbers, eggplant, and celery. Summer temperatures can reach above 95 degrees with afternoon thunderstorms cooling the air (USDA 1981:1).


35 Soil Table 1 describes the plantationÂ’s and the surrounding areaÂ’s soil. The soil matrixes consist of EauGaille-Waba sso-Bradenton-Chobee complex found most frequently in Manatee County. These soils ar e characterized as n early level sandy soils with poor to very poor drainage. Present w ould be broad flatwoods with scatterings of seasonal ponds. Natural vegetation would in clude South Florida slash pine, live oak, huckleberry, water oak, cabbage palm, and sa wpalmetto. In low depression areas the natural vegetation would consist of sawgrass, maidencane, cypress, willow, St. Johnswort and sedges. Table 1 Map Unit Legend for Manatee County, Fl orida (FL081) (Courtesy of USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service 2008:9) CHURCH Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI* Percent of AOI 5 Bradenton fine sand, limestone substratum 3.4 10.3% 13 Chobee loamy fine sand 1.3 3.8% 20 EauGallie fine sand 27.8 83.8% 48 Wabasso fine sand 0.7 2.0% Totals for AOI 33.1 100.0% *Area of Investigation. The largest percentage of soil found on the park mansion area is EauGaille. The five inch surface layer is very dark gray fine sand. The subsurface is grayish brown while the subsoil layer is black fine sand. The lower layer is grayish brown sandy clay with the substratum consisting of grayish brown fine sand, loamy fine sand, and fine


36 sandy loam (USDA 1981:23). The water table is noted at 10 inches below surface during the rainy season and at 40 inches below surface during the dry season. Bradenton fine sand is second largest percentage of soil present on the park mansion area. It is located in the low-lying ridges and hammocks. It is a poorly draining soil. The 6 inch surface layer is dark gray fi ne sand. An 11 inch subsurface layer is noted as grayish brown fine sand with the lower 2 in ches noted as brown fine sand. The subsoil is a sandy loam for 47 inches. Limestone w ith fractures and solution holes is noted below the subsoil. This soil is suitable fo r fruit and vegetable agriculture, especially citrus (USDA 1981:15). Chobee loamy fine sand is found in the park area. It is near ly level and very poorly drained in small to large depressions. The 8 inch surface is black loamy soil. A 43 inch subsurface layer is noted as sandy clay. The substrat um is calcerous gray loamy fine sand. Its natural vegetation ranges from red maple, water oak, cabbage palm, ferns, and water tolerant grasses. Chobee loamy fine sand is locate d in the northeast corner of the property in the vicinity of the eastern drainage canal and in the sugar mill parcel. Wabasso fine sand is lowest percentage of soil found in the park area. It is also nearly level and poorly draining. Due to its wetness, it is poo rly suited for crop cultivation, especially citrus agriculture unless water drainage systems are installed. The 7 inch surface layer is very dark gray fine sand. The subsurface layer is 28 inches of fine sand coated with organic matter. Beneath the fine sand layer is a 37 inch layer of brown fine sand. Grayish brown to gray loamy mate rial is noted in the next 65 inches. Its natural vegetation ranges from long leaf pine s, cabbage palms, sawpalmetto, wax myrtle,


37 huckleberry, and running oak. Wa basso fine sand is located in the southeastern section of the property near the eas tern drainage canal. The sugar mill parcel consists of th e same Wabasso-Bradenton-EauGaille soil complex. Two pockets of Chobee are noted on the twenty acres. Rolland et al. (2003:21) note that ponds located at the sugar mill site were great ly modified to hold water. The Manatee River The Tampa Bay and Manatee River Region were areas of speculation for future plantation developments as early as 1821. Th e rich hammocks adaptable for agriculture and easy access to the Manatee River drew planter attention to the potential economic gain through cash crop cultivation and expor tation (Brown 1999:7; Silpa 2003:43). The location of the Manatee River area offered beneficial climate and marl soils to grow higher yields of sugarcane which also carried higher returns at the global market. The Manatee River feeds into the Tampa Bay at the west and is composed of brackish water. It converges with the fresh water Braden River to the east. Gamble describes the Manatee River in a letter to George Patten writt en in May 1868. He writes: The River is one of the most beautiful I know, being indeed as far as the settlement is concerned an arm of the sea, the mouth is six miles due west from my former residence, emptying into Tampa Bay due east from the entrance to the bay at Egmont Island! The width of the River varies in that distance from one to one Â’half miles. Schooners can lay and take in cargo drawing 71/2 to 8 feet 100 yards from the landing which is within three hundred yards of the residenc e & three miles lower down a vessel drawing 10 1/2 feet can rece ive her cargo. [Gamble 1868]


38 Mangroves and other flora grow along the shallow edges of the river. Abundant estuarine life has contributed to the settlement of pre-hist oric and historic populations inhabiting the area (Schwadron 2002:17). Oyst er mounds located on the north and south sides of the river are visible evidence of prehistoric populatio ns. Historical data reveal that Cuban and Florida born fishermen estab lished fishing ranchos along the coastline for the export of fish to Cuba as early as 1740 (Matthews 1983: 73-74; Schwadron 2002:5051). Private residences and business now populat e many sections of the riverÂ’s edges. The Lures of Manatee (McDuffee 1961) is a history book that focuses on the settlement of the Manatee River area. McDuffeeÂ’s book contains a great deal of historical information concerning members of the Manatee River settlement including quotations. Unfortunately, her data are totally non-supported. Her book notes the utilitarian benefit as well as the charm the river offers (McDuffee 1961). McDuffeeÂ’s description of the rive r illustrates its romantic appeal while underscoring its role in transportation. Settlement of the Manatee Ri ver area and further in land required the river or horseback for movement because of the lack of practical roads a nd rail transportation. The roads on the Florida frontier were cart tracks in sand and carriage travel was impractical and difficult (Dovell 1952:327) McDuffeeÂ’s states this fact. Back in the days before the coming of railroads and the more recent network of fine paved highways, the river served this remote community as its broad highway of traffic-the artery of transpor tation through which flowed the products of this section to the ou tside world. [McDuffee 1961:11]. Settlement beyond the Gulf of Mexico coastlin e would have been delayed, difficult, and isolated without the river as a means for sh ipping and communicati on. Letters, news, and


39 supplies were shipped from St. Marks, Flor ida to the budding Manatee River settlement every six weeks (Matthews 1983: 167). Planters utilized the river b ecause of its easy access to the Gulf of Mexico to ship their products to New Orleans (Matthews 1983: 149). While Gamble chose land that required extensive drainage, its location on th e river and easy access to the Gulf allowed for a means of transportation of his cash crops to New Orleans, the Gulf Coast of Texas, and New York City. The property’s loca tion outweighed the manual cost of wetland drainage provided through slave labor. Th is land required the construction of sixteen miles of drainage canals which included th e creation of a “permanent creek” (Gamble 1988) provided by intensive slave labor for Ga mble to realize high sugarcane harvest. Confronting the Environment Gamble wrote an article titled “F lorida as a Sugar State” for the Tallahassee Floridian in 1888 about his experiences as a sugarcane planter. The article reveals a wealth of information about the topography and soils that Gamble encountered on his property. The topography of these lands was very peculiar, the base being limestone, superimposed upon which we re various beds of marl, and upon this a strata of chocolate colored ar gillaceous soil, filled with finely attriterated fosil [sic] bone of the ma natee, and also many entire ribs of this mammal completely petrified; th is constituted the true soil, but upon this was the surface soil, sand and vegetable matter. This substratum of limestone was dense in innumerable places, forming basins or ponds varying from one-fourth acre to six or eight acres. During the rainy season the ponds were filled and were gra dually depleted by evaporation the succeeding dry season. The soil in th ese ponds was a rich unctuous muck approaching to clay in texture, while all the lands which lay between them and above their high water mark, was the usual light soil, with the chocolate soil described above. Between these rich lands an d the river, on


40 the south, was a small sand prairie, acting as a dam and effectually preventing the escape of the heavy rainfall of our rainy season. Running my level over the tract determined the lowest point touching the prairie. From this point I started my system of ditches, the main trunks running north and south, and east and west, but dug to different levels, according to the profile of the lands, to avoi d unnecessary depths of the ditches. These ditches, in the hammock, varied from one foot wide, one and –ahalf deep to 4 feet wide and ---deep, the larger di tches being excavated for three or four feet of the depth thro ugh a kind of hard co ncrete shell; in other places through limestone, requi ring the use of gunpowder. The lineal length of these ditches, great and small, was sixteen miles, and the ditch or canal across the prairie was, in its widest part, 20 feet, and in its deepest, 9 feet. In fact, I created a pe rmanent creek which ru ns to this day. [Gamble 1888] These wet areas were also noted by Samuel Reid who worked as a government surveyor for the Manatee River Area in Apr il 1843. Reid’s observation notes of Section 8 Township 34 Range 18 South were recorded. He noted three larg e ponds and first rate hammocks that went for miles. The hammo cks contained Live Oak, Red Bay Oak, and Hickory (DEP U.S. Government Survey Fiel d Notebooks vol. 89:139). Therefore, it is necessary to examine the 1845 and the presen t environment in orde r to understand the modifications that Gamble made to achieve his goal of large scal e sugarcane production. Gamble’s article, Reid’s survey notes and the original 1843 sale book plat illustrate that the land had many ephemera l ponds that flooded during the rainy season due to the limestone substrate (Figure 3).


41 Figure 3 Original Sales Book Plats ci rca mid 1800Â’s to early 1900Â’s. GLO Survey Plats notated with State of Florida Land Sales entries circa mid 1800Â’s to early 1900Â’s. Reid also noted that the property containe d three large ponds during April 1843 which is the tail end of the dry season for Manatee County. For Gamb le to pursue agriculture activity and architecture construction the land ne eded an extensive drainage canal system. GambleÂ’s slaves used pick axes to create si xteen miles of drainage canals that spanned his 3,450 acres. These canals were located in north/south and east/w est directions. The sizes varied from one foot to twenty feet wide and one a nd one-half foot to nine feet deep. In areas were the slaves confr onted limestone, gunpowder was used. Functional remnants of these canals remain today in Ellenton/Palmetto areas.


42 Land Use Over the Years The U.S. Department of Agriculture created 9x9 aerial photographs of Florida starting in 1937. These medium altitude, hist oric aerial photographs are the oldest data which illustrate anthropogenic impacts and ch anges in land use. While FloridaÂ’s aerial photographs were initially intended to provide farmers with accurate assessments of their farms and soil conservation they have proved to be invaluable to other professions as well. Archaeologists utilize aerial photographs to illustrate patterns of human activity that survive as topographic feat ures but are too complex to de fine at ground level (David 2006:4). The following aerial photos are taken from the University of Florida Map and Digital Imagery Library. The Library houses the most complete co llection of Florida aerial photographs taken between 1937 and 1975 beside the National Archives. The photographs are magnified to demonstrate 20th century activity. The 1940 aerial photograph (Figure 4) illustra tes that the area was heavily utilized for agricultural purposes. Citrus agriculture is noted east of the mansionÂ’s drainage canal and in the sugar mill parcel. The canals ar e noted spanning north/south with drainage into the Manatee River. Th e eastern boundary canal in the Gamble mansion area is very clear. North of the mansion, agricultural fi elds are apparent with drainage/ irrigation canals spanning not only north/sou th but also east/west. In the western section of the photo, the east/west canals appear to drain into a creek as well as drain into the north/south canals.


43 Figure: 4 1940 aerial photograph tile 47 Palmetto Quad at 50% zoom (PALMM Collection) The 1957 Aerial Photograph (Figure 5) illustra tes that some citrus trees appear to be surviving in the sugar mill area. A body of water is noted in the southwest corner of the sugar mill parcel. Development in the mansion park area has increased. Citrus agriculture west of Elle nton-Gillette Road appears to be flourishing.


44 Figure 5 1957 aerial photograph at 100% zoom Tile 13. (PALMM Collection.). Plantation Plants In searching for evidence of slave life and activity on the Gamble Plantation, the environment can reveal clues. Had the site not been disturbed through human occupation and cultivation, a totally different collection of natural vegetation would have been noted. On an extensive walk-through survey of the park and sugar mill in mid-March 2008, Elzie McCord Jr., Ph.D., an Associate Profe ssor of Biology at New College of Florida, and I identified a number of plants on the pr operty. Plants were identified to species when possible. However, many could not be identified beyond genre because they lacked reproductive structures. These plants are listed in Appendi x A and Appendix B. Wunderlin and Hanson (2003) was utilized fo r plant taxonomy. Many of the plants were


45 noted to be invasive exotic specie s. Of interest, the Thatch Palm, Thrinax morrisii H. Wendl, originated from Middle Florida in M onroe County. This palm is slow growing and can reach heights of 20 to 30 feet tall. It is topped w ith five foot wide fronds. A historical record (MacFarlan 1868) illustrates slave houses as being constructed of Palmetto and Thatch. It is unknown if the Thatch Palm is the Palmetto and Thatch referred to by MacFarlan. In a study of medicinal plants used by co lonial West Africans and their Caribbean descendents, McClure (1982) suggests that du ring the early stages of assimilation many enslaved people transported their folk knowle dge of plants for medicinal and religious purposes. McClure argues (1982: 298), “O ccasionally, medicinal plants provide a glimpse of hidden powers deeply embedded in the ancient traditions and religions of society”. She supports her argument through tr acing historical, medi cinal, and religious uses of lime Citrus aurantifolia rosary pea, Abrus precatorius and castor bean, Ricinus communis. Early uses of lime and rosary pea were for medicinal and religious purposes in West Africa (McClure 1982: 291). The hi storical consumption of limes for the prevention of scurvy is well known, but other ro les the citrus played are lesser known. Twigs of it were chewed to promote dental hyg iene. Tea infusions limes were utilized in the Caribbean Islands for the treatment of colds, pneumonia, dyspepsia, dysentery, and skin lesions (1982: 292). McClure argues that the incorporation of lime into the Caribbean culture as a charm or “gris-gris” was attribut ed to its ability to help ward off spirits. Lime trees were


46 often found planted in Caribbean church yards. These plantings might be attributed to folk belief (1982: 292). Rosary pea originated in India but by 1454 reached the west coast of Africa and was incorporated into their folk culture. While African and Caribbean cultures similarly utilized the plant for medicinal and religious purposes, there are some differences. It was noted for the treatment of hoarseness, cough, gr anular lesions of th e eye lids, and fever reduction in West Africa and the Caribbean islands (McClure 1982: 294). In West Africa, the brilliant red and black seeds func tioned as jewelersÂ’ we ights and currency but this important usage was not repeated in the Caribbean Islands. The seeds when strung on a necklace were thought to bring good luck (Poole 1850 as cited in McClure 1982:295). McClure notes that ch ildren were included in the practice of stringing rosary peas and this tradition was common in othe r areas of the Caribbean Islands and South Florida (1982:295). Caribbean enslaved populations utilized the seeds for body ornamentation and were known to arrive from Africa with the seed ornaments as their only processions (Park 1815 and Poole 1850 as cited in McClure 1982:295). The usage of rosary pea was not limited to healing and charms. It was also known for its role in poisonings. The toxin, ab rin, obtained from the rosary pea was sold by herbalist for poison curses in Africa, the Caribbean Islands, and south Florida (1982:295). Castor bean originated in Africa. It was introduced to America early during the slave trade. African and Caribbean culture s used it for medicinal purposes. The oil was often used as a poultice. It was indica ted to promote childbirth, stimulate milk


47 production, and as purgative. The seeds contain ricin, a toxin that is similar to abrin. Ingestion of only two castor bean se eds can result with death (1982:297) Lime trees and rosary pea are identified in the park canal and the sugar mill environments. Though the healing qualities of lime have been widely recognized in colonial Caribbean societies, the plant could have possibly been introduced when the sugar mill was converted to citrus agriculture. Castor bean is not lo cated in either sites but grows prolifically thr oughout the surrounding areas that once comprised the Gamble Plantation. While there is no way of knowing when these plants were introduced to the environment, their presence allows for questi ons if GambleÂ’s slaves incorporated them into their lifeways for medici nal and religious purposes. Conclusion This chapter started with the premise that environmental factors can control the probability of human survival. Positive conditions would encourage settlement while the adverse conditions would prevent or impede settlement. Gamble knowingly chose land on the north side of the Manate e River that was wet and requir ed massive drainage canals while land located on the south si de of the river had a drier e nvironment. His plans had to be foresighted and enormous to undertake such a massive project of draining 3,450 acres. Gamble did not do the work. However, he used his level to determine where to place the canals. African Americans held in slavery dug with pick axes for Gamble to modify the environment not only suitable enough to make the environment conducive for settlement but to produce his cash crops. Cr eating sixteen miles of canals had to be a


48 continuous laborious project throughout the entire time Ga mble owned the property. Successful agriculture in this section of Florida is complete d during the fall, winter, and spring months. Sugarcane is harvested during th e winter. What time of year were the canals dug? If the slaves dug canals through limestone when other agriculture requirements were not required, then the di gging was done during FloridaÂ’s hot, humid summers. From aerial photographs we can visu alize the canals that still are present and operating in the area. From this envir onmental study of the past we see a man determined to create a successful plantation no matter the physical a nd emotional cost to his enslaved population. We know the flora changed over time due to human intervention and occupation. We also know that some of the plants found gr owing wild in the eastern canal, the sugar mill, and areas surrounding the plantation were used by slaves in folk and medicinal practices. Archaeological botanical data macroremains, pollen, and phytoliths, can explain the human-plant association (Pearsall 1989: 1-9). These few plant species open us to potentially new views of GambleÂ’s slaves. Did root conjurers or midwives use a tea to cure a cold, pneumonia, stomach pa ins, diarrhea or skin lesions? Did they have access to the plants? In-depth botani cal studies might open new av enues of thought concerning slave medicinal and religious practi ces at the Gamble Plantation. The next chapter discusses and provides descriptive details of the remaining nineteenth century architect ure at the plantation and re views past archaeological investigations.


49 Chapter 4: An Inventory of the Plantation Today Humans leave behind traces of their pr esence. Some of the traces become conscious reminders of the past and highlight stories of their creato rs. Other traces are sometimes dropped or discarded as people a ssumed their daily lives. Some features deteriorate with age and collapse upon themselves as time passes. Either way remnants of human stories are left behind for future generations to tease out the tangled web of obvious and hidden histories. In order to understand the circumstances of a place, it becomes necessary to catch the image of the present like a single exposure of a picture. This chapter will address the description of the Manatee River, the plantation and the sugar mill. I provide an inventory of the nineteenth century architecture at the Judah P. Benjamin Confederate Memorial and the Ga mble Plantation State Park, and show, too, how archaeological inves tigations conducted in the recent pa st have revealed significant features that might be investigated further. Geographic Location of the Plantation Today the plantation is located in Ellent on, Florida and is owned by the State of Florida. The park is a mere fragment of Ga mbleÂ’s original plantation. Presently, the park is divided into two parcels. The first 16 acr e parcel is irregular in shape and bounded to the south by U.S. Highway 301. Vacant lots, private residences, small businesses, and a fire station are located south of U.S. Highw ay 301. The main public entrance to the park is situated on U.S. Highway 301. The Manatee River lies one quarter of a mile south of the mansion (Baker 1987:6). The Mansion Memorial Cemetery bounds the parcel to the


50 north. West of the park are small businesse s and Ellenton-Gillette Road. A drainage canal provides the eastern boundar y. East of the drainage can al are private residences, small businesses, and five acres of vacant property designated for housing development. The16 acre parcel houses the main park complex which includes the nineteenth century brick and tabby Greek Revival Vernacu lar mansion with its adjacent cistern, a four compartment unknown tabby feature, the Patten house, the twentieth century park office and museum, storage buildings, ranger residences and the United Daughters of the Confederacy Archival building. The mans ion, the cistern, the four compartment unknown feature and the Patten House are nineteen th century architecture (Parks 2001: 27). Descriptions and functions of these stru ctures are discussed la ter in the chapter. The second parcel is positioned one half of a mile north of the mansion on 19 3/4 acres. It is bounded to the we st by Ellenton-Gillette Road a nd to the south by 17th Street (Parks 2001: 5-93). The site is predominatel y flat with elevation differences no more than a meter. The mill ruins are located approximately 152.4 meters (500 feet) to the north and 18.3 meters (60 feet) to the east of the southwest corner of the property (Rolland et al. 2004: 2-15). This parcel cont ains the remains of GambleÂ’s sugar mill and is not open to the public. The Mansion Initial frontier homes in Middle Florid a and along the Manatee River area were utilitarian in nature. Log cabin construction was the standard for plantersÂ’ first homes in Middle Florida (Shofner 1976). PlantersÂ’ homes reflected status and their position in society after the plantation was established. F our planters resided on the Manatee River.


51 Of the four, only Joseph Braden’s and Robert Gamble’s homes were two-storied utilizing tabby construction. Of the four planters, Ga mble was the only planter on the river to construct a Greek Revival Vernacular mansion. While the meaning of vernacular refers to the local architectural style and construction materials of th e area, the park utilizes this descriptive adjective to describe the adapta tions made to the house for accommodation to Florida’s climate. The three foot overhang of the roof and veranda the two foot thick walls, high ceilings and lower doorways, and window placement of ea st/west constituted the vernacular qualities of the house. The overhangs kept the s un off of the living sections in the house. The thick walls served as an insular quality. The high ceilings and low doorways trapped the heat at the ceiling level and prevented it from expanding to other rooms. Placement of east/west windows allo wed for a constant flow of the Gulf of Mexico breeze. These adaptations work rema rkably well because the temperature in the mansion is comfortable throughout the year. While historian Julia Floyd Smith (as quot ed in Rolland et al 2004: 3-40) states that Gamble initially lived in a log cabin that was later occupied by his overseer, historical documentation about Gamble’s residence is limited to his statement “My dwelling house was also of br ick & covered with iron, two-st ories high and contained ten rooms” (Gamble 1868) (Figure 6).


52 Figure: 6 Gamble Mansion 2008 (taken by Silpa, 2008). The mansion is surrounded on three side s with eighteen tabby columns covered with stucco. The columns support the veranda h and roof and also create an illusion of size and grandeur (Parks et al. 2001: 2-9; Matthews 1983: 168; Silpa 2003:51). The mansion is comprised of three sectio ns. The two-storied red brick southern section facing US. Highway 301 is the main el ement. The central element is two storied red brick and is attached to main element. The third section is the detached two storied brown tabby brick northern element. A br eezeway separates the northern building from the central and southern elements. A verandah surrounds the eastern, western, and southern sections of the main and central el ements. All three elements are covered in stucco. The outside dimensions of all el ements including the verandah are 12.5 meters (41 feet) by 28.4 meters (93 feet). The he ight measuring from grade to eave is approximately 6.1 meters (20 f eet) (Parks et al. 2001: 2-9).


53 The construction sequence of his ten room house is also unknown. Three architectural firms have examined the mans ion during the DEPÂ’s ow nership and none of these architects agree as to the construc tion stages. The most recent examination completed by the architectural firm Renker Ei ch Parks Architects Incorporated asserts that the main element with the second story was the first to be constructed. The free standing, north tabby building was the second section built while th e two story central element was the last section built (Parks et al. 2001: 2-11). The Cistern East of the mansion is the (figure 7.0) It is 4.9 meters wide (16 feet) by 9.1 meters (30 feet) long and 1.2 mete rs (4 feet) deep. The walls are 0.6 meters (2 feet) thick. The structure is covered by a wooden gabled roof. Figure 7 GambleÂ’s Cistern located on the East ern Section of the Mansion (taken by Silpa, 2008).


54 A conduit that connects the mansion and cistern serves to drain rain water from the roof of the house (Parks et al. 2001:2-15). The cistern stored rainwater for the mansion residence. Gamble disliked the taste of the local water s upplies and was suspect that the water would create gastrointestinal infections. I had large cisterns capable of suppl ying drinking water to a force of 160 negroes [sic] large and small and others at the residence for the whites. The water of the Country is unwholesome and rain water must be relied upon ... It is one of the hea lthiest and pleasantest cl imates I ever knew, if you use the cistern water, otherwise, there will be prevalence of bowel complaints, dysentery & diarrhea. [Gamble 1868] The Four Compartment Unknown Tabby Feature A four compartment unknown tabby feature (Figure 8) is located 74.0 meters (243 feet) east of the mansion. Its function is unknown. It is 4.5 meters (13 feet) wide by 9.1 meters (30 feet) long and is 1.2 meters (4 f eet) deep. The walls are 0.30 meters (1 foot) thick. The interior is divided into four equal sections. The nor thern section has a 15.2 centimeter (6 inch) diameter drainage outlet that empties into the eastern canal. The feature is constructed with tabby bricks and the methods are consistent with GambleÂ’s nineteenth century construction (Parks 2001:2-16).


55 Figure 8 GambleÂ’s four compartment unknown feature (taken by Silpa, 2008). The Patten House The Patten House (Figure 9) was built by Dudley Patten in 1895 to replace the deteriorating mansion. The second generation of Pattens lived there. It is built in the popular Victorian style (Parks et al. 2001:2-16). It was orig inally located 50 feet south and west of its present loca tion. In 1969 the State moved the house 50 feet east and north to accommodate the expansion U.S. Highway 301 and to facilitate a better viewshed of the mansion.


56 Figure 9 The Patten House (t aken by Silpa, 2008). The Sugar Mill Two historical sources written by Gamble re veal detailed descri ptions of the sugar mill. While his discussion of the mansion is limited to the number of rooms and sizes, he offers greater insight into the construction and building materials of the mill. It is unknown whether these descriptions are genera ted because of pride or are a necessary detail that documents the management of his enterprise. Either way, these descriptions can be utilized to tease out nineteenth century images of his sugar mill as a comparison to the present sugar mill features. Gamble wrote this description in a letter to George Patten in 1868. I constructed two buildings for my s ugar works. No. 1, 180 feet long & 40 feet wide in the clear, of brick; 40 feet of the length 22 feet high in the walls, 40 feet of the 40 length 17 feet hi gh, 40 feet of length as & 40 ft. of the length 12 feet high.


57 The draining room being 60 feet lo ng and having a brick cistern on each side the full length of the house & additional building having a cooling room 40 x 30 & a draining room 60x40 also made of brick & covered in iron. I had two Steam Engines one of fifty horse power to drive the cane mill which was a very fine and large one as you may conceive when I tell you that the top rolle r weighed 5 tons! Everything on the premises was in unison, there were two ranges of boilers for evaporating cane juice, each one of the five kettles the largest in each range 500 gallons, & at the head of each range, a steam pan for granulating; a second Engine of 8 horse power ran my grist & saw mill & supplied water to boilers which supplied the steam pans with steam, & ran a draining machine during the rolling season. [Gamble 1868] A clearer description of the sugar mill was writ ten by Gamble in an article titled "Florida as a Sugar State”. The buildings I erected were as fo llows: The mill house 40 x 40 [12.192 x 12.192 meters], walls 16 feet [4.8768 meters] high; cooling house 40 x 40 [12.192 x 12.192 meters], walls 12 feet [3.6576 meters] high; draining house 40x 60 [12.192 x 18.288 meters], walls 8 feet [ 2.4384 meters] high. All of these bricks were made on the spot and by my own force, and with the exception of one white wo rkman, as boss-brick layer, they were all laid by my own negroes; the most intelligent being selected and under the guidance of Mr. Godard, who was one of the "armed occupationists" and a master workman, they did good and loyal work. The roof frames of these houses were massy, and it being my intent at a future day to cover with sl ate. The carpentry of this work was done by contract, but all of the timber was sawed by hand on the plantation, as was all the lumber of ev ery kind used in construction. This work was all completed in time to take off the crop of 1850-51.[Gamble 1888] Gamble’s first mill was constructed of wood and located on his brother’s John’s tract of land, north of Robert Gamb le’s property (Figure 10). It contained a 12.2 by 9.1 meters (40 by 30 foot) boile r house, a 18.3 by 9.1 meters (60 by 30


58 foot) draining house, and a 9.1 by 9.1 meters (30 by 30 foot) mill house (Gamble 1888). Figure 10 Men Pose at the Ruins of Gamble Sugar Mill 1903 006108A (Manatee County Library). The second mill (figure 11.0), construc ted with red and tabby brick was clearly an enlargement of hi s first building. The 25 % increase in size indicates that Gamble anticipated larger harvest yi elds as he continued to expand his land and slave holdings. Carl King and C. Warren Johnson, in c onjunction with Manatee Community College, mapped the sugar mill in 1973. Their study illustrates an L-shaped feature that measures 53.3 meters (175 feet) north-south and 32.0 meters (105) east-west. The Manatee County Historic Society obtained a historic marker because of the work completed by King and Johnson. Oral histories indicate that the mill was destroyed by the Federal Army during the Civil War (Gamble 1868) while archaeological excavations (8MA713) revealed “limited


59 and localized evidence of possible histor ic, burning episodes (150N 29 E; 130 N30 E) which occurred around the mill…No evidence of the catastrophic destruction of the sugar mill (with artillery shells and fire) by the Union forces during the Civil War was recovered” (Rolland et al. 2004: 6-28). Further deterioration to the remaini ng walls has taken place since King and Johnson mapped the site. Bland Archaeological Associates conducted field work at the sugar mill in 2004 and utilized th e architectural and historical research completed in 2001 by Renker, Eich, Parks Architects Incorporated The architectural firm provided detail descriptions of the mill’s physical condition in their assessment of the existing site foundations and walls. They illustrated that th e mill stood in ruins w ith an overgrowth of vegetation that supported the foundation and ve rtical walls (Parks et al. 2001: 5-94; Rolland et al 2004: 2-15). Only portions of the original mill walls exist (Figure 11). The walls vary in height. One section of the wall is approximate ly 3.0 meters (10 feet) in height. There is no evidence of the original height of the m ill and Rolland et al. (2004: 2-16) assert that the remaining wall height is 45 % Gamble’s in itial building. The construction material is composed of clay brick, limestone rubble, and tabby brick. Rolla nd et al. (2004:2-16) speculate the earliest section was constructed wi th clay brick. This wall is described as the long narrow section that runs from th e center of the mill north and measures 12.8 meters by 36.3 meters (42 feet by 120 feet). Th e bricks range in color (orange to red to purplish gray), size, and texture. The mortar is gray/brown with shell inclusions. There is no Portland cement noted in the constructi on of the mill which indicates that the mill


60 was more than likely constructed prior to the use of Portland cement ( 2004 : 2-17). A full description of the mill ruins and featur es by Bland Archaeological Associates 2004 located in the Florida Master Sites File. Figure 11 Gamble Sugar Mill (taken by Silpa, 2008). A chain link fence surrounds the outside of the mill. The extant remains are visible from the street with a historic mark er describing the function of the mill. While most of the exotic flora has been removed si nce the suggestions made by the architectural firm in 2001, there are still resilient outcr oppings of Brazilian pepper. Patches of Bermuda grass have taken hold inside of the mill site Presently, clay and tabby brick and limest one rock walls remain visible. Since May 2007 a section of one wall has fallen from th e north east corner. Debris of metal, mortar, limestone rubble, tabby and clay bric ks can be found scattered on the ground.


61 Carved initials and words can be found in the red brick (Figure 12) on the west side of the west wall. It can be speculated th at this writing can be attributed to soft, under fired nineteenth century bricks, or bricks damaged from weather exposure that were carved after firing by graffiti artists. It is al so possible that these red bricks were carved by the enslaved population prior to firing while the clay was still plastic. Figure 12 Carved clay bricks at the Ga mble Sugar Mill (taken by Silpa, 2008). Previous archaeological research A review of archaeological reports on and around Gamble Plantation was complied (Rolland et al. 2004; Almy et al. 2007, 2004, 2001; Baker 1987, 1992; Baker and Peterson 1978; King and Johnson 1973). Mo st pertinent have been the archaeology by Baker and Peterson (1978), and Baker (1987; 1992) which concentrated on the mansion landscape and the archaeology of the sugar mill conducted by Bland and Associates, Inc. (Rolland et al. 2004).


62 Baker and Peterson (1978) conducted an im pact study to gain an overview of the parkÂ’s cultural resources in January 1978. Contracted by th e Florida Division of Parks they conducted this archaeologi cal survey in an area slated for development of a parking lot, museum, residence and reco rd building. They utilized a Strata-Scout earth resistivity meter to measure the average soil resistance be tween points 3 meters apart in an attempt to develop a contour map of soil resistan ce (1978:1). Marked variations in soil consistency would potentially indi cate areas of activity such as refilled pits or buried walls. The area investigated was divided into five squares measuring 45 meters on a side. Squares Nos.1 and 2 were low in elevation. Vi sual inspection revealed that Square No. 1 was covered by more than 50 % of standi ng water. Ground water was found a few centimeters below the surface in Squares Nos. 1 and 2. The electric resistivity survey was effective for Squares Nos. 3 and 4 but equipment malfunction prevented further electrical profiling. Square No. 5 was tested utilizing a trenching machine for arbitrary subsurface testing. Feature No. 1 was located at W 313 a nd W 309. Artifacts, (blue shell edged pearlware, large mammal bone, and unidentifia ble iron fragment), excavated suggest that this feature was either a trash pit or the re mains of a building contemporaneous with the antebellum period. An east-west Trench along the grid line N390 revealed a ste mmed projectile point that dates to the late Archai c period. No other cultural ma terials were found in this trench.


63 The area back of the mansion was experi mentally scanned in July, 1981 utilizing a proton magnetometer. This testing was done to determine the feasibility of future usage of proton magnetometer scanning. The me thod proved unsuitable due to the heavy presence of scattered ferrous debris (Baker 1987: 8). Baker conducted an intermittent auger surv ey and limited test excavations (8 MA 100) in June and August 1987. The objective of the survey was to gain an overview of archaeological resources on the plantation thr ough examination of the landscape. The auger survey excavations were spaced at 10 meter intervals on the plantation grounds. A total of 479 auger excavations were taken. Tw o test units were additionally excavated. The results of the excavations revealed a gross distribution of modern and historic materials with the greatest concentration f ound behind the mansion and in the southwest corner of the site. Two test trenches (N233/E222 and N 252/E212) were excavated. Visible eastward plow were identified approximately 30 centimeters below the surface in trench N233/E222. Trench N252/E212 also showed evidence of plow scars running in an easterly direction at 30 centimeters below the surface. Brick fragments marked the depth of the plowing. Multiple trash pits were noted along the eastern edge of the property N160/E230, N300/E290, N230, 240/E290, N110/E290.


64 At N190/E30 and N170/E280 two concentrations of materials appear to reveal the remains of a single structure associated with the unknown tabby feature. Baker identifies this unknown feature as a cistern asso ciated with the historic building. Baker located post mold at N252/E218 that formed the fence that skirted the cane fields and the old road bed which stretc hed northward from the mansion (1987: 36). Subsequent archaeologists suggest the road be d might have led from the mansion to the sugar mill (Rolland et al. 2004: 4-7). Baker was present to monitor the trench ing procedure utilized to install an electric security system in February 1992. Six trenches we re excavated utilizing a Ditch Witch trenching machine. Trench 3 reveal ed the original shel l carriageway at 20 centimeters below the surface. Two 19th century trash pits were located at the southern end of Trench 2 and designated as Feature 1A and 1B. Baker writes th at the “backyard of the house was predictably confirmed as an area of concentrated activity and could thus be defined as ‘archaeologically sens itive’. It is important to not e, however, that Features 1A and 1B were located outside this ‘sensitive’ zone” (Baker 1992:14). Rolland et al. (2004) conducted an arch aeological survey at the sugar mill between February and July 2004. The methods utilized during the ar chaeological survey included historical research, ground penetrating radar, meta l detection, and systematic subsurface testing. The systematic subsurface testing incorporated 306 shovel tests and six test units. There was evidence of 20th century land modification. The artifact assemblage revealed historic artifacts with “a fairly homogenous, low density deposit of 20th century historic artifacts intermixed with scattered structural de bris” (Rolland et al.


65 2004: 6-27). Most of the twentieth century artifacts were associ ated with citrus agriculture. There was no evidence found of the large scale mill destruction by the Federal Army as recorded in oral and local histories. No nineteenth century artifacts could be attributed to usage during Gamb le’s ownership. A kaolin pipe and an 1889 nickel were the only artifacts that could be definitely attributed to the nineteenth century. Rolland et al. (2004:6-29) writes, “Archaeologi cal testing confirms that the area around the extant sugar mill ruins contains a highly mixed matrix which represents a composite of these various activities”. Conclusion One hundred sixty-five years after its begi nning the plantation stands in various stages of deterioration with some areas re ceiving more restoration than others. The mansion was renovated multiple times throughout its history. Architectural restoration is apt to be approached based on the salience of the history that is presented. From a visitor’s perspective, the mansion looks like it did in the nine teenth century though visitors are made aware of the multiple re storation processes through photographic aides and the tours. The only architectural features that can be given f unctional roles are the sugar mill, the mansion and its adjacent cistern. The functional role of the four compartment tabby feature is unknown. The ar chaeological evidence of the carriageway and roadbed indicate that Gamble avoided ut ilizing the area to the east of his mansion for a reason which is discussed in another chapter. Any structures that indicate slave lifewa ys have disappeared from the landscape. All of the archaeological surveys associated w ith the plantation and the sugar mill to this


66 date have not revealed any of the slave qua rters. Multiple trash pits located on the eastern edge of the property could indicated th e location of slave cabins, slave yards, and their associated trash pits. The next chapter reviews the historical archaeological literature of plantation landscapes and slavery in the U.S. South a nd in the Caribbean. It will examine the Gamble built landscape as an expression of power through spatial organization. It will specifically address how slave activity might be reflected in the archaeological record and it will propose archaeological met hods to examine those questions.


67 Chapter 5: Landscapes of Power: History and Culture in Plantation Archaeology “Landscape studies are the exploration of how people shaped and were shaped by the land within a dynamic cultural and natura l context” (Zierden and Stine 1997: xi). Humans do not behave randomly but follo w behavioral patterns established by their culture. The locations of homes, farms, seasonal encampments, and burials are dependent on the culture and the natural environment. Settlement is affected by availability of food and fresh water suppl y, transportation, material resources, and topography (Feder 1997: 42). Landscape modi fications such as gardens, homes, agricultural fields, canals, and roads are produced within an agreement of dynamic cultural and societal rules that functionally benefit not only the community but also the individual ( Deetz 1990: 1; Zierden and Stine 1997: xi). Hood (1996: 123) argues that landscapes are created through human perception and usage which “carry cultural meaning in specific contexts. Cultural lands capes can be extended to include all aspects of culturally defined space.” Therefore, a cultural landscape is the modification through development and usage of the natural environm ent that conforms to societal and cultural rules and can be divided into societal, tec hnological, and ideologica l dimensions (Deetz 1990:2). The cultural landscape carries symbolic meaning th at can be utilized to describe, assert, and perpetua te power relationships between social classes (Leone and Shackel 1990:64; Leone 1992; Yentsc h 1994; Shackel and Little 1994). A general sense of Gamble and his lifestyle is achieved when the plantation’s landscape is examined. His landscape, the mansion, the cistern, the sugar mill, the


68 unknown tabby feature, and the canals establis hed his economical, political, and social position within a frontier society and served as an illusion of power, order, and control. While it is recognized that the Gamble plan tation landscape is ex tant evidence of his enslave population’s labor, hidden within th is remaining landscape are the lifeways and values of the African Americans that survived during slavery. To ach ieve a greater sense of his enslaved population, I sugge st that we need to identify areas of slave activity that include the location of the slave quarters, areas of labor, and areas of communal bonds. In this chapter, I review some of the releva nt literature in histor ical archaeology on slave plantations in the U.S. South and in the Cari bbean. This is done w ith the aim of showing how comparative work might be useful to se rve as a guide for future research at the Gamble Plantation in order to bring the li ves and activities of the enslaved population into greater focus. Robert Gamble included 185 enslaved pe ople in the December 1858 sale of the Manatee River plantation. This deed of sale lists their names and sale numbers and offers the only insight into the slaves as individuals. Of the few available historical records written by Gamble, we see a paternalistic view when he writes, “I carried ten of my nergo men”; or “my own force” (Gamble 1888). Yet on a whole, Gamble’s tone concerning his enslaved people is much like a farmer who views the economic valu e of his livestock. Phrases such as “most intelligent being sel ected …they did good and loyal work”, “sawed by hand,” or “laborers and teams” (Gambl e1888) illustrate that Gamble generally attributed their value as craft/skilled or field laborers. This “one-sided view of colonialism and capitalism” (D eagan 1998:54) is presented when the lives of enslaved populations are viewed from plantation owners’ records. This static nineteenth century


69 view demonstrates that this plantation owner was either unaware of his slaves beyond their economic value or felt it was unnecessa ry to comment about them. There is no mention of their lifeways in cluding the locations of th eir homes, the architectural materials and style, their foodways, their co mmunal activities, or their resistances and accommodations. Slavery limited African AmericanÂ’s control over their lives their health, and resources while their owners profited from their labors. Archaeological studies of African American slaves have focuse d on lifeways (Fairbanks 1984; Otto 1984; Singleton 2001, 1995, 1991,1988; Ferguson 1992; Kels o 1997; Lindtveit and Klein 2003; Heath 1999), status (Otto 1984; Yentsch 1994; Wilke 2000), resistance (Orser and Nekola 1996; Wilke 2000; Orser and Funeri; Yentsch 1994), religion (Wilke 2000; Yentsch1994; Heath and Bennett 2000), power (Orser 1988), and bioarchaeological studies (Blakey 2001; Blakey et al. 2004; Rathburn 1987; Ows ley et al. 1987; Kelley and Angel 1987; Rankin-Hill et al. 2004 ). These ar chaeological studies re veal aspects of the daily lives of enslaved people not evident in archived historical records. Excavated artifacts have allowed archaeologists to infer ways that slaves utilized to regain some control over their lives while living within the constraints of slavery. Archaeological research has provided evidence of slave lifeway s and illustrates that their lifeways were neither static nor dependent upon their owners for cultural or social identity (Singleton 1991:153; Wilke 2000:165). How is slave activity reflected within th e archaeological record? How can we see evidence of their daily lifeways, which w ould include their worl dviews, their homes, their foodways, their gender id entity, their labor, their communal activities, and their


70 resistance? The answer to this question requires examination of prior archaeological research. While slave archaeology began with Charles FairbanksÂ’ work at the Kingsley plantation in 1967, to date there remains a de arth of published data concerning Florida slave archaeology. Other southern plantation archaeological sites are examined due to the lack of published materials on Florid a slave archaeology. Furthermore, Florida plantations were created follo wing the plantersÂ’ move from areas such as Virginia, Maryland, South Carolina, and Georgia. It is lik ely that they transpla nted their ideals of what worked in their areas of origin to their new enterprises. The specific areas I pursue are spatial organization, slave housing, slave labor, slave foodways, slave worldview and religion, a nd slave resistance. It is hoped that these discussions will become the bases for further in vestigations into the world of the enslaved workers on the Gamble Plantation. I conclude this chapter with a discussion of the way forward by outlining various methods of ethnohist orical and archaeological investigation. Landscapes of Power: Planta tion Spatial Organization Historical archaeologists have noted that activities on a plantation contribute to the structural arrangement (Orser and Nekola 1996:395; Lewis 1985:37). The archaeology of plantations offers insight into the lives of the plan ters, the overseers, and the enslaved humans that were involved in plantation operations (Fairbanks 1984; Lewis 1985; Orser and Nekola 1996; Otto 1984; Si ngleton 2001; Silpa 2003). Nineteenth century planters manipulated their landscapes through spatial organization by placing themselves central and aloof from the genera l population (Vlach 1993: 8). Social status and agriculture production dictated the spatial arrangement of the structures. Functional


71 outbuildings were located within close pr oximity, but separate from the main house (Lewis 1985:37). A relatively self contai ned plantation was orga nized in a nucleated settlement pattern containing clusters of dwellings and service buildings bordered by crops (Orser and Nekola 1996:395) Goodwin (1994) illustrate s the spatial arrangement of relatively self-reliant Cari bbean sugar plantations. Spa tial organization of Caribbean sugar plantations was influenced by the lo cation of the sugar mill complex (Goodwin 1994:99). Goodwin illustrates this arrangement by describing Betty’s Hope Estate located in Antigua, West Indies. The spatial layout of the plantation consist of the mill, boiling houses, and the curing house surrounde d by the great house, outbuildings, slave villages, and agricultura l fields (Goodwin 1994:27). Florida plantations started during coloni al British ownershi p. The northeastern Atlantic side served as ideal locations for plantations. As w ith other southern plantations, Florida plantations were economic enterprises that traded in global markets and enslaved people were exploited for the purpose of cas h crop cultivation (Morgan 1998:187; Payne 1999: 51; Lewis 1985: 37). Florida's plan tations were subdivided into areas of “residences, crop cultivation, and product processing” (Pa yne 1999: 50-51). Florida plantation archaeology has illustrated that func tion and social stratification were major factors that dictated spatia l organization (Baker 1999:116; Payne 1999: 50). Within the social stratification, owners and overseers he ld the highest level positions while the slaves formed the lower working levels (Payne 1999: 51). Residences were also arranged accordi ng to status and function. The owner’s home was usually held the central position th at symbolically repres ented power, control, order, and social status (P ayne 1999:50). Gamble’s mansion was located 0.4 kilometers


72 ( of a mile) north of th e Manatee Rive (Baker 1987:6). The ten room home is surrounded by eighteen columns that create an illusion of grandeur and power. OverseerÂ’s homes were located is positions that allowed the overseer to supervise and direct plantation operations. In one pl antation, Vlach (1993:5) found that the slave quarters were located in rows of two behind an overseerÂ’s modest home. Robert Gamble contracted the services of David Lanner and Nathaniel Hunter as overseers. However, the location of the overseerÂ’s residence remains unknown. Allan MacFarlan resided in the mansion and managed the plantation following GambleÂ’s move to Tallahassee in 1856. Members of GambleÂ’s family moved in 1827 from Virginia and Maryland to Jefferson County, Florida with expectations of plantation cultivation. They brought with them their cultural attitudes and modified th e landscape to fit their Virginian planter ideals. Robert Gamble app lied these cultural la ndscape methods as he had gangs of his slaves clear and drain 1500 acres of ha mmocks and wetlands (Gamble 1888). Archaeologists have illustrated that slave settlement patterns were controlled by plantation owners (Singleton 2001:106; Lange and Handler 1985:17). Historical records indicate that Gamble landscaped his planta tion utilizing his Virgin ian heritage through the clear cutting the land. Presently, there are no maps or insurance records have been found to illustrate how he or his father di ctated the placement of slave quarters and outbuildings. However, there is an insu rance map (Figure 13) of his grandfatherÂ’s house, GreyÂ’s Castle. This house was built during the late eighteen th Century and bears the architectural markers of symmetry, logic, and order commonly observed with


73 Georgian-style construction. While th e house appears symmetrical, the 1802 Mutual Assurance map illustrates that dependencies were not symmetric but built to one side of the Georgian mansion. Figure 13 1802 Mutual Assurance Greys Cast le located in Rich mond, Virginia (The Library of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia). At the Gamble Plantation, the only extant features other than the mansion and the sugar mill are situated east of the mansion. BakerÂ’s auger survey illustrates that the United Daughters of Confederacy archival building is constructed above a 19th century historic building associated with the unknown tabby feature (1987:35).


74 GambleÂ’s 1868 hand drawn map (Figure 14) illustrates the location of the mansion at point A and the sugar mill at point B. The road from the wharf curves to line up along the west side of the mansion where the shell carriageway was located and then deviates to behind the mansion (Daniel Hughes, personal comm unication, March 20, 2008). The 1843 plat indicated large ponds and seasonal wetla nds, but did not indicate any large bodies of water that needed to be avoided located in the areas of the wharf road and east of the mansion. The road deviation can be possibly attributed to GambleÂ’s built environment if he landscaped his plantati on like his grandfatherÂ’s Richmond house and built to one side (east) of the mansion (Silpa 2007). Figure 14 GambleÂ’s 1868 Hand Drawn Map (Manatee County Library). An early twentieth century picture of the Gamble Plantation (Figure 15) illustrates an outbuilding located adjacent to the mansion cistern.


75 Figure 15 Gamble Mansion before rest oration (Manatee County Library). On magnification, the picture indicates potentially another ou tbuilding located behind the outbuilding and unknow n activities located to th e east of the outbuilding (Figure 16).


76 Figure 16 Magnified view of out building (Manatee County Library). While these buildings are more likely late nineteenth and early twentieth century construction, past human behavior has demonstr ated that construction patterns frequently repeat themselves. People tend to locate bui ldings where buildings were present in the past. Slave Housing Locations Unfortunately, historical records reveal disparate, fragme nted, and confusing testimony to the location of the 57 slave quarters. Baker illustrates th e spatial complexity of this plantation when he states that it was “a rather complex archaeological puzzle” (Baker 1987:38). Therefore, to gain a greater understand ing of Gamble’s enslaved population, it is necessary to decipher th e archaeological puzzle of the Gamble’s


77 landscape. Specific attention s hould be applied to the poten tial locations of Gamble’s slave quarters. Archaeological studies have suggested that slave residences were often situated near work assignments (Payne 1999:50). The confusion concerning the location of Gamble’s slave quarters might be related to the size and the multip le activities involved in this plantation’s operation. Gamble’s plantation consisted of 3450 acres with 1500 acres actively cultivated. Gamble may have had multiple slave quarters on his estate organized by labor. At Ha mpton Plantation in St. Simons Island, Georgia a similar spatial organization divergence is noted. Hampton Plantation consisted of 15,000 acres with greater than 400 enslaved inhabitants. The plantation was divided into several slave settlements: Hampton Point, Jones, Busson Hill, and Five Pound Tree (Butler et al. 2007:123). One source of archived information rev eals that Gamble’s slave quarters were located south of the mansion while another document indicates that the quarters were locate north of mansion near the sugar mill. A further complication is an oral history that situates the slave quarters northeast of the mansion but close to the unknown tabby feature (Almy et al. 2001:3-25). Some archaeologists suggest that the slave quarters “may have been situated south and /or west of the mansion, not far from the river” (Almy et al 2001: 5-94). The combination of Baker’s auger survey, the location of the multiple trash pits by Baker, Gamble’s Virginian cultural landscape, and the early twentie th century photograph offers


78 insight into the possible locati on of some of the slave quarter s to the east and south east of the mansion. Archaeologists have also noted that slav e quarters were arranged for observation (Singleton 2001:105; Orser 1996a:400; Jame s Davidson personal communications 3/2007; Henry Baker personal communicati ons 8/2002). Gamble viewed schooners landing at the wharf on the river from the mansionÂ’s second floor veranda (Matthews 1983:167). The second floor also could have served as an ob servation point of the slave quarters if they were location to th e east and south of the mansion. GambleÂ’s landscape carried messages of power for people who viewed his mansion from the Manatee River. Though slav e quarters located east and south east of mansion would have cluttered GambleÂ’s landscape with unsightly architecture, this landscape would have had little negative in fluences on nineteenth century people. KelsoÂ’s study of MonticelloÂ’s seventeenth to the late nineteenth century landscape illustrates that trash and slave quarters had lit tle effect on the people. Instead of finding the landscape as an eyesore, the people accepted it as common occurrence and focused their attention on the architect ure and gardens (1990:15-16). Product processing structures were located in areas allowing easy transportation of raw materials to the facility. GambleÂ’s 1868 map indicates a road that leads from the sugar mill to the west of the mansion and then to the wharf. But the road was not the only method to transport processe d sugar to the wharf. Flat bottom boats could have also been constructed to accommodate the canals just as they had been in Middle Florida on Robert H. GambleÂ’s plantation (Moates 2007:131).


79 Slave Housing Archaeology of the interior and exterior areas of slave quarters often challenges historical documents (Fairbanks 1984; Heat h 1999; Otto 1984). Slave housing at the Gamble Plantation remains an enigma due to the disparate and conflicting records about the location, architectural styl e, and construction materials. Allan MacFarlan described the conditions of the plantati on in a letter to George Patt on in 1868. The letter discusses the potential building materials that were avai lable when MacFarlan took charge of the plantation in 1856. He writes: As for other material the abundance of shells and the facilities for making the best lime from oyster shells, houses for dwellings and other purposes can be easy built by Tabi [sic]. Before I took charge the negro [sic] houses were of Palmetto thatched wi th Palmetto leaves.[MacFarlan 1868] This excerpt implies that during GambleÂ’s management, the slave quarters were temporary structures utilizing palmetto logs and leaves. Permanent dwellings made of tabby were erected following MacFarlanÂ’s arrival. The architectural style, c onstruction materials, and th e location of slave cabins was dictated by plantation owne rs as a method to control and dominate their slaves (Heath 1999:33; Lewis 1985: 197; Singleton 1991: 153, 1988: 355; Singleton and Bograd 1995:20). Planters frequently situated the quarters near work sites but still within observational distance of the main or ove rseerÂ’s house (David son 2007:47; Rivers 2000:133; Orser 1996b:400; Singleton and B ograd 1995:20; Daniel et al. 1980:144). Florida slave cabins at Kingsley and Bulo w Plantations where spatially arranged in a semi-circle arc that surrounded the main house (Davidson 2007; Rivers 2000: 133). The forty-six slave cabins at Bulow Planta tion were 137.6 meters away from the main


80 house. They were 12 x 16 feet wood frame constructed with board floors and shingle roofs. Coquina blocks served as founda tion for the wooden slave cabins. The only artifacts associated with the slave cabins were two axe heads and rusted iron fragments that Daniel et al. suggests are fragments of an iron kettle (Daniel et al 1980:73-75, 144). Daniel et al. (1980:144) comp are Bulow’s slave cabins wi th historical documents that describe slave cabins at St. Joseph’s Plantation owned by General Hernandez. Hernandez’s slave cabins where entirely cons tructed of palmetto leaves and logs. The construction style of the palmetto log and leaf cabins appears to be unusual for the nineteenth century but possibly following Afri can construction style, “made entirely out of palmetto leaves thatched from top to bottom and had only one small low aperture to crawl in by… (and) looked very much like an oven” (Smith 1836:158 as cited in Daniel et al. 1980:145). Slave quarters at Kingsley Plantation were located approximate ly one-quarter to one-half mile (402.4 meters or 804.7 meters) from the main house (Rivers 2000:133). The cabins were two-roomed di vided by a single wall. Cons truction materials consisted of tabby during Zephaniah Kingsley’s owners hip (Davidson 2008:49; Rivers 2000: 133). Davidson suggests that while the semi-circular arc may be representative of Anna Kingsley’s African heritage and provide some privacy for the slaves, the semi-circular arc may have also been designed by Kings ley as a defensive maneuver utilizing the thirty-two slave cabins as thirty-two we ll-armed sentry posts (Davidson 2007:43-44). The nineteenth century sugar planta tion, Ashland-Belle-Helene Plantation, (16AN26), in Ascension Parish, Louisiana ha d thirty slave cabins by 1850 to house 165


81 slaves. The slave cabins were located in double rows between the mansion and the sugar mill. Cabins 1 and 2 were excavated in 1992 (Yakubik and Mendez 1995). The cabins were of wood construction measuring 40 by 20 feet (800 square feet), double penned with a central brick chimney. Excavated flat glass indicates that the cabins had glass window panes. Fragments of dried whitewash were excavated in Cabin 2 (Yakubik and Mendez 1995). Baker (July 2002: personal communications ) described the potential locations of GambleÂ’s slave cabins during a private convers ation. He remarked on the unusualness of the landscape at Gamble Plantation because the auger survey did not reveal a semicircular arc that is present at Kingsley and Bulow plantations He suggested that some slave quarters might have been located along th e road from the wharf at OgdenÂ’s Point in present-day Palmetto. Prior to the nineteenth century ma ny slave homes reflected West African construction consisting of mud and daubing te chnique with stick a nd clay chimneys. Steep palmetto thatch roofs a llowed for rain run-off. Rather than wood plank flooring, the homes had dirt floors. The advantages of clay homes were their impermanence and insular qualities, and access to floor pits (Ferguson 1992:66-81). Within these subterranean pits archaeol ogists have found evidence of food and material goods (Heath 1999: 5, 37; Kelso 1997:67). Artifact analysis of subterrane an pits offers insight into slave life. These pits are created and maintained by the inhabitants of th e slave cabins and are not representative of the slaves owners (Heath 1999:37). At Mulber ry Row, the slave complex at Monticello


82 in Virginia, Kelso (1997) found th at the subterranean pits va ried in size from 2x3 feet to 4x6 feet. They ranged from being line or unlin ed and all contained a similar pattern of material culture: tools, locks, nails, buttons, glass, and butchered fauna (Kelso 1997:67). Kelso suggests that while these pits could ha ve been used for food storage, they could also represent evidence of resistance. He supports his argument with historical documents that examine property stolen by slaves and the recovery of locks from some of the pits (Kelso 1997:67-70). Yet Davidson pres ents a different perspective by suggesting that the brass lock escutc heons found in slave cabins W12 and W-13 potentially allowed for the enslave people to lock their ho mes or possessions (Davidson 2007:53). The acidic, sandy Florida soil would not be conducive to subterranean storage pits. It is unlikely that such pits will be found in GambleÂ’s slave cabins. Nineteen century medical doctors desc ribed slave housing as being unhealthy, inhumane, and ugly which contributed to slave health conditions (Rivers 2000:133). Slave housing by the nineteenth century was greatly influenced by the abolitionist movement (Ferguson 1992:80; Singleton 1991: 153; Singleton 1988:355). A reactionary stand by the southern proslavery was to st andardize slave ownership practices (Kelso 1997:61; Singleton 1988:354). By the 1830Â’s si ngle family homes were altered from African architecture of mud and daub houses to raised cabins measuring 16 x 18 feet. Raised cabins prevented the accumulation of domestic refuse and allowed for air circulation (Kelso 1997:61). The raised log style houses met abolitionistsÂ’ goals to provide a more humane and healthy environment but also restricted agency of slavesÂ’ control of their space. Private


83 storage spaces located in dirt floors were no longer available to the slaves. Planters could inspect areas beneath the ra ised floor (Ferguson 1992:82). As mentioned earlier in this chapter, historical documents reveal confusing descriptions concerning Gamble’s slave cabins. If Patten’s (1868) document accurately details the descriptions, then two architectural styles and materials were utilized in their construction. The first would be tempor ary housing consisting of palmetto logs and thatch. This construction might leave a foot print of regularly spaced post mold. There is no way of knowing if the design would be re ctangular, square, or round like the African style slave cabins at St. Jo seph’s plantation described by Daniel et. al. (1980:145). Construction after 1856, during MacFarla n’s supervision, poten tially changed to permanent housing utilizing tabby. Tabby constr uction would leave a foot print within the archaeological record that may be visua lized through ground pene trating radar (GPR). Artifacts recovered from slave cabins offe r insight into the lifeways of enslave people not perceived in the hist oric records. Ceramics, tools, buttons, beads, animal bones, kaolin pipes, and glass bottles illustra te how enslaved people struggled and created coping mechanisms for survival during their bon dage. From these artifacts we can tease out the deeper stories of th eir worldview with social a nd communal identity, gender, and resistance. Stanley South (1977, 1978) created pattern recognition as a method to address the theoretical question “What can be learned about behavior from the distribution of materials in archaeological assemblages?” (Singleton and Bograd 1995:21). Artifacts were divided by eight functi onal categories of architectur e, kitchen, furniture, arms,


84 clothing, personal, tobacco, and activities groups. Percentages of each group could be attained and compare to other assemblages. Differences in the categ ory distribution were assumed to be the result of behavioral differences (Singlet on and Bograd 1995:21). Slave artifact pattern is based on slave ma terial culture. Critical examination of slave artifact pattern recogniti on has shown that its usage has been to primarily organize collected data and illuminate new patterns or deviations but not offer any explanation of these differences as cultura l changes over time (Singl eton and Bograd 1995:21-22). Singleton and Bograd (1995:22) criticize categori zation because it is a static presentation. It might suggest that the site was African American but not what it meant to be an African American at that particular site. Joseph (1989) examines the variation between the Georgia and the Carolina Slave Artifact patterns (Table 2) in an attempt to explain changes of slave material culture over time found on rice and cotton plantations. The temporal difference is based on eighteenth century rice plantations in South Carolina a nd nineteenth century cotton plantations in Georgia. Joseph argues that archit ecture and technological innova tions affect the way the slave patterns of Georgia and Carolina appear (Joseph 1989:55 ). Architec tural artifacts are influenced by the construction materials a nd architectural styles. Frame structures leave a greater quantity of arch itectural debris in the archae ological record compared to structures made of tabby, brick, and mud da ubing. The shift of arch itectural style during the nineteenth century of mud-daubing to raised log cabins can influence pattern formation (Joseph 1989:60).


85 While planter status can influence slave material culture and create a higher kitchen group, Joseph argues that the tec hnological innovations of the Industrial Revolution influenced the decline of colonow are usage. The low-cost massed produced European ceramics allowed for planters to equip their slaves with cheaper cooking and serving vessels (Joseph 1989: 61). Thus by the nineteenth century th ere is a decrease in the kitchen group in slave artifact patterning. Table 2 Plantation Artifact Patt erns from Georgia and South Ca rolina (taken from Joseph 1989:58) Georgia Planter Georgia Slave South Carolina Rice Planter South Carolina Slave Kitchen 54.09 24.34 53.2 77.39 Architecture 43.27 70.78 39.65 17.81 Furniture 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.07 Arms 0.09 0.14 0.05 0.17 Clothing 0.59 1.03 0.35 0.49 Personal 0.11 0.09 0.10 0.11 Tobacco 1.55 3.32 3.65 3.53 Activities 2.40 0.28 2.05 0.51 Would Joseph’s argument of slave pattern recognition hold true at Gamble Plantation? If his argument is correct about changes over ti me then slave cabins at the Gamble plantation should exhibit a higher fr equency in the architectural group if the slave cabins were constructe d with wooden materials. If the cabins were constructed with tabby, would the frequency of the kitchen group increase? Communal, domestic work, and leisure ac tivities took place within the yard areas allotted to enslaved people. Heath and Benne tt (2000:38) write “Like the structures they surround, yards and gardens have the ability to instruct scholars about the lives of their


86 inhabitants.” Slave cabin yards housed storag e sheds, small animal compounds, gardens, and areas for communal activities (Heat h and Bennett 2000:41; Yakubik and Mendez 1995). Slaves raised gardens for consumpti on and sale. Otto suggests the care of the gardens and sale of the produce represented the domain of women, while men hunted and fished (Otto 1984: 45, 59). Yet Heath and Bennett (2000: 42) argue that gardens were located near the slave cabins a nd were tended by both genders. At Ashland-Belle-Helene Plantation in Loui siana, slave cabins were space 72 feet apart and surrounded by fences. Yakubik and Mendez (1995) speculate that the fences served to contain small domestic livestoc k and gardens. The slaves’ agricultural activities in their yard spaces at Ashland-Be lle-Helene Plantation, like other southern plantations, allowed for the slaves to vary and supplement their diets and provided access to economic resources. Produce, poultry, a nd eggs were either brought to market on Sundays or purchased by the slaves’ mast er. In Middle Florida, Gamble’s uncle permitted the slaves to cultivate one of his fiel ds for their private consumption and sale. He also paid three of his male slaves $17.95 fo r cotton and corn that they grew in their combined garden (Shofner 1976: 129-130; Rivers 2000: 30). Yards were areas of socialization that t ook place within the slav e’s private space. Back porches and animal burials as note in Davidson (2007) were conducted not under the gaze of the master. Singleton (2006: 283) de scribes the use of ceramic discs, tobacco pipes, and alcohol glass bottl es as potential evidence of slave recreation or religious activities. Kaolin pipe stems, game pieces or ceramics disc, and marbles could represent socialization and how enslaved peop le spent their few leisure hours.


87 The presence of buttons, sewing needle s, pins, and bead s could represent domestic sewing work or laundering. Lower dens ities of domestic tras h such as ceramics, glass, fauna bone, sewing needles, buttons, a nd children toys noted in the center areas and higher densities along fence lines could be the result of ya rd sweeping (Heath and Bennett 2000:48). Archaeological examination of GambleÂ’s sl ave cabins and their yards could offer a sense of how his enslaved population us ed their domestic space over time. Yard artifacts can illustrate how they spent their leisure hours, conducted communal activities, compensated resource limitations, conducted their domestic chores which included gender related activities, and c onstructed their world views. Labor Sugarcane (Poaceae: Saccharum spp.) is a perennial gra ss that can reach twelve feet in height. It requires fr ost-free temperatures during ac tive growing stages, abundant, well drained water, and fertile soil to achieve optimal harvestable yi elds. While sugarcane matures in fourteen to eighteen months, climate regulates the growing and harvest seasons. Temperatures must remain above se venty degrees Fahrenheit to prevent growth retardation (Rehder 199:19). Forty inches of evenly distributed rainfall is required to reach optimal maturity. The root system is shallow and highly susceptible to root rot and water borne diseases. Drainage canals and irrigations ditche s are necessary to provide the delicate water balance needed in suga rcane cultivation (Rehder 1999:17). Sugar, the processed product of this sucrose-laden grass, profoundly changed European diets. This rare commodity origin ally consumed by European elites in the


88 seventeenth century became a staple by the middle of the eighteenth century following the development of New World suga r plantations (McDonald 1993:5). The cultivation of sugarcane was arduous no matter the plantationÂ’s geographical location. A steady supply of large labor for ces was needed to work sugar plantations (McDonald 1993:5). Soil preparation, which included composting and tilling, started a season before planting the sugarcane stalks. Planting started in late December or January. Plant maintenance required irri gation and weed and pest control (Schene 1974:45-47). On sugar plantations in Jamaica, slaves Â’ work cycles were continuous during the entire growing season. They dug five feet by fi ve feet holes, six inches deep, and planted sugarcane sections. The canes were covere d with dirt and over the following months compost and dirt were added to the holes to until the fields were level. Weed removal was required for approximately three to four months until the sugarcane growth had mature enough to prevent weed infestation (McDonald 1993:5). Jamaican slaves worked in field gangs fr om sunup to sunset. Workdays consisted of fourteen hours in the fiel d with rest times at midmorning for breakfast and a midday dinner. During harvest, the slaves worked their usual hours in the field plus additional five hour shifts at the sugar mill. Armed w ith machetes or knives, slaves stripped the leaves, cut the cane stalks, loaded, and transported the harvested canes to the sugar mill. Sundays were the only days of respite from their eighteen to twenty hours of work. On this day, slaves had to work their gardens, hunt, and fish in order to supplement their ration allotment (McDonald 1993: 11).


89 In Jamaica, labor was established early in the slavesÂ’ lives. Slave children were introduced to gang labor under the direction of elderly slave women (McDonald 1993: 8). Their tasks of weeding, collecting fodder, and general cleanup prepared them for progression into the a dult gang labor system. Sugarcane cultivation in Louisiana had a shorter growing season than in Jamaica because of the threat of frost (McDonal d 1993: 11-15; Rodrigue 2001:13-15; Follett 2005: 11-15). Gang labor was the most utiliz ed labor system in Louisiana sugarcane plantations. SlavesÂ’ work sc hedule reflected this reduced cycle, especially during the planting and harvest seasons. Horse, mule, or ox drawn plows were utilized to till furrows. After planting, the slaves plowed and hoed between the six foot rows to decrease weeds and create drai nage/irrigation ditches. During the summer months when the sugarcane required less maintenance, sl aves tended other pl antation crops, mended roads and fences, constructed outbuildings, cr eated bricks, built and maintained levees, dug drainage ditches, cut and transported lumber for fuel for the sugar mill and the cooper. During harvest the slaves worked se ven days a week for sixteen or more hours, stripping, cutting, and transporting canes to the sugar mill. Slave children on Louisiana sugar plantati ons completed the same types of labor as experienced by the slave children in Ja maica. McDonald summarizes the harsh realities of slave life on sugarcane plan tations in Jamaica and Louisiana. To please the palates of white West ern Europeans and Americans, black slaves suffered and died within a system characterized by undernourishment, overwork, harsh puni shment, poor housing, inadequate clothing, high infant mortality, ill hea lth, despair, and life-spans shortened by a grim regime. [1993:15]


90 As illustrated by the literature on Jamaican and Louisianan sugarcane plantations, there is no reason to expect that labor at Ga mble plantation was any less intensive for his slaves. The climate at the Gamble plantati on would have been more like Jamaica thereby the growing season would not have been as s hortened as in Louisiana. Like Louisiana sugar plantations, Gamble needed extens ive drainage and irrigation ditches to productively grow sugarcane. A few white settlers were employed by Gamb le to supervise slave work activity. Otherwise, all labor was provided by the slaves. Timber “was sawed by hand on the plantation, as all the lumber of every kind used in construction” (Gamble 1888), hauled three miles downriver, and prepared for sh ipment. Sixteen miles of drainage and irrigation canals were dug with pick axes gunpowder used only in areas of heavy limestone. Buildings were constructed including two sugar mills, Gamble’s mansion, slave cabins, and any other dependencies Ga mble needed for running the plantation. Clay and tabby bricks were made prior to th e construction of any bu ildings. Agricultural fields were prepared, planted, and harvested. Sugar and molasses production following harvest was the most intensive and dangerous portion of sugarcane agriculture Timing was a major factor in sugar production. Canes were harveste d by the slaves and transported to the mill. If canes were not rolled within fortyeight hours of harvest the juic e dried within the stalk or soured (McDonald 1993:7). Canes had to be harvested before frost otherwise the juice crystallized within the stalk rendering the cane usel ess for sugar (Schene 1974:45).

PAGE 100

91 Slaves fed the cane into the rollers to extract the juice. Gamble had a fifty horsepower steam engine to driv e massive rollers that weighted greater than 5 tons. His rollers were so thorough that i nhalation of the bagasse could result in “near suffocation” (Gamble 1868). The raw juice was clarified through filters and evaporated in la rge kettles. Steady fires stimulated boiling and speeded the evapor ation process. Gamble utilized vacuum kettles during the last stages of evaporat ion (Gamble 1868). Lower boiling temperatures were needed when vacuum kettles were used and resulted with less burning (Schene 1974:48). Economically, this advantage meant le ss fuel utilized with greater quality and quantity of syrup. The thickened syrup required transfer to a wooden tank for granulation. Following granulation, the sugar was transfer red to hogsheads suspended in the draining room. Molasses dripped from holes in the bottoms of the hogsheads into cisterns that ran the length of the draini ng building (Gamble 1868). The hogsheads of sugar were caulked and the molasses collected after a pe riod of twenty to thirty days (Schene 1974:51-52). Sugar making required the labor of skilled and field slaves. Fuel to support the fires was cut and transported to the sugar mill. The steam engine boiler fire was consistently maintained during the clarific ation and evaporation stages. Skilled sugar makers identified when the juice thickened into syrup. During the clarification and evaporation stages hot syrup was transferred from kettle to kettle or to hogsheads.

PAGE 101

92 Hogsheads were made prior of the year’s harvest. Refined sugar and molasses required shipping preparations. It is unknown whether Gamble used the gang or task system of labor. Gamble describes utilizing the gang system when he wrote of employing a supervisor “.... and placed him over a gang of my axemen” (Gam ble 1888). The gang system was more exhaustive requiring the slaves to work from sunrise to sunset. The task system was more lenient and allowed the slaves free time after completion of their tasks. The gang labor system was standard practice in Middl e Florida, Louisiana, and Jamaica (Rivers 2000:20-21; McDonald 1993: 11-15; Rodrigue 2001:13-15). The difference between the gang labor of Louisiana and Jamaica and Middle Florida is that Middle Florida utilized women to work the agricultural fields along with the men (Rivers 2000:20-21). Gamble owned house servants as well as sk illed and field laborers. This position potentially could be as demanding as other forms of labor because of the multiple roles these people had to portray. Besides the demanding care of the household and cooking, house servants were forced to be confidant/ gossiper for the owner wh ile remaining loyal to the slave community. The house servants performed their labors under the watchful eye of the owner and conveyed messages of “loyalty, servility, accommodation, and trustworthiness” (Wilke 2000: 235). Ironi cally, plantation observers deemed house servants, slave drivers, and skilled laborer s highest on the slave hierarchy due to the positions they held on the plantation. Root doctors, conjurers and preachers held the highest positions within the slave community because of the association with magic and spiritual powers (Otto 1984:37).

PAGE 102

93 Historical records reveal that Middle Florida planters John Gratten Gamble and Robert H. Gamble gave their slaves time off on the Fourth of July, Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas (Rivers 2000: 29). Labor at the Gamble plantation, like other southern plantations, probably offered few leisure hours for the slaves. Burns, strains, broken bones are potential injuries that indicate the intensity of plan tation labor. Forensic studies of skeletal remains of enslaved people have revealed severe occupational stress. Their skeletal pathology showed evidence of arth ritic degenerative cha nges, bone hypertrophy, Os acromiale (non union of the shoulder joint) ulna (Parry) fractures and depressed skull fractures (Owsley et al. 1987: 185-197; Kelley and A ngel 1987:119 & 209; Blakey 2001:405). Gamble did not leave documentary refe rence to building locations except the mansion and the mill. Logically it appears that artifacts near the mansion would be associated with Gamble. Artifacts located near the mansionÂ’s detached north building designated as the kitchen and slave work room s, dependency features, agricultural fields, and the canals would be associated with sl ave labor activity. The kitchen/slave work room areas would involve food procurement a nd preparation and potentially laundering. The dependencies functioned as utilitarian bui ldings that serviced the main house while simultaneously serving as labor locations for th e slaves. Past archaeo logy of kitchen and laundry yards have revealed utilitarian cer amic bowls, faunal bones, sewing materials such as buttons, pins, and sewing needles, pipe stems, children toys, and animal interments (Lindtveit and Klein 2003: 109-111).

PAGE 103

94 Areas designated as potential slave labor are likely to yield artifacts associated with that specific activity. Ar tifacts that represent finished products, waste products, or tools can be utilized as evidence in defini ng the type of labor pe rformed. Raw and waste materials such as bone, coal, slag, clinkers, a nd iron objects will help identify the types of labor. Kelso (1997:82) utilized this method to help determin e artifact association with the people and activitie s involved on Monticello. While l ogically this approach appears straightforward, excavation of the sugar mill wa s anticipated to reveal evidence of slave labor yet it illustrated th ree generations of twentieth century citrus agriculture. Foodways Planters utilized food as a form of cont rol, punishment, and reward (McKee 1999: 219). Ex-slave narratives illustrate episode s of severe hunger and starvation. Forensic studies of North American and Caribbean skeletons of enslaved people support documentations of severe mal nutrition (Singleton 1991:157). In a biocultural synthesis framework, Blak ey et al. (2004) researched the African Burial Grounds (NYABG) in New York Cit y. Forensic examination of 419 skeletal remains showed evidence that slave owners we re not compelled to i nvest monies in child slaves because it was more cost effective to purchase an adult slave than to raise one (Blakey et al. 2004: 541). Children born in New York experienced a high incidence of hypoplasia and hypocalcification associated with high nutritional stress. Poor intake of calcium in infant and childhood diets allowe d high levels of lead absorption. The children experienced a high incidence of inf ections, anemia, and growth retardation.

PAGE 104

95 Blakely et al. conclude, “The physical effects of slavery in New York resemble those of southern plantations” (2004: 541-546). Bioarchaeological studies of thirty-six nineteenth century skeletal remains recovered at a South Carolina plantation n ear Charleston revealed high levels of malnutrition and disease. Evidence of skelet al and dental growth disruptions created by anemia and infection was indicated in 92% of the male children (Rathburn 1987: 239-53). Common occurrences of dental caries and tooth loss which in dicates periodontal disease and abscesses are noted (Ows ley et al. 1987: 185-197). Caribbean bioarchaeology revealed high frequencies of nutritional and disease stresses. Skeletal studies of enslaved popul ations at Newton Plantation in Barbados and the Galways Plantation reveal harsh lifestyles marked by episodes of severe malnutrition and infections leading to ear ly deaths (Blakey 2001:409). These harsh bioarchaeological details crea te questions of how slaves coped with their physical, environmental, and psychological stressors. Th ey formulated methods to prevent being passive pawns in this cont rol (McKee 1999:219). Enslaved populations developed cultural buffering systems to offset food insecurity. They raised small animal livestock, gardened, hunted, fished, and stol e food to supplement their diets (McKee 1999:227; Heath 1999:37). Economically pressed plantation owners allowed their slaves to hunt and raise gardens and poultry to avoid the high cost of main taining their property (Berlin and Philips 1993:2).

PAGE 105

96 Owner records have also revealed reducti on of rations as a form of punishment (McKee 1999:227). Historical documents show that slave diets’ consisted of corn, preserved meats, and vegetables (S ingleton 1991: 154; Shofner 1976:129-130). Middle Florida plantation owners indica te limiting rations of corn to one peck weekly, offering staples for slaves to prepare their own mo rning and evening meals, and adhering to slaves’ wishes of pork over beef (R ivers 2000: 128, 133; Shofner 1976:129). John Gratten Gamble rewarded his slaves with a la rge meal after harvest. Rivers quotes an unnamed historical source that th e slaves, “had plenty to eat and a great deal too much to drink, and they danced, qua rreled, and fought throughout the night” (Rivers 2000: 172). Zooarchaeological analysis of slave cabin s and trash pits provide insight into some of the foods consumed by slaves. Thes e studies provide data of types, qualities, and quantities (Singleton 1991: 154). As early as 1967 Fairbanks found tangible evidence of wild caught species which illustra ted Kingsley’s slaves augmented their diets through hunting and fishing activities. Unfo rtunately, his research did not include quantification. Walker (1985) focused her quantificati on study of the vertebral fauna obtained from Kingsley’s slave Cabin W-3. Besides domestic pig (Sus scrofa), cow (Bos taurus), and chicken (Gallus gallus), wild terrestrial speci es such as opossum (Didelphi virginiana), raccoon (Procyon lo tor), white-tailed deer (Odo coileus virginianus), gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus), and alligator (Alligator mississipiensis) were identified. Freshwater and marine fish such as boney fishes (Osteichthyes) black diamond terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin), bowfin fish (Amia cal va), freshwater catfish (Ictaluridae), and sheepshead (Archosargus probatocephalus ) were recovered (Walker 1985:44-45).

PAGE 106

97 At Kingsley the faunal butchering practi ces indicated both cleaving and sawing. Frequent occurrences of cow and pig skulls teeth, and feet indi cate that the slaves consumed the less desirable cuts of the animals. WalkerÂ’s study illustrates that of all fauna recovered 40.1% were wild species with the highest frequency of 40 % consisting of nocturnal animals (Walker 1985:49-50). This high frequency supports OttoÂ’s argument that raccoons, rabbits, opossums, w ood rats, and mink found in Tidewater slave refuse indicates that these animals were more apt to be trapped dur ing the slaveÂ’s leisure hours in the evenings (1984:46). At CannonÂ’s Point, artifacts of fish bones a nd net weights indicated that the slaves supplemented their diets more with aquatic re sources than terrestria l species (Otto 1984: 47, 54, 56). The slaves also raised hogs, rabbits, and poultry for consumption. Poultry was raised not only for meat consumpti on also for their eggs (Otto 1984:58). It should be also noted that rat and snake species were recovered from KingsleyÂ’s slave cabin W-3. While there is no way to determine if these animals were used to supplement the slave diets, it should also be considered in remarking about the unsanitary conditions of the slave cabins. Kelso remarks also on the unsanitary conditions of slave lifeways because of the number of faunal specimens excavated were gnawed by rodents (1997:92). The faunal assemblage preserved in oyster middens offers glimpses into community and foodways. At St. AnneÂ’s slave settlement on St. Simons Island, Georgia, the slaves depended upon aquatic reso urces to supplement th eir weekly ration of one peck of corn. While the cabins where cl osely situated near each other, their trash

PAGE 107

98 middens differed. The study suggests that despite the close living arrangements, each family made their decisions as to what fa una to procure and prepared within their individual cabins (Butler et al. 2007:128). The faunal assemblage recovered at Montic ello’s slave cabins and refuse areas indicate that the slaves c onsumed beef, pork, or poultry. The bones represented poorer cuts of meat and were split or sawn into sma ll pieces in building “r”, “s”, and “t”. Soups and stews were prepared with these less meat y sections. The faunal assemblage in slave cabin “o” suggests a varied and richer diet because of the inclusion of long bones which represent meatier portions of th e butchered animal. Yet, thes e bones were also split into smaller sections for soup/stew pr eparation (Kelso 1997:93-96). Rivers (2000:128) argues that Florida sl aves benefitted from an environmental climate that supported agricultural growth. He posits that large and varied quantities of crops provide sufficient foods for human and animal consumption. Rivers (2000:127128) and Smith (1973:80) assert that planters were compelle d to provide adequate food and clothing because slaves represented the planter’s largest investment. To date we have no knowledge of Gamble’s slaves’ diets. While historians Rivers and Smith argue that plantation owners were compelled to f eed and care for their slaves out of economic self-interest, one should also acknowledge that at Kingsley, Ryefield, St. Anne’s, Cannon’s Point, and Monticello plantations, th e slave diets were le ss than adequate. Slaves had to augment their diets to survive. Ideally, if slave cabin s or refuse areas are located on Gamble Plantation then zooarch aeological analysis will address how well Gamble’s slaves fared.

PAGE 108

99 Worldview and Religion Fairbanks’ initial excavation at Kingsley plantation offered new ideas about slave lifeways. In 1967 Charles Fairbanks (Fai rbanks 1984: 1-14) c onducted archaeological research with the Florida State Park Service in order to reco nstruct slave cabins for site interpretation. Fairbanks sought to find mate rial culture that wa s representative of “Africanisms” (Fairbanks 1984:2), or evidence of African influenced traditions that carried-over through the Middle Passage. While Fairbanks was unsuccessful to establish evidence of African traditions, the excavation of two slave cabins at Kingsley plantation presented significant differences concerning sl ave lifeways than portrayed in historical records. The artifact assemblage include d musket flints which suggested that the Kingsley enslaved population supplemented and varied their diet through hunting activities (Fairbanks 1984:2). Gun possession by enslaved people was in defiance of slave codes and evidence that slaves prepared varied diet within their homes opened new directions and questions for slave archaeology. Fairbanks a nd Ascher’s excavation of a slave cabin at Ryefield on Cumberland Is land in 1971 revealed a similar artifact assemblage. Fairbanks argues that the fir earms, outdated British ceramics, and wild fauna suggested similar slave lifeways as what was found at Kingsley plantation (Fairbanks 1984:2). Firearms have been found consistently w ithin slave cabins (Fai rbanks 1984; Otto; 1984; Kelso 1997). It becomes insightful when southern and Florida planters armed their enslaved people in defiance of southern slave codes. The archaeological record illustrates the presence of these illegal items yet institutionally they were banned out of

PAGE 109

100 fear of slave revolt. The presence of guns as suggested by Otto (1984) might have been evidence of specialized hunters, though the frequency of thei r presence would not be as high. The high percentage of wild animal sp ecies found in the archae ological record of slave cabins and refuse areas indicates hun ting activities. Yet Davidson (2007) suggests that these firearms might have served the additional function of protection. Gamble armed his slaves and posted sentries at work centers during the Third Seminole War (1855-1858). The archaeological record of Gamb le’s slave cabins might reveal a high incidence of firearms not only because of hun ting activity but because of the need to arm his slaves during the threat of the Third Seminole War. Archaeologists argue that Fairbanks’ search for African cultural traits implies a stagnant culture that did not evolve over time (Davidson 2007:20; Singleton and Bograd 1995:27). Davidson’s (2007) arch aeological research at Ki ngsley Plantation was to reassess the work completed by Fairbanks and to create a baseline of “the root metaphors and symbols at play within several different West and Central African cultures from the late 18th century onwards” (Davidson 2007: 20). An alysis of two Kingsley slave cabins illustrates some of the aspects of Fairbanks’ original archaeological research (Davidson 2007: 76). A chicken sacrifice intentionally interred with a chicken egg, a proximal deer tibia, an iron hoe, and beads were identified as house charms and offer insight into the worldviews of the people w ho lived in those slave cab ins (Davidson 2007: 102). Archaeologists argue that evidence of African worldview survived middle passage (Yentsch 1994:193; Ferguson 1992:118). These evidences can be seen in rice agriculture, food prep aration, houses, and religion. Ferguson (1992:118) suggests that

PAGE 110

101 due to the relative social and physical is olation of plantations many of the African traditions that the slaves brought with them were retained and incorporated with new concepts and materials. This creolizati on of Euro-Christian and African religious traditions was a survival method employed by slaves (Rivers 2000:106). Yentsch (1994) maintains that the use of beads and butt on by slaves was utilized as body adornment that replaced the African tradition of body scarification, conveyed cultural identity, and carried metaphysical and religious meanings. This cultural expression that survived the middle passage ca rried symbolic magic. Not only used to decorate their outer appearance, beads and desi gns identified kinships and cultures. The colors of the beads held great magical si gnificance though the mean ings varied among cultures. Yentsch uses as examples the colo r blue and green. Blue was associated with the sky and specific gods while green was associ ated with “the colo r of vegetation after rainfall” (Yentsch 1994:193). Artifacts of magical specialists should be identifiable to some degree (Wilke 1997: 85). Traditional healer/magician assemb lage could contain cast iron metal bases, bird skulls, animal paws, medicine bottles, bul let casings, doll parts, shells, projectile points, metal knives, nails, and spikes (1987: 85-6). Artifacts rec overed from an African American midwife’s home site in Mobile, Al abama revealed a large number of medicine and whiskey bottles related to midwifery a nd “objects of magical significance, including yellow sulfur, a glass crystal, and flaked stone s” (1987:85).

PAGE 111

102 Resistance Paynter posits that the relationship between master and slaves was one where the master developed strategies to extract labor from the slaves while the slaves designed strategies to resist planter control (Paynter 1988: 412). Hi storical documents such as private journals, articles, and letters illustrate methods that planters resorted to exert control and coerce labor. Whippings and withholding food were common punishments utilized to coerce slave compliance in Middle Florida. Slaves were also rewarded with money and gifts as an incentive. Oral hist ories taken from freed slaves offer their perspective as they devised methods to resi st (Douglas 1941:101). As archeologists, we must be careful not to look exclusively for resistance because we are apt to see these actions in everything we find (Howson 1990). Scholars have illustrated that slaves cr eated methods to resist planter control (Singleton 2001:108; McKee 1999:219; Howson 1990). Work avoidance, escape, and rebellion are considered overt forms of resist ance. More subtle forms of resistance are reflected in comments by the owner as a repr esentation of economic losses, disloyalty, and inconveniences. Barbara L ittle discusses the need to examine the subtle forms of resistance. It is important to distinguish between various forms of protest. Overt political protest and revolt shows up in documents. However, archaeology is needed to find protest where it is manifested more subtly in everyday religious expression, aesthetics, build ings, and other forms of material culture. Such pervasive everyday form s of protest may be more effective in rebellion, partially because they are more widespread and persistent. [Little 2007: 90]

PAGE 112

103 Archaeologists have studied the types of resistance exhibited by slaves. Ferguson (1992:75) and Wilke (2000:137, 157) argue that maintenance of African culture identity is a form of resistance. Otto (1975:111-112) and Ferguson(1992:75) il lustrate the tension of control and agency between master and sl ave when they utili ze a cited narrative of Okra, a CannonÂ’s Point Plantation slave, St. Si mons, Georgia. OkraÂ’s choice was to build a mud walled house in African architectu ral style while his owner forced him to remove the structure and was re placed by a two-pen cabin. Slaves utilized cultural id entity as a form of resistance (Wilke 2000:157). Body scarification, a form of cultural identity, wa s prohibited by slave masters. Wilke argues that personal adornment replaced body scarif ication as a form of identity. Beads and buttons not only represented cultur al layers but also a form of covert or subtle resistance. A form of resistance that is neither tangible nor measurab le but certainly powerful was through the masterÂ’s palate. Wilke argue s that food preparation reflected the cookÂ’s African heritage (Wilke 2000:137). This subt le form of resistance allowed slaves to exercise power over their masters. How would the subtler forms of resistan ce be reflected in the archaeological record? Forms of resistance can be identified w ith each subtitle of this chapter. Home construction was a form of resistance. Sl aves adapted their homes while under the supervision of their owners. While plantation owners attempte d to control their enslaved population with spatial organiza tion, their slaves viewed a nd arranged their landscapes differently (Singleton and Bograd 1995:20) Defiance of the planterÂ’s spatial arrangements empowered them through gaining some control over their private lives.

PAGE 113

104 Challenge of spatial control is observed with the location of porches. KingsleyÂ’s slaves constructed their back porche s on the exterior of the semi-circle arc not visible to KingsleyÂ’s observations (Davidson 2007:47). An imal interments with artifacts associated with magic found under slave houses, in slave ya rds or work spaces offers insight into religious practices that were not always approved of by th eir owners. Stolen property, broken tools, and stolen food supplies can be found within cabins and in slave yards (Singleton 2001:108; Si ngleton 1991: 151, 153). Slave diets can be examined for resi stance. Beef was more economical than pork in Florida during the nineteenth century and plantation owners tried to alter slave dietary patterns of pork consumption to beef (Shofner 1976:129). As a form of resistance slaves refused to consume beef and insisted on pork. This resistance could be identified in the archaeological record by exhibiting higher quantities of pork bones found in slave cabins and trash pits. The consumption of alcohol can be viewed as a form of resistance. In the Matanzas Province of Cuba, it was illegal for slaves to purchase alcoholic products. SingletonÂ’s (2006: 279) archaeol ogical work at Cafetal del Pa dre, a coffee plantation in Cuban, revealed alcohol bottles in the slave village. Singl eton posits that the illegal purchase of alcohol was without owner approval. The historical record concerning GambleÂ’s slaves is silent. We know that he sold one hundred eighty-five individuals in 1858. We can look at his remaining landscape and know that they created it through strenuous la bor according to his dictates. But what does it tell us about them? We have no idea of how they designed the landscape to meet their needs. We have no idea of their homes, diets, or methods of resistance. In an

PAGE 114

105 interview fifteen years following his first arch aeological investigati on of Kingsley’s slave cabins, Fairbanks said that he be gan slave archaeology because “it was an undocumented aspect of America’s past” (S hapiro 1982:15). Forty years af ter Fairbanks initial work examining slave lifeways, we still have unans wered questions about the enslaved people at Gamble Plantation. Proposed Archaeological Methods Background research of historical data and past archaeological surveys on the plantation provide the historical context while identifying potential si tes that have been previously investigated (Fed er 1997:50). While Gamble left limited data concerning the plantation, others have examined aspects of the plantation’s history and archaeology (Almy et al. 2001, 2004, 2007; Roland et al 2004; Silpa 2003; Parks et al. 2001; Matthews 1983; Schene 1974; Baker 1987, 1992; Baker and Peterson 1978; King and Johnson 1973). As mentioned earlier in this chapter, all archaeol ogical investigations have yet to reveal evidence of the African American lifeways that existed on this plantation. Myles Bland suggests that the explanation for the lack of nineteenth century material culture excavated at the sugar mill reflects the three generations of 20th century citrus farming and that the enslaved populati on’s time spent at the sugar mill was totally involved in coerced labor. Bland proposes that the food consumption (lunch) and other communal activities took place off site (Bland personal communication 5/2008). Interviews with State Park Rangers, local historical communities, and the surrounding community offer insight into hist orical and site data and may provide important explanations to th e spatial organization of the plantation. Ethnohistorical

PAGE 115

106 interviews also can supply threads of inform ation as to how the African American culture might have used and perceived the plantation landscape (Feder 1997:52). A review of the environmental aspects that could have impacted 19th century settlement and land use of the plantation should be completed. A vegetation study of current flora specimens located on the park and the sugar mill with a comparison of the 19th century flora allows for understanding of us e changes of the environment. Changes in environmental flora are often attributed to changes in the environment such as plants that would survive in wetlands cannot survive well drained en vironments. These types of changes might offer evidence of GambleÂ’s 16 mile s of canals. It can be assumed that the canals were constructed for drai nage and irrigation of agricu ltural fields. Thus, through the process of elimination, it can be presum ed that permanent architecture used for functional dependences such as slave or ove rseer homes, barns, food storage buildings, and coopers/blacksmith shops were not c onstructed in potentially wet areas. Furthermore, understanding of flora th at was used by the enslaved African American populations on other plantations for medicinal and religious purposes can potentially open new avenues to understa nding the lifeways of GambleÂ’s enslave population. A preliminary iden tification of the flora wa s conducted in March 2008. These plants are listed in tables in the Appendix of this thesis. This design suggests the utilization of non-invasive and invasive archaeological methods. Non-invasive methods of survey in clude aerial photographs, the assemblage of maps including historic, present, and topographic maps, and remote sensing.

PAGE 116

107 Archaeological excavation is invasive to the archaeological record and should be limited areas of high suspect of ninete enth century cultural resources. Aerial photographs of the Palmetto area allows for determination of environmental factors such as topography, cultu ral features, canal and stream drainage. Chapter 3 examines the environment and illustrates the areaÂ’s usage for agricultural purposes since the 1940s. The aerial photographs also illustrate many canals that run north/south and east/west. Historical maps also help identify land usag e. As with other historical documents, the cartographer could have been guided with preconceived percepti ons and biases. An example is GambleÂ’s 1868 hand drawn map. It illustrates the sugar mill located directly north of the mansion. Yet, the mill is locate d north west of the mansion. The map does not contain architectural features other than the mansion, the mill, the wharf, and the roads leading from the wharf to the mansion and sugar mill. It can only be assumed that slave homes and other dependencies were not important enough for Gamble to mention. He mentions the creation of a permanent creek but fails to present it in the map. The map is not created to scale and cannot be overlai d on a current map with accuracy. At best, these historical maps can be utilized as guides. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps illustrate landforms with line and symbol representati ons of human created and natural features (Napton and Greathouse 1997: 181) A 1:24,000-scale map (7.5minute series) supplies the archaeologist with precise details of the terrain. Ro ads, streams, canals, and

PAGE 117

108 vegetation patterns are enlarged and plotted. Contour lines indicate the elevation of topography to help determine the locati on of potential areas of past use. Remote sensing obtains images of the ear th’s surface from “suborbital and orbital altitudes in various wavelengt hs of the visible and invisible spectrum” (Napton and Greathouse 1997: 178). The proce ss generates general data over large areas and allows for detection of anomalies below the so il level without destruction of the ground. Geographic and archaeological data can be represented and modeled through the utilization of Geographic Information System s (GIS). Mapping, la yering, and spatial analysis involves the application of GIS ( Napton and Greathouse 1997:225). Whitley demonstrates the usefulness of a GIS-integrated research project to map and interpret the cultural landscape of the Silk Hope Plantation, the Ch erry Hill Plantation, and the Dublin/Richmond Plantation in Georgia (Wh itley 2008:3-4). The use of GIS as an informational tool allowed for management of layers of data and coordinate point locations of artifacts and features with hist orical maps, and aerial photographs. Activity areas, behavioral patterns a nd land usages were clarified when GIS was utilized as a reconstructiveanalytical tool The most ambitious usage was as a cognitive-interpretive tool. Whitley utilized GIS to interpret the enslaved populatio n’s perception and usage of the environment and the changes in be haviors and perceptions over time. The use of Global Positioning System (GPS) will assist in precise locating and recording structures on site w ith relative speed. The use of the surveyors’ transit will allow for the team to “measure horizontal and vertical angles with great accuracy and to

PAGE 118

109 lay out roads, bridges, buildings, and ot her types of constr uction” (Napton and Greathouse 1997: 217). Ground-penetrating radar (GPR), pr oton magnetometer, and electrical resistivity can be utilized to help locat e and potential identify buried architectural features and clusters of material culture. Due to the wi dely scattered ferrous de bris and pipes (Baker 1987: 8) proton magnetometer survey prove d not suitable for remote sensing. GPR is considered an active remo te sensing procedure where brief electromagnetic pulses are released into the ground via a transducer. The time of radar wave reflection is measured as the ener gy pulses encounter subsurface and geologic objects (Rolland et al. 2004:51; Feder 1996:59-61). This technique reflects buried features such as house foundations and floors, wells, and walls 5 meters below soil level. The radar graphic record is useful for in ferring cultural and natural resources and the report can facilitate decisions for test unit placement. Howe ver, the radar signal can be distorted in areas with high cl ay densities and subsurface wate r. Rolland et al. utilized a GSSI SIR-3000 digital control system during th e archaeological survey of the sugar mill in March 2004 (2004: section 6:1). The high clay content and soil moisture, and iron debris limited the radar performance. Rolland et al state “GPR signal penetration is sitespecific and determined by the dielectric propert ies of the soil present. It must be noted that the current project tract exhibits seve ral factors which limit the effectiveness of GPR” (2004:6-3). The high cost of subcontracting ground-pene trating radar and its effectiveness in site-specific areas limits utilization of the pro cedure to areas that are suspect for cultural

PAGE 119

110 resources. GPR should be utilized around the UDC archival building, the four compartment unknown tabby feature, and the tras h pits areas identified by Baker in 1987. The Judah P. Benjamin Confederate Memori al at the Gamble Plantation Historic State Park (8MA100) should be remapped in or der to identify the existence and condition of all structures on the esta te. The northwest section of the plantation was mapped during the 1978 Baker and Peterson resi stivity survey. Baker mapp ed the park during his 1987 Archaeological Auger Survey. Structural chan ges have occurred over the last twenty-one years. Mapping the estate will include new buildings, parking lots, and other structures not represented in BakerÂ’s map. Expansion of BakerÂ’s (1987:11) auger surv ey and utilization of the Cartesian coordinate grid system that he established will be helpful in maintaining continuity of the mapped park area. To understand GambleÂ’s landscape and thereby find areas that illustrate areas of slave activity, it is logical to identify and located GambleÂ’s built environment. Based on BakerÂ’s (1987) Cartesian grid this project should include subsurface testing of the areas surrounding the four compartment stor age feature located at N 160/ E 290, the United Daughters of Confederacy o ffice building located at N 190/ E 290 and the multiple trash pits located at N160/E230, N300/E290, N230/E290, N240/E290, and N110/E290. Archaeological investigation of the 19th century subsurface historic building that supplied rain water runoff of the four co mpartment tabby featur e identified by Baker

PAGE 120

111 (1987:35) as a cistern might offer some insight into the identity and function of these two features. Inference of the sp atial arrangement of the planta tion could be attained. The subsurface historic building could range from overseer house, one of the slave cabins to one of the many outbuildings that served as maintenance for the plantation. Additionally, archaeological investigation of the multiple trash pits (Baker 1987) located on the eastern borders of the park offe r potential insight into the location of slave cabins, yards, and refuse areas. Depending on th e identification of these sites, research questions can address notions such as status, slave lif eways, and slave labor. Pedestrian surveys offer a means to obtain surface collect ions. Though the park rangers maintain the property on a regular basi s, past archaeological surveys have yielded nineteenth century surface artif acts. Surface collection can provide information on site conditions, spatial variability, site functi on as well as artifacts (Shafer 1997: 35 Any test units need to be excavated to th e water table or at le ast to the depth of 50 cm. in intervals of 10 cm. below soil level. The natural and cultural layers of the soil supply key information about the site (Feder 1997: 124). Nineteenth century material cultural was predominately found between the 20 cm and 40 cm below soil level on this plantationÂ’s 1987 excavation. It is hypothesized that evidence of building features and 19th century material culture will be visual ized during excavations 50 cm below soil level. One liter soil samples from the matrix of each test pit should be collected for flotation studies. Analysis and identification of plant materials provides critical

PAGE 121

112 information about the food consumption, hous e construction, human-plant association and the natural environment that was availabl e. Botanical macroremains and seeds not only assist in identifying the function of the site but could provide insight into medicinal and religious practices that GambleÂ’s slaves utilized. Two tablespoons of soil obtained from the center of the floor of each pit should be retrieved and stored in sterile plastic bags developed for ch emical analysis. Chemical signatures in the soil reveal areas of human activity (Fed er 1997: 59) Concentrations of phosphorus and other major and minor elemen ts retrieved from archaeological sites reveal information about food preparation and consumption and aids in the determination of domestic activities (Wells et al. 2000: 449). Soil chemical si gnatures of the exterior of slave cabins should reveal hi gh concentrations of phosphorus. Exterior areas of slave cabins reveal evidence of their daily lives. Work, food preparation and consumption, and socialization took place outsi de their homes (Ferguson, 1992: 72; Heath, 1999: 33; Otto 1984:8). Conclusion Since FairbanksÂ’ pioneering work at Ki ngsley Plantation, multiple archaeologists have explored slave archaeology looking for answers to how these people lived while owned by another person. This section of the thesis has examined the theoretical issues of built landscapes utilized as power and how enslaved people negotiated their daily lives within the restrictive boundari es of slavery. It has answ ered the question of how we might see slave activity reflected within the archaeological record at the Gamble Plantation. Due to the dearth of historical data concerning GambleÂ’s enslaved population

PAGE 122

113 it becomes logical to attempt to examine hi s built environment to place slave activity upon it. This thesis has pr ovided a conceptual framework for future research at the Gamble Plantation in order to understand life ways of the enslaved people at Gamble Plantation. Through identification of the spatia l relationships and f unctional capacities of architectural features on his la ndscape, we can tease out inferr ed stories about his slaves that have been effectively eliminated thr ough conscious oversight by the literate members of the plantation and the eff ects of time. A review of archaeological and historical literature provides some sense of GambleÂ’s sl aves but only in an indirect way. Accepting that slave activity can be reflected in these wa ys presented in this thesis, we create new inferences about the slaves and the landscape at Gamble Plantation. We can infer how they built their homes, what materials they us ed, their labor activitie s, what foods they might and might not have eaten, their worl dviews and religious practices, and their resistances. Archaeological research can offer opportuni ties to retrieve tangible evidences of GambleÂ’s enslaved population in order to build a more in-depth story about their past. We can utilize these inferences ge nerated here to serve as an outline for future archaeological and more forward through ar chaeological research at the Gamble Plantation.

PAGE 123

114 Chapter 6: Presentation of the Past The Judah P. Benjamin Confederate Memori al at the Gamble Plantation Historic State Park is owned by the Florida Depart ment of Environmental Protection (DEP), Bureau of Cultural and Natural Resources of the Florida Park Se rvices. The mission of the Bureau of Natural and Cultural Resources is to coordinate and standardize effective preservation of natural and cu ltural resources in the Florida State Parks. The Bureau accomplishes its mission by the supervision of the management, restoration, and protection of the natural and cultural resource s. In a multifaceted approach, the Bureau reviews impacts on cultural re sources, develops standards for resource management and operational procedures, tracks and analyzes resources management activities, issues permits, and provides advice and technical s upport for natural and cultural resource management programs. In this chapter, I provide a descriptio n and critique of the way the past is presented at the park. Included within th e description, I offer my experience as an anthropologist volunteering as a park docent. It is hoped that through examination of the public presentation that new insightful met hods will be developed to offer a more inclusive plantation history. Presenting the Past at the Gamble Plantation The Gamble Plantation is opened for public usage and offers a guided walk through antebellum history. Regularly scheduled tours are available five days a week.

PAGE 124

115 Additionally, the recreational ar eas of picnic pavilions ar e available during daylight hours. The tours are given by park rangers and volunteer docents. A t our script provides the tour guide with information to convey to the public. While the tour script is the official version to be presented to the public, tour guides add their fl are to the script and highlight different aspects of the tour. The mansion tour is slated to last 45 mi nutes and provides hist orical information about Robert Gamble, his family, and Judah P. Benjamin. In a short span of time a visitor learns about the Armed Occupati on Act of 1842, settlement along the Manatee River, the three major plantations located on the river, the massiveness of Gamble’s plantation, his profits and losse s due to nature, expansion, an d the sugar market, the sale of the property, and the role that the Unite d Daughters of the Confederacy played saving the plantation from deterioration. The tour presentation focuses on a planter (Gamble), a confederate (Benjamin), and the material cult ure of the planter society. Limited social and historical contexts are related in conj unction with the planter material culture. Burnham (1995:63) argues that it is common that many plan tation presentations offer a view from the planter’s mansion. He descri bes mansion tours as a “cleansing ritual” and “a cataloging of planter material culture” wh ile limiting discussions about the people who did the work. Singleton (1997: 146) describes plantation museums as a repository for planter material culture that may contain so mething made by African Americans such as a quilt.

PAGE 125

116 Park rangers at the Gamble Plantation are cognizant of the limited knowledge conveyed to the public concerning Gamble’s en slaved population. The park “attempts to provide information about the plantation th at can be historically supported” (Park Supervisor Don Bergeron: pe rsonal communication 3/2008). Much controversy has been written c oncerning presentation s at historical museums (Silpa 2003; Little 2002; Burnham 1995; Singleton 1997; Gable and Handler 1996; Handler and Gable 1997; Gable et al. 1992; Smith and Ehrenhard 2002). Gable and Handler (1996) offer a poignant discus sion about historical museums in their argument concerning Colonial Williamsburg. Th ey illustrate that information is not always historically accurate. They argue that historic museums utilize data that can sell their image. Heritage is one form of cultural salvage. A “lost world” or a world about to be lost is in need of “preservat ion,” and the museum or heritage site bills itself as the best institution to perform this function. Heritage museums become publicly recognized re positories of the physical remains and, in some senses, the “au ras” of the really “real .” As such, they are arbiters of a marketable authen ticity. They are also objective manifestations of cultural, ethnic, or national identity, which outside the museum is often perceived as thre atened by collapse and decay. Yet preservation entails artful fakery. Reconstruction, as it were, is the best evidence for the validity of a constructive paradigm. Critics of this or that version of authenticity have before th em in a heritage site ample evidence from which to build their deconstruc tive arguments. [Gable and Handler 1996: 568] At the Gamble Plantation discussions about slavery vary depending on the tour guides’ knowledge of slavery and their personal investment in the plantation as they attempt to recreate a credible history. In th e official script, the sl aves are introduced and given a role within the dining room, the offi ce, the slave work room, and the kitchen.

PAGE 126

117 Nineteenth century material culture within the mansion is utilized to help describe slavery and contributes to the illusion th at the slaves existed within a static relationship with their owner. The audienceÂ’s attention is focu sed on these stage props rather than the house servants who were slaves laboring at all hours under the watc hful eye of the owner. Mansion visitors observe the st ory of slavery as it is re presented and in turn they internalize their experience as an interaction with the past There is no discussion of issues of power and resistance. I maintain that the presentation within the slave work room and the kitchen appears more like a co mposite of slave narra tives taken from the Florida WPA Slave Narratives and the 1970s hist oriansÂ’ views of slavery rather than an individualization of the slave c onditions that existed at the Gamble Plantation. If the idea of slavery is reconstructed from planterÂ’s ar chival records, genera lized reproductions of slave narratives, or outdated hi storical research, then the co mplexity and diversity of how enslaved people survived with in the boundaries of slavery is lost. I argue in my undergraduate honors thesis th at such a presentation hi des slave labor while it incorporates the labor within the tour. The roles of slaves and master are inactive when addressed within the context of the great house. Static pr esentation of these roles conceals the dynamics of slave/master relationships : resistance and domination. This type of interpretation encourages an image of slaves as passively existing for the masterÂ’s needs. The planterÂ’s life and his material culture become the focus of the tour. The enslaved population is wr itten out of their history. As we traveled throughout the mansion, explanat ions of slave labor were given. Their labors were rendered indiscerni ble as the tour gr oupÂ’s attention was drawn to furnishings, china, and a tea ch est. Examples of slave work were interwoven with the material culture of the planter aristocracy. [2003:91]

PAGE 127

118 Interpretations as to how the enslaved pe ople lived outside of the contexts of the plantation owner are not brought forward. Th e cultural dynamics of their lifeways such as house construction, foodways, labor, communal activities, resistance, and accommodation are erased or distorted during a presentation through the setting of the great house. Wylie argues that the enterprise of understanding other cultures “depends on the possibility of rendering these cultures inte lligible to us” (2002: 154). She posits that, “the museum serves as a kind of ritual cont ext in which unresolved contradictions in the present are articulated in hi storical terms and symbolic ally resolved” (2002: 157). Discussions about slavery are minimized for many reasons which could include ignorance, discomfort, or patriotic needs to present celebrated heroes of our American past. African Americans are a vital portion of America’s past that are forgotten or written out of their history. Gamble’s slaves pr ovided the labor to maintain the plantation including the construction of the buildings and the drainage canals, yet Gamble is credited for their creation. Historical data remains silent about Gamble’s slaves. My Approach I serve as a volunteer docent for the park which places me in a unique position as an applied anthropologist. Until recently, I guided park visitors through the mansion one afternoon a week. I have benefitted from the opportunity to be immersed in park activities and obtain an in siders’ perspective. As I stated earlier, park rangers attempt to portray historically supported data. Park rangers do not atte mpt the “artful fakery” that Gable and Handler (1996) address. They welc ome new insight concer ning the plantation.

PAGE 128

119 They are also constrained by the script they ar e given to recite and the time frame allotted for the tours. As a scholar-activist bo th constraints create conflicts for me. The tour script was writte n during the 1970s. I examined aspects of the tour in detail in my undergraduate honors thesis (S ilpa 2003). As previously mentioned, it appears to me as composite of slave narra tives that includes excerpts from planter journals and 1970s historians’ views of sl avery. Obviously, histor ical archaeology has presented new insights about slave lifeways that could be incorporate d. Yet, this script remains the current official presentation. As an undergraduate docent, I memorized the script and worried that it took forever for me to give the tour. On my first so lo tour, a visitor who identified himself as a member of the Sons of ConfederacyJeff Davis Chapter, patted my hand at the end of the tour and said, “Now dear, you don’t need to be so nervous. Maybe you shouldn’t include so much about the slaves” (anonymous: personal communication 2002). I heard visitors remark that Gamble wa s good to his slaves because he allowed them to raise gardens or that the slaves were happy to be his slaves because they did not run away. My undergraduate thesis addresses these comments. Planter documents describe slavery as dependent relationships. These historical documents offer a view th at is imbued with biased beliefs. Food, clothing, and housing were examples of the master’s goodness. Assumption that relationships and goodness can be measured in food, clothing, and housing negates the complex ity of the issues. Relationships of power, domination, accommodation, an d resistance are lost when the generalized opinion of goodness is deduced. [Silpa 2003:96] I returned to role of vol unteer docent as a graduate student. Armed with scholastic data, I felt confident in my appr oach. While the tours that I give vary

PAGE 129

120 depending on the audience’s age and knowledge of Florida, I start my tours informing the group that I am an archaeologist and have c oncentrated my interest on this plantation, specifically the enslaved population. I inform them that they w ill receive from me a different approach than what they would rece ive from other docents. I realize that this statement professes a sense of credibility in which the audien ce could interpret that I can supply a more authentic version of history. My statement is not meant to bolster my status nor can I offer a more “authentic versi on” of history than other docents. Indeed, the park rangers and some of the docents have read many of the same historical books. I cannot offer an authentic version of history beca use there is no such entity. History is our interpretation of the past. Handler and Gabl e demonstrate that hist oric museums and sites lack authenticity because “we cannot recrea te, reconstruct, or recapture the past” (1997:223). They argue that th e material culture from the past at Colonial Williamsburg and other historical museum settings is not hist ory. They stress, “‘the past’ exists only as we narrate it today” (1997:224). My statement serves to aler t the audience to three point s of my narration: history, slavery, and time. I inform them that I w ill present a great deal of historical and archaeological facts placed in context of my understa nding of history a nd society, give an in-depth tour of slavery as known from histor ical and archaeological researches, and that my tour will require more of their time th an other tours. In other words, I use my introductory speech as an avenue for someone to choose another time to attend the tour if my tour conflicts with their id eology or time constraints. On the whole, the audience has been receptive to my introduction, probably beca use of the credibility it implies. My pretour statement has also proved to back fire when a visitor asked me, “Why would an

PAGE 130

121 archaeologist work as a tour guide? D on’t you have something to dig up, someplace other than here?” (Anonymous pe rsonal communication: 2008). I do not wait until I am in the house to introduce slavery. I underscore on multiple occasions that plantations were capitalistic enterprises that made their owners rich on the backs of slaves. While this approach does not lend itself to prettiness or history within a tight neat package without conflicts and discrimination, I stand firmly on Little’s (2002:11) premise that history is lear ned in historic places and that we should be willing to illustrate the good, the bad, and th e ugly parts of our American history if we are to learn and move forward. I tell them about Gamble’s built plantation landscape as remaining visual clues of Gamble’s need to display power and econom ic success during an era of social and economic unrest. When I address planter materi al culture, the audience learns that these items were utilized to display social status by a society that prof ited from slave labor. This approach is effective when I disc uss the locked tea chest or the matching dinnerware. When I speak about slavery as a mode of labor, I attempt to create an emotional comparative with our comfort, our work, and our routines. While I realize that here in the 21st century it is difficult to appreciate the emotional and physical impacts that slavery created in the 19th century, I endeavor to create physic al discomforts that might give the audience a hint of the daily stressors slaves ex perienced. It is especially effective when some aspects of slave labor are reviewed such as digging sixteen miles of drainage canals, caring for the sugarcane fields, and harvesting the crops and timber while the

PAGE 131

122 audience is standing outdoors in the heat of the summer. In th e house, I highlight that the house slaves worked at all hours depending on the needs of the master. The script describes them as house servants. I criticize ev en the language the tour script utilizes to portray the house slaves because in our present language, house servant translates to the words of domestic hired laborer who can go hom e after the shift is completed. I explain this deviation to the audience. I am dete rmined that the audience will remember that slavery existed in all aspects of this plantation. In rooms where discussions about slavery normally diminish in the tour script and center either on the elite or th eir material culture, I stress that the house slaves provided the mainte nance of the material culture. Examples of this portion of my presen tation are the feather mattress and the matching wash basin, pitcher, and chamber pot located in the Benj amin bedroom on the second floor. I remind the audience that while the social elite slept on feather mattresses, these mattresses required daily plumping and that while the elit e liked matching wash basins, pitchers, and chamber pots, the slaves filled the water fo r the pitchers and emptied the basins and chamber pots. During the hot summer months when the temperature is comfortable within the house, I emphasize that the slaves lived in houses that lacked the mansionÂ’s insular quality. When I speak about sl ave gardens I explain that slav e diets historically were less than adequate and that gardening augmented their weekly peck of corn. I also point out the economic advantage slave ga rdens provided the owner. I recognize that my actions are subversive. Yet, since I have given the tour in this manner, no one has remarked that Gamble was good to his slaves.

PAGE 132

123 What have I learned from my approach? I have learned that audiences and their salient inquiries and objectives vary immeasurably. Some me mbers have come to see the planter material culture. So me want to hear the story of the Gamble or Benjamin and direct questions that could be interpreted as a desire to place them in heroic or iconic roles. Some members of the audience have toured this plantation on multiple occasions and attempt to guide or correct me with re citations of their memory of Gamble’s or Benjamin’s history as I deviate from the scri pt. Sometimes, if I am greatly behind, I will skip mentioning a piece of furniture or the plantation bell and all too often a member of the audience will inquire about them. Reactions to my approach differ. Some vi sitors look lost, tired, or possibly bored. Other times, I receive insightful questions a nd remarks that reinforce to me that my “flare” is getting the point acr oss that slavery was neither good nor did people want to be slaves. Is my approach educational? I hope so. In the spring of 2008, I had a family with two young girls as members of my tour. The eldest girl looked to be at the most nine years of age. She asked about the locati on of the slave cabins. I explained that the location was unknown. When we arrived up on th e second floor verandah, she pointed to the eastern boundary north of the UDC building and said that she t hought the slave cabins were located there. I told her that was where I thought they were as well. From then on, the little girl stayed close to me and plied me with questions. At the end of the tour while we were still within the Benjamin room, th e young girl approached me again. This time her mother admonished her for “bothering the nice lady.” The following is presented in conversation form to feel the impact.

PAGE 133

124 Little Girl: “Was Gamble married?” Silpa: “Yes, but not when he lived here.” Little Girl: “He lived in this bi g house all by himself?” Silpa: “To our knowledge, yes, he did except when his family or friends visited.” Little Girl: “Why did he need such a big house for himself?” Silpa: “You tell me.” (The little girl pushed out her lips and pulled her eyebrows together as she contemplated her answer. ) Little Girl: “Because he was greedy?” Out of the mouth babes, we hear the n eed for a more inclusive history. I am grateful that I stopped the mother because the remarks made during those few minutes demonstrated that we can make a difference of how people view the past regardless of age. Critical Analysis I have taken some friends, who identify themselves as African Americans, to the plantation grounds. After I reviewed the slav es’ massive contributi ons on the plantation and in the Palmetto/ Ellenton areas, one of my friends looked over at the mansion and said, “As long as the presentation highli ghts the owner and oppression and not the contributions of the slaves, you will not get African Americans to come here” (Elzie McCord, Jr. 2007: personal comm unications). How can this problem of non-inclusion be corrected? Little posits that historical archaeologists ma ke conscious choices that contribute to what sections of history “ar e told, embellished, excluded, or glossed over” (1994:44). As stewards of Amer ica’s past, it is our responsibility that multiple historical facets are publically brought forward. Little (2003) argues that historical presentations can be compared to theater presentations. Pr esently, the stage and setting is the mansion. The main characters and supporting roles are Robert Gamble and Judah P. Benjamin.

PAGE 134

125 The stage props are the planter material cultur e. Additional settings and characters are needed. Tours that highlight places of labor will shift ch aracters, settings, and stage props. Ideally, this concept will require tours to start with an explanation of plantations as capitalistic enterprises based on slave labo r. The tour script should note from the beginning that the slaves created this planta tion and not wait until the audience is in the mansion and utilize the materi al culture to offer explana tions about slavery. Another opportunity would be to offer re gularly scheduled slave tours as I have seen at Monticello and Mount Vernon. A major step should include requesting from the African American community what stories they would like to have in corporated into the Gamble presentation. Common ground can be found among the stakehol ders through community partnering. An African American community outreach pr ogram can assist in facilitating this partnership. Local African American communities can be reached through the media, schools, churches, and organizations such as fraternities and so rorities. African Americans trained as docents can offer th eir insights into slave interpretation. Approaching this site as uni que is another method that ex plications of slavery at the Gamble Plantation can be completed. Sing leton (1997: 147) notes that the excavated slave housing and industry areas at Montice lloÂ’s Mulberry Row created an opportunity for slave interpretation. Offering discu ssions about housing, foodways, labor, gender roles, worldviews, communal life, resistance, and accommodations about GambleÂ’s enslaved people will present the important ro les African Americans played in American

PAGE 135

126 history. Archaeological resear ch will assist in explori ng these opportunities and open new avenues about slave life. Archaeological research at Ashland-Be lle-Helene Plantation enabled Louisiana Department of Culture, Recreation and Tour ism and the Shell Chemical Company to partner, find common ground, and indi vidualize the results. The booklet, Beyond the Great House: Archaeology at As hland-Belle Helene Plantation (Yakubik and Mendez 1995) goes beyond focusing exclusively on the plan tation mansion and tells the stories of enslaved and post Civil War African American wage laborers. Th is booklet, which is also available on the Internet, is written so that the interpreted ar chaeological data are available to the public. While Louisiana plan ters and plantations are discussed generally and include specific details of the ownerships and functi ons of Ashland-Belle-Helene Plantation, the website emphasizes that “the sw eat and hard labor of slaves converted the fertile land into wealth and prestige for the planter” (Yakubik and Mendez 1995). In clear, concise language without academic ja rgon, the public learns about the plantation’s spatial organization and changes over time, the construction sequence and alterations of the sugar mill, the sugar making process, and the lifeways of the enslaved and free people who lived in the quarters. The public is able to view archaeological maps of the excavated slave cabins, faunal remains of f oods the slaves consumed, and fragments of ceramics and tools they utilized. The website enables the public to internalize ways in which the slaves spent their limited leisure hours through explanations and pictures of marbles, kaolin pipes, and porcelain doll frag ments. Included with pictures of beads, shells, and punctuated coins that served as char ms is a description of the ways that slaves created and maintained their worldview. Th e method that the Louisiana Department of

PAGE 136

127 Culture, Recreation and Tourism and the Shel l Chemical Company chose to partner and convey their archaeological results truly illustrates their commitment to public archaeology. Contrary to many plantation presentations in which the planter is highlighted while slaves are erased, this booklet underscores the hi story, contributions, and the material culture of Ashland-Belle-Hel ene Plantation’s enslaved and freed African Americans. Conclusion Anthropologists have examined how slaver y is presented in historic settings (Smith and Ehrenhard 2002; Gable and Handl er 1997; Gable et al 1992; Singleton 1997). The presentation of the past can affect wh at people take away intellectually about Gamble Plantation. Image often constructs the salient messages gi ven in any historic museum. How can a confederate memorial museum maintain their image while incorporating a more inclusive history? The DEP can utilize lessons learned from past mistakes made at other historic museums to avoid repetition. Handler and Gable (1997) examine Colonial Williamsburg’s attempt to center their na rratives on “‘the other half’ and the dispossessed, and less on the silk-pants patr iots, the upper crust, they wanted to tell a story that was more critical than celebratory ” (1997:78). They observed that the excuse to gloss over or avoid discussions con cerning African Americans at Colonial Williamsburg was because African American history was “undocumented” (1997:84). What stories that were told avoided discussions of misceg enation, power, and inequality, and as a substitute “focused on the morally neutral monetary values and on the comparatively benign form of slavery th at existed at the time” (1997:114).

PAGE 137

128 While this question of how can a confederate memorial maintain its image and tell the slavesÂ’ stories appears as a cont radiction, common ground can be achieved as illustrated at Ashland-Belle-Helene Plantation and in my presentations. Data obtained from archaeological research can help create a booklet wr itten for the public. Websites can be created that highlight all inhabita nts involved with the plantation. Offering additional tours that center on slave labor or their lifew ays is another option, while updated Gamble tours that are centered in soci al and historical context can maintain the image of antebellum Florida. Negotiations among stakeholders can assist in deciding which stories should be told. The next chapter opens with aski ng the politically charged question of archaeology for whom. It examines differe nt stakeholders that could be impacted by archaeological research. It concludes this thesis by addressing what benefits will be achieved through this research.

PAGE 138

129 Chapter 7: Conclusion: Archaeology for Whom? Arqueologia para quien? (Archaeology for Whom?) (Rebecca Panameno and Enrique Nalda 1979 as cited by Randall H. McGuire 2007) McGuire (2007) argues that archaeol ogists are stewards working within a political agenda. Who benefits from archaeological research? Why is it accomplished? Archaeologists may vary their methods and analyses, but the question of why do we attempt to reexamine the past remains. Why should archaeolo gical research be completed at Gamble Plantation? This thesis began on the premise that Gamble PlantationÂ’s history can be made more comple te and relevant to park visitors. It demonstrates that through historical archaeology, people who were normally undocumented within the historical record can be given a voice to their past. While this move would offer a more complete history, it can also complicate local histories. Public presentation of archaeological data concerni ng slave lifeways can be politically charged, especially in an arena where the image is ba sed on a confederate hero and the antebellum culture. If the image of R obert Gamble is stressed as a capitalistic entrepreneur who profited from slave labor then local communitie s might react with outrage. If the park continues status quo, then African American communities remain silenced, alienated, and will not attend. McGuire (2007) poses the quest ion that if archaeol ogists are stewardÂ’s for some elseÂ’s property then whom do we serve? I illustrate in the previous chapter that the added dialectic flare of vi ewing profits with slave labo r has not alienated visitors during my tours. I believe that common ground can be reached. McGuire (2007) points out that while politics is a dirt y word, so is our work. We mu st be willing to get dirty and work for the more inclusive histor ies connected with this plantation.

PAGE 139

130 This chapter will identify some of the known stakeholders and their roles and concludes by addressing the benefi ts of archaeological research. Stakeholders One of the complexities of the Gamble Plan tation is that it is multivocal. This multivocality can be expressed as stakeholder groups or individuals who have a direct interest, involvement, or stake in the hi story and archaeological record of Gamble Plantation and the Manatee River area. The c oncerns of the stakeholders and private communities can have various agendas and resources (Zimmerman 2006:40). With each stakeholder group there are different levels of salience that must be recognized and addressed. The most obvious st akeholders are thos e directly involved with the plantation but it is not limited to these groups alone. The African American communities especially have a stake in the plantation because it is a place of their history that is largely overlooked It is imperative that African American s professionals and community be involved with all phases of archaeol ogical research at the Gamb le Plantation. Singleton (1997:148) argues “white archaeologists ha ve a superficial kn owledge of African American history and culture, and are likely to interpret the archaeological record in such a way as to reinforce stereotypes of black li fe.” Expectations of the African American community need to be addressed. Little dem onstrates the value of input from the African American community. Archaeologists have successfully br ought a measure of complexity and sophistication to their questions and approaches about African-American archaeology. They also ha ve come to appreciate the value of involvement

PAGE 140

131 of dissenting communities can bring to the methods, results, and meaning of the work. [Little 2007: 115] The following list (Table 3), includes but is not limited, to the Manatee County community groups that fall in the stakeholder category: Table 3 Manatee County Stakeholders. United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC) the Judah P. Benjamin Chapter The UDC purchased the Gamble Mansion and the 16 acres in 1925 because of its connection with the escape of the Judah P. Benjamin, the Confederate Secretary of State. The UDC has taken an active interest and role in the preservation of the property from the beginning. Gamble Plantation Preservation Alliance (GPPA) The Gamble Plantation Preservation Alliance is the parkÂ’s Citizen Support Orga nization (CSO). This group is vital in its role to of supporting the park through volunteers that educat e visitors, host special events and raise funds designated for park projects. Manatee County Historical Society (MCHS) The MCHS contribute to ot her Manatee historical organizations. The group sponsors a historical marker program and offer college scholarships for history majors. Manatee County Historical Commission (MCHC) The MCHC focuses on the preservation of historic architecture and artifacts. It is responsible for the management of the 12 acre Manatee Village Historical Park. Palmetto Historical Commission The Palmetto Historical Commission focuses on the Palmetto History. The group is active in preservation of historic architecture and obtaining oral histories in its attempt to preserve the uniqueness of the Palmetto community. The Family Heritage House The Family Heritage House is a research center that houses a collection of African American History. It is designed to encourage local families to research their heritage and assists in the dissemination of the African American culture to the public. Manatee and Sarasota County Branches of the NAACP This group strives to eliminate racial discrimination and ensures the right of educational, social and equality of all people.

PAGE 141

132 Conclusion As stewards of the archaeological record it is our responsibly to meet the needs of diverse communities. Archaeologists offer a method of understanding cultural diversity through preservation of the past (Smith and Ehrenhard 2002). By facilitating common ground to all potential stakeholders, we can advance a more complete knowledge of the plantation’s past. Common ground allows stakeh olders to view Gamble Plantation as “an integral part of the collective human expe rience” (Smith and Ehrenhard 2002:121). The key word here is collective, not exclusive. A common desire to protect all aspects of its history will be fostered if the local community is made aware of this plantation’s historical richness. Recently, a local real estate developer had a cultural resource arch aeological survey on his property that was once a portion of the original plantation (Alm y et al. 2007). He is now applying for a historical marker for one of the Gamble can als found during the survey. The real estate owner, who is also a stakehol der, has capitalized on his find. His property is selling because it offers a sense of history (M arion Almy: personal communications 8/2008). Through archaeological examination of Ga mble’s landscape we can achieve an understanding of his spatial orga nization and power. It will serve as a source of data for other archaeological plantation studies, especi ally in the placement of slave cabins when their location is missing from the historical record. More importa ntly, understanding the landscape offers a chance to anthropologically examine the lives of Gamble’s enslaved people. The park, the community, and anthropology as a whole will benefit from new insights on the nature of these people. It wi ll open avenues for informed discussions on

PAGE 142

133 how they lived within slaveryÂ’s constraints, how and where they constructed their homes, what they ate, what communal buffering systems they created, their worldviews, the types of labor they performed, and their resi stances. The archaeological field, especially Florida, will benefit because this thesis is written as a model for future archaeological research at this and other plantations. Archaeological research at the Gamble Plantation will offer an opportunity to examine issues that have not been addressed due to the lack of documentary data. While tangible evidence can complicate local histories it can also offer new interpretive insights of GambleÂ’s enslaved population. The Gamble plantation can move beyond being a repository for the planter material culture to one of a more inclusiv e historical museum that places African Americ ans in prominent roles rather than erasing them.

PAGE 143

134 References Almy, Marion, with Lee Hutchinson, Ne lson Rodriguez, and Marielle Lumang 2007 Cultural Resource Assessment Survey Woodland Hammock Manatee County, Florida. Sarasota: Archaeological Consultants, Inc. Almy, Marion with Jodi Pratch, Beth Ilorva th, John Rawls, Marie Prentice and Sarah P. Ward 2004 Cultural Resource Assessment Survey Meadow Terrace Manatee County, Florida. FMSF Survey 11219. MS on file DHR, Tallahassee. Almy, Marion M., with Kimberly Hinder, J eanette Knowles, and Barbara E. Figlow 2001 Masterplan for the Judah P. Benjamin Confederate Memorial at Gamble Historic State Park, Ellenton, Manat ee County, Florida: Histor ic Research. Sarasota: Archaeological Consultants, Inc. Baptist, Edward E. 2002 Creating an Old South: Middle Flor idaÂ’s Plantation Frontie r before the Civil War. Chapel Hill: University Press of North Carolina. Baker, Henry A. 1987 An Archaeological Auger Survey at th e Gamble Plantation State Historic Site. Florida Archaeological Reports 24. MS on file DHR, Tallahassee. 1992 Archaeological Monitoring At the Ga mble Plantation State Historic Site, February 1992. Florida Archaeological Re ports 26. MS on file DHR, Tallahassee. 1999 Fifteen Years on Bulow Creek: Glimpses of Bulow Creek. The Florida Anthropologist 52(12): 115-123. Baker, Henry and Curtiss Peterson 1978 An Archaeological Survey of The Gamble Plantation, Ma natee County, Florida 1978. Florida Archaeological Reports 24. MS on file DHR, Tallahassee. Berlin, Ira and Philip D. Morgan 1993 Labor and the Shaping of Slave Life in the Americas. In Culivation and Culture:Labor and the Shaping of Slave Life in the Americas. Ira Berlin and Philip D. Morgan, eds.Pp1-45. Charlottesville : University Press of Virginia.

PAGE 144

135 Blakey, Michael L. 2004 Theory: An Ethical Epistemology of Publicly Engaged Biocultural Research. In The New York African Burial Ground: History A Final Report. Edna Green Medford, ed. Pp 98-115. Electronic document, http://www.africanburialground.com/ABG_FinalReports.htm, accessed April 27, 2005. 2001 Bioarchaeology of the African Diaspora in the Americas: Its Origins and Scope. In Annual Review of Anthropology 30:387-422. Blakey, Michael L. and George J. Armelagos 1985 Deciduous Enamel Defects in Prehis toric Americans From Dickson Mounds: Prenatal and Postnatal Stress. In American Journal of Physical Anthropology 66(4): 371-380. Blakey, Michael, with Lesley M. RankinHill, Alan Goodman, and Fatimah Jackson 2004 Discussion. In The New York African Burial Ground: History A Final Report. Edna Green Medford ed. Pp 54-56. Electronic document, http://www.africanburialground.com/ABG_FinalReports.htm, accessed April 27, 2005. Brown, Canter, Jr. 1999 Tampa: Before the Civil War. Tampa: University of Tampa. Burnham, Philip 1995 How the Other Half Lived: A PeopleÂ’ s Guide to American Historic Sites. Boston: Faber and Faber. Butler, Scott and Brockington and Associates 2007 Data Recovery Excavations at the St. AnneÂ’s Slave Settlement (9GN197), Glynn County, Georgia. Early Ge orgia: Material Reflecti ons of GeorgiaÂ’s AfricanAmerican Past 35 (2):111-135. Camp, Paul 1979 The Attack on Braden Castle: Robert GambleÂ’s Account. Tampa Bay History 1(1):55-60. Daniel Randy, with Frank Sicius, David Ferro 1980 An Archaeological and Historical su rvey of the Proposed Halifax Plantation Development, Volusia and Flagler Countie s, Florida. Tallahassee: Bureau of Historic Sites and Propertie s Florida Division of Arch ives, History, and Records Management.

PAGE 145

136 David, Andrew 2006 Finding Sites. In Archaeology in Practice: A St udent Guide to Archaeological Analyses. Jane Balme and Alistair Pa terson, eds. Pp.1-38. Malden: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Davidson, James M. 2007 N.d. University of Florida Hist orical Archaeological Field School, 2007 Preliminary Report of Investigations, Kingsley Plantation (8Du108), Timucuan Ecological and Historic Pres erve, National Park Servi ce, Duval County, Florida. Gainesville: University of Florida. Davis, William C. 2001 An Honorable Defeat: The Last Da ys of the Confederate Government. New York: Harcourt Deagan, Kathleen 1998 Rethinking Modern Hist ory: Historical Archaeol ogy Has Critically Altered Our Understanding Of Colonization, the Grow th of Cities, and the Lives of Disenfranchised People. Ar chaeology 51(5): 54-60. Deetz, James 1990 Prologue. Landscapes as Cultural Statements. In Earth Patterns: Essays in Landscape Archaeology. William M. Kelso and Rachel Most eds. Pp.1-4. Charlottesville: University of Virginia. Department of Environmental Prot ection (DEP). Butler, Robert 1843 Township 34 South, Range 18 East. State of Florida Tract Book. U.S. Government Survey Field Notebooks vol. 89:139 Douglas, Ambrose 1941 Slave Interview. In The American Slave: A Co mposite Autobiography, vol. 17: Florida Narratives. George P. Rawic k, ed. Pp. 101-105. Westport: Greenwood Publishing Company. Dovell, Junius E. 1952 Florida: Historic, Dram atic, Contemporary, vol. I. New York : Lewis Historical Publishing Company. Fairbanks, Charles H. 1984 The Archaeology of Southeastern Co ast. Historical Archaeology 18(1):1-14. Feder, Kenneth 1997 Site Survey. In Field Methods in Archaeology. 7th edition. Thomas R. Hester, Harry J. Shafer and Kenneth L. Feder, eds. Pp. 4168. Mountain View : Mayfield Publishing Company.

PAGE 146

137 Ferguson, Leland 1992 Uncommon Ground: Archaeology a nd Early African-American, 1650-1800. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. Follett, Richard 2005 The Sugar Masters: Planters and Sl aves in Louisiana’s Cane World, 1820-1860. Baton Rouge : Louisiana St ate University Press. Gable, Eric and Richard Handler 1996 After Authenticity at an American He ritage Site. American Anthropologist 98(3): 568-578. Gable, Eric, Richard Handler and Anna Lawson 1992 Imagining Identities: Nation, Culture, an d the Past. American Ethnologist 19(4): 791-805. Gamble, Robert 1888 Florida as a Sugar State. Tallahassee Floridian, September 28. 1868 Private letter to George Patten. Ar chived material, Carnegie Library, Manatee County Clerk of the Circuit Court, Bradenton, Florida. 1868 Hand Drawn Map. Archived materi al. Manatee County Library, Bradenton, Florida. Gamble, John Grattan and Robert Gamble 1898 Gamble Family Papers (M72-007). Arch ived material, Florida State Archives, Tallahassee, Florida. Goodwin, Conrad 1994 Betty’s Hope Windmill: An Unexp ected Problem. Historical Archaeology, 28(1): 99-110. Handler, Richard and Eric Gable 1997 The New History in an Old Museum: Creating the Past at Colonial Williamsburg. Duke University Press: Durham. Heath, Barbara J. 1999. Hidden Lives: The Archaeology of Slav e Life at Thomas Jefferson’s Poplar Forest. University Press: Charlottesville. Heath, Barbara J. and Amber Bennett 2000 “The Little Spots Allow’d Them”: The Archaeological Study of AfricanAmerican Yards. Histor ical Archaeology 34(2):38-55.

PAGE 147

138 Hicks, Daniel and Mary C. Beaudry 2006 Introduction: The Place of Historical Archaeology. In The Cambridge Companion to Historical Archaeology. Dan Hicks & Mary C Beaudry, eds. Pp.1-9. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hood, J. Edwards 1996 Social Relations a nd the Cultural Landscape. In Landscape Archaeology: Reading and Interpreting the American Historical Landscape. Rebecca Yamin and Karen Bescherer Metheny, eds. Pp. 121146. Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press. Howson, Jeane E. 1990 Social Relations and Material Cultu re: A Critique of the Archaeology of Plantation Slavery. Historic al Archaeology 24(4):78-91. Joseph, J.W. 1989 Pattern and Process in the Plantati on Archaeology of the Lowcountry of Georgia and South Carolina. Histor ical Archaeology 23(1):55-68. Kelly, Jennifer Olsen and J. Lawrence Angel 1986 Life Stresses of Slavery. American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 74:199-211. Kelso, William M. 1997 Archaeology At Montic ello: Artifacts of Everyday Life in the Plantation Community. Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation. 1990 Landscape Archaeology at Thomas JeffersonÂ’s Monticello. In Earth Patterns: Essays in Landscape Archaeology. William M. Kelso and Rachel Most eds. Pp.722. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia. Carl King and G. Warren Johnson. 1973 Map of Gamble Sugar Mill Ruins, E llenton, Florida. Manatee County Library Eaton Room. Gamble File. Lange, Frederick W., and Jerome S. Handler. 1985. The Ethnohistorical Approach to Slavery. In The Archaeology of Slavery and Plantation Life. Theresa Singleton, e d. Pp.15-32. Orlando :Academic Press. Leone, Mark P. 1996. Epilogue: The Productive Nature of Material Culture and Archaeology. Historical Archaeo logy 25(3):130-33.

PAGE 148

139 1992 Interpreting Ideology in Historical Arch aeology: Using the Rules of Perspective in the William Paca Garden of Annapolis, Maryland. In Images of the Recent Past: Readings in Historical Archaeology. Char les E. Orser, ed. Pp. 37 -391. Walnut Creek: Altramira Press. Leone Mark P. and Paul Shackel 1990 Plane and Solid Geometry in Colonial Gardens in Annapolis, Maryland. In Earth Patterns: Essays in Landscape Archaeology. William M. Kelso and Rachel Most, eds. Pp.1-4. Charlottesville: Univ ersity of Virginia Press. Lewis, Kenneth E. 1985. Plantation Layout and Function. In The Archaeology of Sl avery and Plantation Life. Theresa Singleton, ed. Pp. 35-65. Orlando: Academic Press. Lindtveit, Emily and Michael Klein 2003 Archaeological Investigation of th e Kitchen and Laundry Yards at Kenmore Plantation, Fredericksburg, Virginia. Fr edericksburg :Mary Washington College. Little, Barbara J. 2007 Historical Archaeology: Why the Past Ma tters. Walnut Creek :Left Coast Press. 2003 Is the Medium the Message? The Art of Interpreting Archaeology in the U.S. National Parks. In Marketing Heritage: Archaeol ogy and the Consumption of the Past, Yorke. Rowan and Uzi Baram, eds. Pp. 269-286. Walnut Creek: Altamira Press. 1994 People with History: An Update on Historical Archaeo logy in the United States. In Images of the Recent Past: Readings in Historical Archaeology. Charles E. Orser, Jr. ed. Pp:42-78. Walnut Creek: Altamira Press. Little, Barbara J. ed. 2002 Archaeology as a Shared Vision. In Public Benefits of Archaeology. Barbara Little, University Press of Florida: Gainesville. MacFarlan, Allan 1868 Private letter to George Patten. Ar chived material, Carnegie Library, Manatee County Clerk of the Circuit Court, Bradenton, Florida. Manatee County Courthous e, Clerk of Court Deed Book A, p.78-81. Deed Book A, p.418-423 Gamble File George Patten File

PAGE 149

140 Manatee County Library Sy stem. Central Library. 1903 Men Pose at the Ruins of Gamble Sugar Mill. 006108A Nd. Gamble Plantation Mansion Matthews, Janet Snyder 1983 Edge of Wilderness: A Settlement Hi story of Manatee River and Sarasota Bay 1528-1885. Tulsa: Caprine Press. McClure, Susan A. 1982 Parallel Usage of Medicinal Plants by Africans and Their Caribbean Descendants. Economic Botany 36(3):291-301. McDonald, Roderick A. 1993 The Economy and Material Culture of Slaves: Goods and Chattels on the Sugar Plantations of Jamaica and Louisiana. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press. McDuffee, Lillie B. 1961 The Lures of Manatee: A True Stor y of South Florida’s Glamorous Past. 3rd edition. Bradenton: A.K. Whitaker. McGuire Randall H. 2007 Forward: Politics is a Dirty Word, but Then Archaeology is A Dirty Buisness. In Archaeology and Capitalism: From Letters to Politics. Yannis Hamilakis and Philip Duke, eds. Pp 9-10. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press. McKee, Larry 1985 Food Supply and Plantation Social Or der: An Archaeological Perspective. In “I, Too, Am America”: Archaeological Studies of African-American Life. Theresa Singleton, ed. Pp. 218-239. Charlottesville : University Press of Virginia. Mintz, Steven, and Susan Kellogg 1988 Domestic Revolutions: A Social Histor y of American Family Life. New York :The Free Press. Moates, Jeffrey T 2007 Wacissa Boat 1 (8JE1604): Example of a Plantation Flat in North Florida River. Florida Anthropologist 60 (2-3):127-138). Morgan, Philip 1998 Slave Counterpoint: Black Culture in the Eighteenth-Century Chesapeake & Lowcountry. Chapel Hill: Univer sity of North Carolina Press.

PAGE 150

141 Mutual Assurance Map 1802 Greys Castle. Archived material. Mutual Assurance Society of Virginia. Declarations. Vol. 15, Reel no. 2. The Li brary of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia. Napton, L. Kyle and Elizabeth Anne Greathouse. 1997 Archaeological Mapping, Si te Grids, and Surveying. In Field Methods in Archaeology. 7th edition. Thomas R. He ster, Harry J. Shafer and Kenneth L. Feder, eds. Pp.177-234. Mountain Vi ew: Mayfield Publishing Company. Otto, John Solomon 1984 Cannons Point Plantation, 1774-1860: Living Conditions and Status Patterns in the Old South. Orlando: Academic Press. Orser, Charles E. Jr. 1996 A Historical Archaeology of the M odern World. New York: Plenum Press. Orser, Charles, E., Jr. ed. 1996. Introduction. In Images of the Recent Past: Read ings In Historical Archaeology. Walnut Creek: Altramira Press. 1988 Toward a Therory of Power for Histor ical Archaeology: Plantations and Space. In The Recovery of Meaning: Historical Archaeology in the Eastern United States. Mark P. Leone and Parker B. Potter, Jr. eds. Pp.313-343. New York: Percheron Press. Orser, Charles E., Jr. and Pedro P. A. Funari 2001 Archaeology and Slave Resistance and Rebellion. World Archaeology 33(1): 6172. Orser, Charles E. Jr., and Annette M. Nekola 1996. Plantation Settlement from Slavery to Tenancy: An Example from a Piedmont Plantation in South Carolina. In Images of the Recent Past: Readings In Historical Archaeology. Charles E. Orser, ed. P p. 392-415. Walnut Creek: Altamira Press. Orser, Charles E. Jr., and Brian M. Fagan 1995 Historical Archaeology. New York: HarperCollins College Publishers. Owsley, Douglas W., with Charles Orser, Jr ., Robert Mann, Peer H. Moore-Jansen, and Robert Montgomery 1987 Demography and Pathology of an Urba n Slave Population from New Orleans. American Journal of Phys ical Anthropology 74:185-197.

PAGE 151

142 Parks, John 2001 Masterplan for the Judah P. Benjam in Confederate Memorial at Gamble Plantation Historic State Park. Ellenton, Manatee County, Florida. St. Petersburg: Renker Eich Parks Arch itects, Incorporation. Patten George 1888 Archived material, Carnegie Library, Manatee County Clerk of the Circuit Court, Bradenton, Florida. Payne, Ted M. 1999 Plantation Organization and a Look at Socio-Economic Status. The Florida Anthropologist (52): 47-55. Paynter, Robert 1988 Steps to an Archaeology of Capitalism. In The Recovery of Meaning: Historical Archaeology in the Eastern United States. Mark P. Leone and Parker B. Potter, Jr, eds. Pp. 407-433. New York: Percheron Press. Pearsall, Deborah M. 1989 Paleoethnobotany. Harcour t Brace Jovanovich: San Diego. Rankin-Hill, with L.M. Blakey, J. Howson, E. Brown, S.H.H. Carrington, and K. Shuja 2004 Demographic Overview of the African Burial Ground and Colonial African of New York. The New York African Burial Ground: History a Final Report, Edna Green Medford, ed. Pp.266-304. Electronic document www.africanburialground.com/ABG_FinalReports.htm accessed April 27, 2005. Rathburn, Ted A. 1987 Health and Disease at South Carolina Plantation:1840-1870. American journal of Physical Anthropology 74:239-253. Rehder, John B. 1999 Delta Sugar: LouisianaÂ’s Vanishing Pl antation Landscape. Ba ltimore: The John Hopkins University Press. Rivers, Larry 2000 Slavery in Florida. Gainesvi lle: University Press of Florida. Rodrigue, John C 2001 Reconstruction in the Cane Fields: Fr om slavery to Free Labor in LouisianaÂ’s Sugar Parishes 1862-1880. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.

PAGE 152

143 Rolland Vicki, with Myles Bland and Sidney Johnson 2004 An Archaeological Investigation of the Gamble Sugar Mill (8MA713), Gamble Plantation Historic State Park, Manat ee County, Florida. MS on file DHR, Tallahassee. Schafer, Daniel L. 1996 U.S. Territory and State. In The New History of Florida. Michael Gannon, ed. Pp. 207-230. Gainesville: Univer sity Press of Florida. Schene, Michael 1974 Gamble Mansion Project Paper. Tallahassee: Unpublished MS, Division of Recreation and Parks. Schwadron, Margo 2002 Archeological Investigation of DeSoto National Memorial. Tallahassee: Southeast Archeological Center, Na tional Park Service. Shackel, Paul and Barbara Little, eds 1994 Introduction: Plantation and Landscape Studies. In Historical Archaeology of the Chesapeake. Paul Shackel and Barbara Little, eds. Pp.97-100. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. Shapiro, Gary 1982 an Interview with Dr. Charles H. Fa irbanks. Florida Journal of Anthropology. 7(2):11-20. Shofner, Jerrell H. 1976 History of Jefferson Count y. Tallahassee: Sentry Press. Silpa, Felicia 2003 Touring a Florida Plan tation: Historical Archaeol ogy of Gamble Plantation 18421858. B.A. Thesis, New College of Florida, Sarasota, FL. 2007 Utilizing Historical Archaeology to Sear ch for Robert GambleÂ’s Slave Quarters. Paper presented at the Florida Anthr opological Society A nnual Meeting, Avon Park, May 11-13. Singleton, Teresa A. 2006 African Diaspora Archaeology in Dialogue. In Afro-Atlantic Dialogues: Anthropology in the Diaspora. Kevi n Yelvington, ed. Pp. 249-287. Santa Fe :School of American Research Press. 2001. Slavery and Spatial Dialectics on Cuban Coffee Plantations. World Archaeology 33 (1):98-113.

PAGE 153

144 1997 Facing the Challenges of a Public African-American Archaeo logy. Historical Archaeology 31(3):146-152). 1995. The Archaeology of Slavery in North America. Annual Review of Anthropology (24):119-40. 1991. The Archaeology of Slave Life. In Images of the Recent Past: Readings in Historical Archaeology. Charles E. Or ser Jr., ed. Pp. 141-165. Walnut Creek: Altamira Press. 1988 An Archaeological Framework fo r Slavery and Emancipation, 1740-1880. In The Recovery of Meaning: Historical Ar chaeology in the Eastern United States. Mark P. Leone and Parker B. Potter, Jr, eds. Pp.345-370. New York: Percheron Press. Singleton, Theresa A. and Mark D. Bograd 1995 The Archaeology of the African Dias pora in the Americas. Ann Arbor: Society for Historical Society. Smith, George S. and Jon E. Ehrenhard 2002 Protecting the Past to Benefit the Public. In Public Benefits of Archaeology. Barbara Little, ed. Pp.121-129. Gainesvi lle: University Press of Florida. Smith, Julia Floyd 1973 Slavery and Plantation Growth in An tebellum Florida, 1821-1860. Gainesville: University Press of Florida. South Stanley A. 1977 Method and Theory in Historical Ar cheology. New York: Academic Press, Inc. 1978 Pattern Recognition in Historical Archaeology. American Antiquity 43:223-230. State of Florida Tract Books 1843 GLO Survey Plats Archived material Board of Trustee Land Database Svekis, Sherry Robinson 2005 Hidden Histories, A Hist orical Archaeology Approach to the Tabby House Ruins at De Soto National Memorial Park. BA Thesis, New College of Florida: Sarasota FL. Tallahassee Floridian and Journal, February 24,1849

PAGE 154

145 University of Florida Map and Dig ital Imagery Library. PALMM Collection 1940 Aerial Photograph. Tile 47. Palmetto Quad. 1957 Aerial Photograph. Tile 13. Palmetto Quad. U.S. Department of Agriculture (U SDA) Soil Conservation Service (SCS) 1981 Soil Survey of Manatee County, Florida Vlach, John Michael 1993 Back of the Big House: The Architectur e of Plantation Slaver y. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press. Walker, Karen 1985 Kingsley Plantation and Subsistence Patte rns of the Southeastern Coastal Slave. In Indians, Colonists, and Slaves: Essays in Memory of Charles H. Fairbanks, Kenneth W Johnson, Jonathan M. Leader, and Robert C. Wilson, eds. Pp.11-34. Gainesville: University of Florida. Wells, E. Christian, with Richard E. Terry, J. Jacob Parnell, Perry J. Hardin, Mark W. Jackson, and Stephen D. Houston. 2000 Chemical Analyses of Ancient Anth rosols in Residential Areas in Piedras Negras, Guatemala. Journal of Archaeological Science 27:449-462. Whitley, Thomas G. 2008 Residential and Communal Landscapes at the Ford Plantation Development, Richmond Hill, Georgia. Early Georgia: Ma terial Reflections of GeorgiaÂ’s African American Past. 36(1): 3-22. Wilkie, Laurie A. 2004 Considering the Future of African American Archaeology. Historical Archaeology 38(1) 109-123. 2000 Creating Freedom: Material Culture and AfricanAmerican Id entity at Oakley Plantation, Louisiana 1840-1950. Baton Rouge : Louisiana State University Press. 1997 Secret and Sacred: Contextualizing th e Artifacts of African -American Magic and Religion. Historical Archaeology 31(4) 81-106. Winberry, John J. 1997 The Geographic Concept of Landscape. In CarolinaÂ’s Historical Landscapes: Archaeological Perspectives. Linda F. Stin e, Martha Zierdan, Lesley M. Drucker, and Christopher Judge,eds. Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press. Wunderlin, Richard P. and Bruce F. Hanson 2003 Guide to Vascular Plants of Florida. 2nd edition. Gainesville: University of Press Florida:.

PAGE 155

146 Wylie, Alison 2002 Thinking From Things: Essays in the Philosophy of Archaeology. Berkeley: University of California Press. Yakubik, Jill-Karen and Rosalinda Mendez 1995 Beyond the Great House: Archaeology at Ashland-Belle Helene Plantation, Discovering Louisiana Archaeology One. Baton Rouge: Louisiana Department of Culture, Recreation and Tourism. Yentsch, Anne Elizabeth 1994 A Chesapeake Family And Their Slav es: A Study In Historical Archaeology. New York: Cambridge Press. Zierden, Martha and Linda F. Stine 1997 Introduction: Historical Landscap es through the Prism of Archaeology. In Carolina's Historical Landscapes. Linda F Stine, Martha Zierdan, Lesley M. Drucker and Christopher Judge, eds. Pp.xi -xvi. Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press. Zimmerman, Larry J. 2006 Consulting Stakeholders. In Archaeology in Practice: A Student Guide to Archaeological Analyses. Jane Balme and Alistair Paterson, eds. Pp. 39-58.

PAGE 156

147 Appendices

PAGE 157

148 Appendix A: Plant Study of Gamble Plantation Shows identified plant families, common na mes, and specific epithets which currently occur in the park and along the canal on the eastern edge of the Gamble Plantation which flows in a north-sout h direction toward th e Manatee River. Blank country of origin denotes native species wh en species are indicated. Plant Family Common Name Scientific Name Area of Origin Acanthaceae Shrimpplant Justicia brandegeana Wassh. & L. b. Sm. Mexico Adoxaceae Elderberry Sambucus canadensis L. x nigra (L.) Amaranthaceae Goosefoot Chenopodium spp. Amaranthaceae Globe Amaranth Gomphrena serrata L. Tropical America Amaranthaceae Amaranth Amaranthus spp. Anacardiaceae Brazilian Pepper Schinus terebinthofolius Raddi Tropical America Anacardiaceae Mango Mangifer indica L. Asia Araceae Philodendron Monstera spp. Araceae Philodendron

PAGE 158

149 Appendix A (Continued) Plant Family Common Name Scientific Name Area of Origin Araceae Giant Taro Alocasia macrorrhizos (L.) G. Don Tropical Asia Arecaceae Royal Palm Roystonea regia (Kunth) O. F. Cook Arecaceae Washington Fan Palm Washingtonian robusta H. Wendl Mexico Arecaceae Senegal Date Palm Phoenix reclinata Jacq. Mediterranean Arecaceae Fan Palm Livistona rotundifolia Lam. Malaya Arecaceae Thatch Palm Thrinax morrisii H. Wendl. Monroe County, Florida Asparagaceae Asparagus-Fern Asparagus spp. Asteraceae Cudweed Pseudognaphalium spp. Asteraceae Thoroughwort Eupatorium spp. Asteraceae Dandelion Taraxacum officinale Weber ex F. H. Wigg Eurasia Asteraceae Tasselflower Emilia spp.

PAGE 159

150 Appendix A (Continued) Plant Family Common Name Scientific Name Area of Origin Bromeliaceae Spanish Moss Tillandsia usneoides (L.) L. Cupressaceae Cedar Chamaecyparis thyoides (L.) Briton et al Lamiaceae Sage Salvia spp. Lauraceae Bay Persea spp. Lythraceae Crapemyrtle Lagerstroemia indica L. Asia and northern Australia Malvaceae Turkscap Mallow Malvaviscus penduliflorus DC Tropical America Malvaceae Caesarweed Urena lobata L. Old World Malvaceae Fanpetals Sida spp Meliaceae Chinaberrytree Melia azedarach L. Asia Musaceae Banana Musa acuminata Colla Asia

PAGE 160

151 Appendix A (Continued) Plant Family Common Name Scientific Name Area of Origin Onagraceae Carolina Primrose willow Ludwigia bonariensis Micheli South America Phytolaccaceae Pokeweed Phytolacca Americana L. Poaceae Johnsongrass Sorghum halepense L. Mediterranean Poaceae Vaseygrass Paspalum urbillei Steud. South America Pteridaceae Brake fern Pteris spp. Rosaceae American Plum Prunus Americana Marshall Rosaceae Bramble Rubus spp. L. Rubiaceae Mexican Clover Richardia brasiliensis Gomes South America Rubiaceae Rough Mexican Clover Richardia scabra L. South America Ruscaceae Mother-in-lawÂ’s Tongue Sansevieria hyacintoides (L.) Druce Africa

PAGE 161

152 Appendix A (Continued) Plant Family Common Name Scientific Name Area of Origin Sapindaceae Carrotwood Cupaniopsis anacardioides (A.Rich.) Radlk Australia Solanaceae American Black Nightshade Solanum americanum Mill. Smilacaceae Greenbrier (4 species) Smilax spp. Vitaceae Virginia Creeper Parthenocissus quinquefolia (L.) Planch. Vitaceae Wild Grape Vitis spp. Zingiberaceae Ginger

PAGE 162

153 Appendix B: Plant Study of Gamb le Plantation Sugar Mill Shows identified plant families, common na mes, and specific epithets which currently occur in and around GambleÂ’s sugar mill s ite. Blank country of origin denotes native species when species are indicated. Plant Family Common Name Scientific Name Country of Origin Acanthaceae Shrimpplant Justicia brandegeana Wassh. & L. b. Sm. Mexico Amaranthaceae Goosefoot Chenopodium spp. Amaranthaceae Globe Amaranth Gomphrena serrata L. Tropical America Amaranthaceae Amaranth Amaranthus spp. Adoxaceae Elderberry Sambucus canadensis L. x nigra (L.) Adoxaceae Anacardiaceae Eastern Poison Ivy Toxicodendron radicans (L.) Kuntze Anacardiaceae Mango Mangifer indica L. Asia Araceae Philodendron Monstera spp.

PAGE 163

154 Appendix B (Continued) Plant Family Common Name Scientific Name Area of Origin Araceae Philodendron Amaranthaceae Redroot Pigweed Amaranth spp. Anacardiaceae Brazilian Pepper Schinus terebinthofolius Raddi Tropical America Arecaceae Washington Palm Washingtonian robusta H. Wendl Mexico Arecaceae Thatch Palm Thrinax morrisii H. Wendl. Monroe County, Florida Asparagaceae Wild Asparagus Asparagus spp. Asteraceae Ragweed Ambrosia spp. Asteraceae Cudweed Pseudognaphalium obtusifolium L. Asteraceae Florida Tasselflower Emilia fosbergii Nicolson Leon County, Florida

PAGE 164

155 Appendix B (Continued) Plant Family Common Name Scientific Name Area of Origin Asteraceae Lilac Tasselflower Emilia sonchifolia (L.) DC. Old World Asteraceae Horseweed Conyza spp. Asteraceae Thoroughwort Eupatorium spp. Asteraceae Beggar Ticks Bidens spp. Asteraceae Thistle Cirsium spp. Asterceae Dogfennel Chamaemelum mixtum (L.) All. Europe Bromeliaceae Spanish Moss Tillandsia usneoides L. Cupressaceae Cedar Chamaecyparis thyoides (L.) Briton et al Cyperaceae Yellow Nutgrass Cyperus esculentus L. Old World Cyperaceae Sedge Cyperus spp. Dioscoreaceae Air-Potato Dioscorea bulbifera Tropical Asia

PAGE 165

156 Appendix B (Continued) Plant Family Common Name Scientific Name Area of Origin Fabaceae Rosary Pea Abrus precatorius L. Old World Fabaceae Wild Pea Vigna adenantha (G. Mey) Marechal et al. Tropical America Fabaceae Mimosa Mimosa pudica L. Tropical America Fabaceae Purple Orchid Tree Bauhinia purpurea L. Tropical Asia Fagaceae Oak Trees Quercus spp. Geraniaceae Carolina Cranesbill Geranium carolinianum L. Lamiaceae Sage Salvia spp. Malvaceae Fanpetals Sida spp. Malvaceae Caesarweed Urena lobata L. Old World Oleaceae Privet Ligustrum spp.

PAGE 166

157 Appendix B (Continued) Plant Family Common Name Scientific Name Area of Origin Oxalidaceae Woodsorrel Oxalis spp. Poaceae Johnsongrass Sorghum halepense L. Mediterranean Poaceae Bermudagrass Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers Africa Poaceae Vaseygrass Paspalum urbillei Steud. South America Poaceae Crowngrass Paspalum spp. Polygonaceae Knotweed Polygonum spp. Plantaginaceae Plantain Plantago spp. Pteridaceae Brake Fern Pteris spp. Rosaceae Loquat Eriobotrya japonica (Tumb) Lindl. Asia Rubiaceae Wild Coffee Psychotria nervosa Sw.

PAGE 167

158 Appendix B (Continued) Plant Family Common Name Scientific Name Area of Origin Rutaceae Grapefruit Citrus maxima x reticulate x maxima Rutaceae Tangerine Citrus reticulata Blanco Southeast Asia Rutaceae Citrus Citrus spp. Sapindaceae Carrotwood Cupaniopsis anacardioides (A.Rich.) Radlk Australia Smilacaceae Greenbrier (6 species) Smilax spp. Solanaceae American Black Nightshade Solanum americanum Mill. Verbenaceae Lantana Lantana camara L. West Indies Verbenaceae Turkey Tangle Fogfruit Phyla nodiflora (L.) Greene Verbenaceae Vitaceae Virginia Creeper Parthenocissus quinquefolia (L.) Planch.

PAGE 168

159 Appendix B (Continued) Plant Family Common Name Scientific Name Area of Origin Vitaceae Wild Grape Vitis spp.

PAGE 169

160 Appendix C: Florida as a Sugar State In 1844 I carried ten of my negro [s ic] men to the river and commenced operationsÂ… In 1849 erected my first se t of sugar works; they were of frame; the boiling house 40 x 30 feet, the draining-house 60 x 30, the millhouse 30 x 30. My machinery consisted of a fifty-horse steam engine. My mill was, for those days, a gigantic affair, a horizontal of 3 rollers 5 feet long, the largest ro ller weighing 5 tons. With this structure I took o ff my first crop in 1849-50, and had scarcely finished rolling when the whole was burned, crop and all. The crop consisted of 80,000 lbs. of su gar and 4000 gallons and molasses. This was a terrible blow, and I had to commence de novo I had saved largely of seed cane from this crop, had extended the area of cane land, and would largely in crease the acreage in cane for 185051. In addition, therefore, to this increased cultivation, the provision of fuel, and some 250 hogsheads, which ha d to be made on the plantation, and all other ordinary requisites for taking off a crop about three times as large as one just lost, I had to cons truct anew and complete, and on a much more extensive plant, a new establishment. This I determine should be of bric k. The buildings I erected were as follows: The mill house 40 x 40, walls 16 feet high; cooling house 40 x 40, walls 12 feet high; draining house 40x 60, walls 8 feet high. All of these bricks were made on the spot and by my own force, and with the exception of one white wo rkman, as boss-brick layer, they were all laid by my own negroes; the most intelligent being selected and under the guidance of Mr. Godard, who was one of the "armed occupationists" and a master workman, they did good and loyal work. The roof frames of these houses were massy, and it being my intent at a future day to cover with sl ate. The carpentry of this work was done by contract, but all of the timber was sawed by hand on the plantation, as was all the lumber of ev ery kind used in construction. This work was all completed in time to take off the crop of 1850-51. This crop consisted of 231,000 pound sugar and 11,530 gallons molasses. The crop of 1851-52Â… was cut short by frostÂ… Crop of 18511852 was 163 hogshead sugar, 195,000 pounds, and 8,150 gallons of molasses. Crop of 1852-53 was 156,000 pounds sugar and 7,000 gallons molasses. Crop of 1853-54 was 363,000 pounds sugar and 15,150 gallons molasses.

PAGE 170

161 Appendix C (Continued) This year I erected to second draining house, also brick, 40 x 60 feet. These draining houses on either side of the central alley contained cisterns for holding molasses, extending the whole length of the house, each 3 feet deep, lined with hydraulic cement; the hogsheads for placed on the beams over these cisterns. My boiling house was furnished with two sets of kettles arranged along each side each set consisting of five open kettles, headed by a steam kettle, in which the syrup was concentrated to sugar. An eight-horse engine furnished the steam to operate these steam kettles, and one of HurdÂ’s centrifugal draining machines, the first one I believe which he made. This engine was also used to drive a grist mill and one of PageÂ’s circular saws, and from the time of its erection furnished all the lumber for the plantation, includi ng staves for hogsheads. The largest kennel in each of the open range kettles held 500 gallons. My mill was raised on massy brick work, capped w ith three tiers of heavy timbers, 16 inches square, bolted together by hea vy rods, which were anchored in the base of the brick work and some ten feet above the kett les, and the cane was carried up to it by an endless band composed of wooden slats and iron chains, and extended from the mill far into the cane yard; this carrier was five feet wide and moved in a trou gh 14 inches deep, and while the mill was in motion a solid mass of cane five feet wide and 14 inches high pass continuously between the roller and wa s so effectively crushed that the bagasse as it passed from the rollers was nearly as dry is tinder, cut in two at every joint, and if applied to the mouth while inhaling would produce partial suffocation by its fine dry impalpable powder. The crop up of 1854-5 was 303,600 pounds sugar in 12,650 gallons molasses. The records of 1855-56 and of 1856-57 have been mislaidÂ… All the fuel consumed in making my sugar and driving my machinery had to be produced th ree miles down and upon the opposite side of this broad river. Laborers and teams were dispatched from the plantation, who cut and halted to the ri ver bank. There it was loaded upon large flats, 40 feet long and 12 feet wide, boated to the landing to my place and thence hauled three-fourths of a mile to the furnaceÂ… I left the Manatee in the spri ng of 1856, placing the plantation and the whole estate in the care of a nother party. In 1858-9 I sold the plantation to Messrs. Cofield & Davis, sugar planters in Louisiana, and the teams, negroes [sic] &c., and &c., were removed to their estate in Louisiana. This section of the State fell into the hands of the Federal troops early in the war, who wanton ly broke and destroyed the massy machinery and kettles.

PAGE 171

162 Appendix C (Continued) The war coming on immediat ely and the negroes [sic] emancipated, these gentlemen were ruined, and their ruin involves that of their creditors. These la nds, some three thousandthree hundred acres, are now selling for $50 to a $100 per acreÂ… These ventures, together with my normal duties as a planter and the erection of the two-storied brick dwelling containing ten rooms, and in part covered with iron, constituted th e sum of my operations between 1844 and 1856, at which later period I retu rned to Middle Florida. [Gamble 1888]


Download Options

Choose Size
Choose file type
Cite this item close


Cras ut cursus ante, a fringilla nunc. Mauris lorem nunc, cursus sit amet enim ac, vehicula vestibulum mi. Mauris viverra nisl vel enim faucibus porta. Praesent sit amet ornare diam, non finibus nulla.


Cras efficitur magna et sapien varius, luctus ullamcorper dolor convallis. Orci varius natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Fusce sit amet justo ut erat laoreet congue sed a ante.


Phasellus ornare in augue eu imperdiet. Donec malesuada sapien ante, at vehicula orci tempor molestie. Proin vitae urna elit. Pellentesque vitae nisi et diam euismod malesuada aliquet non erat.


Nunc fringilla dolor ut dictum placerat. Proin ac neque rutrum, consectetur ligula id, laoreet ligula. Nulla lorem massa, consectetur vitae consequat in, lobortis at dolor. Nunc sed leo odio.