A house but not a home? measuring "householdness" in the daily lives of monticello's "nail boys"

A house but not a home? measuring "householdness" in the daily lives of monticello's "nail boys"

Material Information

A house but not a home? measuring "householdness" in the daily lives of monticello's "nail boys"
McVey, Shannon Lee
Place of Publication:
[Tampa, Fla]
University of South Florida
Publication Date:


Subjects / Keywords:
Archaeology Of Slavery
Thomas Jefferson
Dissertations, Academic -- Archaeology American History -- Masters -- USF ( lcsh )
bibliography ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )


ABSTRACT: Monticello, the plantation home of Thomas Jefferson, was also home to more than 100 African American slaves between 1771 and 1826. As many as 40 members of this community lived and worked on Mulberry Row, once a bustling avenue of residential and industrial activity adjacent to the Palladian mansion. Archaeological excavations in 1957 and 1982–-1983 uncovered the remains of Mulberry Row's nailery, where preteen and teenaged enslaved "“nail boys”" manufactured nails for internal use and sale. These excavations revealed surprisingly high amounts of domestic artifacts, particularly ceramics and glass, indicating the young nailers also may have lived inside the nailery. This study investigates whether the nail boys maintained some semblance of childhood through ongoing participation in their parents'’ households or fully took on the mantle of adulthood by forming a household of their own, independent of their parents, as expressed in the local production and consumption of household goods. This question is explored within the contexts of the archaeology of slavery, household archaeology, and the archaeology of children. The intersection of these three themes provides a richer and more realistic understanding of the boys'’ complex lives. In this study, artifact abundance indices and Pearson residuals are used to compare artifacts from the nailery to artifacts from industrial and dwelling sites across Monticello plantation. I hypothesized that if the nail boys were participating in food production and consumption, the abundance of refined and utilitarian ceramics and glass would be similar to or higher than the abundance of those artifacts in dwelling sites. If the abundance of the nailery artifacts was lower than those for dwelling sites and was therefore more similar to those for industrial sites, the nail boys probably did not participate in domestic activities. The indices and residuals reveal a high abundance of refined ceramics and glass in the nailery and a low abundance of utilitarian ceramics, which would have been needed to cook and store food. The data suggest the nail boys engaged in the consumption of food and associated artifacts but participated in little or no food production. It is likely that their age and gender prevented them from fully engaging in food production within the nailery. This project adds to the fledgling research into slave children, who have traditionally been ignored by childhood, slave, and household archaeologists.
Thesis (M.A.)--University of South Florida, 2011.
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 177 pages.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Shannon Lee McVey.

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:
E14-SFE0004961 ( USFLDC DOI )
e14.4961 ( 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 22 Ka 4500
controlfield tag 007 cr-bnu---uuuuu
008 s2011 flu ob 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0004961
XX9999 (Online)
1 100
McVey, Shannon Lee.
0 245
A house but not a home? measuring "householdness" in the daily lives of monticello's "nail boys"
h [electronic resource] /
by Shannon Lee McVey.
[Tampa, Fla] :
b University of South Florida,
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains 177 pages.
(M.A.)--University of South Florida, 2011.
Includes bibliographical references.
Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format.
ABSTRACT: Monticello, the plantation home of Thomas Jefferson, was also home to more than 100 African American slaves between 1771 and 1826. As many as 40 members of this community lived and worked on Mulberry Row, once a bustling avenue of residential and industrial activity adjacent to the Palladian mansion. Archaeological excavations in 1957 and 1982–-1983 uncovered the remains of Mulberry Row's nailery, where preteen and teenaged enslaved "“nail boys”" manufactured nails for internal use and sale. These excavations revealed surprisingly high amounts of domestic artifacts, particularly ceramics and glass, indicating the young nailers also may have lived inside the nailery. This study investigates whether the nail boys maintained some semblance of childhood through ongoing participation in their parents'’ households or fully took on the mantle of adulthood by forming a household of their own, independent of their parents, as expressed in the local production and consumption of household goods. This question is explored within the contexts of the archaeology of slavery, household archaeology, and the archaeology of children. The intersection of these three themes provides a richer and more realistic understanding of the boys'’ complex lives. In this study, artifact abundance indices and Pearson residuals are used to compare artifacts from the nailery to artifacts from industrial and dwelling sites across Monticello plantation. I hypothesized that if the nail boys were participating in food production and consumption, the abundance of refined and utilitarian ceramics and glass would be similar to or higher than the abundance of those artifacts in dwelling sites. If the abundance of the nailery artifacts was lower than those for dwelling sites and was therefore more similar to those for industrial sites, the nail boys probably did not participate in domestic activities. The indices and residuals reveal a high abundance of refined ceramics and glass in the nailery and a low abundance of utilitarian ceramics, which would have been needed to cook and store food. The data suggest the nail boys engaged in the consumption of food and associated artifacts but participated in little or no food production. It is likely that their age and gender prevented them from fully engaging in food production within the nailery. This project adds to the fledgling research into slave children, who have traditionally been ignored by childhood, slave, and household archaeologists.
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
Pluckhahn, Thomas J.
Archaeology Of Slavery
Thomas Jefferson
Dissertations, Academic
x Archaeology American History
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?e14.4961


by Shannon L. McVey A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Department of Anthropology Coll ege of Arts and Sciences University of South Florida Major Professor: Thomas J. Pluckhahn, Ph.D. Brent Weisman, Ph.D. Lori Collins, Ph.D. Date of Approval March 28 2011 Keywords: Archaeology of Slavery, Chesapeake, Thomas Jefferson, Children, Consum ption Copyright 2011, Shannon L. McVey


Dedication I dedicate this thesis to the people who have supported me the most throughout both this project and my life. My parents have always encouraged me to achieve my highest goals. They taught me that I can accomplish anything with hard work, self discipline, and a positive attitude. I am so grateful for their unconditional love and support. My sister is a constant source of inspiration. She encouraged me to keep going through the most frustrating a nd stressful times during this project. I know I can always depend on her when I need a shoulder to lean on. My fianc is my best friend. His love has enriched my life in more ways than I can count. He has been so patient, no matter how much I talked a bout this project. I am so grateful for all the days he helped me to laugh and relax. I hope this thesis makes all of them proud!


Acknowledgments I am grateful to many people who made this project successful. I am indebted to my committee chair, Tho mas Pluckhahn, for giving me the opportunity to do research at Monticello. He has been a steadfast supporter of this project and has given much thoughtful guidance. Committee members Brent Weisman and Lori Collins were very encouraging. Their critiques and insights have greatly improved this work. I am so grateful to Karen Smith, who was instrumental in developing and implementing this research. She bore my many questions with patience and a smile. I am grateful to Fraser Neiman and Jillian Galle fo r reviewing my preliminary results and suggesting new avenues of investigation. Their recommendat ions shaped the project in important ways. Many friends and mentors at Monticello gave encouragement, advice, and time Alexandra Massey and Elizabeth Saw yer assisted me in innumerable ways. Their kindness and patience were extraordinary. Katharyn Gadient and Katherine Evans helped me find and photograph hundreds of nailery artifacts. Chris Mundy and Don Gaylord answered many questions. Derek Wheeler pr ovided important images. Anna Berkes granted me access to documents that significantly expanded the nailery story. I am very grateful to the Kissimmee Valley Archaeological and Historical Conservancy, Inc. for granting me the Chuck Wilde Award. The awa rd was instrumental in funding this project.


i Table of Contents List of Tables ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... ii List of Figures ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. iii Abstract ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ v Chapter 1: Introduction ................................ ................................ ............................... 1 Chapter 2: Historical Context ................................ ................................ ..................... 7 History of Slavery ................................ ................................ ........................... 7 History of Monticello and the Nailery ................................ ......................... 18 Cha pter 3: The Archaeology of Slav ery, Households, and Children .................... 47 Archaeology of Slavery ................................ ................................ ................ 48 Household Archaeology ................................ ................................ ............... 51 Archaeology of Children ................................ ................................ .............. 58 Chapter 4: P revious Archaeological Work ................................ .............................. 72 Chapte r ................................ ................................ .. 80 Abundance Indices and Pe arson Residuals ................................ ................. 85 Ware Type Groups ................................ ................................ ........................ 89 Ceramic Form ................................ ................................ ................................ 93 Utilitarian Ceramic Material ................................ ................................ ....... 108 Specific Ware Types ................................ ................................ ................... 110 Glass Co ntainers and Tableware Glass ................................ ...................... 113 Utensils ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 117 Building l : The Storehouse for Iron ................................ ........................... 119 Distribution Maps ................................ ................................ ........................ 120 Dis cussion ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 127 Chapter 6: Conclusion ................................ ................................ ............................. 131 References Cited ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 135 Appendi ces ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 152 Appendix A: C ou nts of Ceramics by Ware Type ................................ ..... 15 3 A ppendix B: Comparative Sites ................................ ................................ 16 2


ii List of Tables Table 5. 1: List of Ceramic Vessel Forms and their Categorization as Tableware, Teaware, or Utilitar ian ................................ .......................... 88 Table 5.2: Mean Ceramic Date, Function, and Occup a nt data for comparative sites ................................ ................................ ...................... 89 Table A1.1: Counts of Creamware, Chinese Porcelain, Pearlwar e, and Dutch/British Delftware ................................ ................................ ...... 15 3 Table A1.2: Counts of White Salt Gla ze, English Bone China Porcelain, Porcellaneous Engl is h Hard Paste, and Westerwald ......................... 15 4 Table A1.3: Counts of Whieldon Type Ware, Black B asalt, Astbury Type, Faience ................................ ................................ ................................ 15 5 Table A1.4: Counts of Staffordshire Brown Stoneware, Jasperware, J ackfield Type, and Canary Ware ................................ ...................... 15 6 Table A1.5: Counts of Whiteware, Nottingham, Ro ss o Antico, and Wedgwood Green ................................ ................................ ................ 15 7 Table A1.6: Counts of American Stoneware, British S to neware, Redware, and Buckley ................................ ................................ ......................... 15 8 Table A1.7: Counts of Fulham Type, German Stoneware, a nd Stafford shire Mottled Glaze ................................ ............................... 15 9 Table A1.8: Counts of Iberian Ware North Midlands/Staffordshi re Slipware, and Frechen Brown ................................ ............................ 1 60 Table A1.9: Counts of Yellow Ware, Ironstone/White Gran it e, and Bennington/Rockingham ................................ ................................ .... 16 1


iii List of Figures Figure 2.1: The location of Monticello in the Eastern United St ates .................... 18 Figur e 2.2: Phase 1 of Mulberry Row ................................ ................................ ...... 24 Figur e 2.3: Phase 2 of Mulberry Row ................................ ................................ ...... 25 Figur e 2.4: Phase 3 of Mulberry Row ................................ ................................ ...... 26 Figure 2.5: Locations of all possible nail making activities on Montic ello plantation are shown in purple ................................ ............................... 30 Figure 2.6: Location of Stewart Watkins site to the south and west of the mansion ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 33 .................... 38 Figure 4.1: Photograph of the comple ted nailery excav ation in 1983 .................... 73 he nailery ................................ ................ 78 Figure 5.1: Results of Abundance Index for Coarse Ware Types .......................... 91 Figure 5.2: Results of Abundance Index of Refined Ware Types .......................... 93 Figure 5.3: Pearson Residuals for Ware Type Grou ps ................................ ............ 94 Figure 5.4: Abundance Index for Utilitarian Form by All Ceramic Forms ........... 95 Figure 5.5: Abundance Index for Utilita r ian Form by Wine Bottle Glass ............. 96 Figure 5.6: Abundance Index for Table w are Form by All Ceramic Forms ........... 97 Figure 5.7: Abundance Ind ex for Table w are Form by Wine Bottle Glass ............ 99 Figure 5.8: Abundance Index for Tea w are Form by All Ceramic Forms ............ 100


iv Figure 5.9: Abundance Index for Tea wa re Form by Wine Bottle Glass .............. 102 Figure 5.10: Pearson Residual of Utilitarian by Teaware Forms fo r All C er amic Forms Abundance Indices ................................ ..................... 103 Figure 5.11: Pearson Residual of Utilitarian by Tableware Forms for All C er amic Forms Abundance Indices ................................ ..................... 104 Figure 5.12: Pearson Residual of Teaware by Tableware Form for All C er amic Forms Abundance Indices ................................ ..................... 105 Figure 5.13: Pearson Residual for Utilitarian by Teaware Forms for the Wine Bo ttle Glass Abundance Indices ................................ ................ 106 Figure 5.14: Pearson Residual for Utilitarian by Tableware Forms for the Wine Bo ttle Glass Abundance Indices ................................ ................ 107 Figure 5.15: Pearson Resi dual for Teaware by Tableware Forms for the Wine Bo ttle Glass Abundance Indices ................................ ................ 108 Figure 5.16: Abundance Index fo r Utilitarian Ceramic Material ......................... 109 Figure 5.17: A bundance Index for Creamware ................................ ...................... 111 Figure 5.18: A bundance Index for Pearlware ................................ ........................ 112 Figu re 5.19: Abundan ce Index for Chinese Porcelain ................................ ........... 113 Figure 5.20: Abundance Index for Glass Containers ................................ ............ 11 5 Figure 5.21: Abund an ce Index for Tableware Glass ................................ ............. 116 Figure 5.22: Pearson Residuals for Glass Co ntainers and Tableware Glass ....... 117 Figure 5.23 : A b undance Index for Utensils ................................ ........................... 118 Figure 5.24: Distribution of ce ramics in the lower quadrats ................................ 123 Figure 5.25: Distribution of ce ramics in the upper quadrats ................................ 124 Figure 5.26: Distribution of nails in the lower quadrats ................................ ........ 125 Figure 5.27: Distribution o f nails in the upper quadrats ................................ ........ 126 from page 52 of his Farm Book ......... 129


v Abstract Monticello, the plantation home of Thomas Jefferson, wa s also home to more than 100 African American slaves between 1771 and 182 6. As many as 40 members of this community lived and worked on Mulberry Row, once a bustling avenue of residential and industrial activity adjacent to the Palladian mansion Archaeological excavations in 1957 and 1982 1983 uncovered the remains of Mulber teenaged enslaved These e xcavations revealed surprisingly high amounts of domestic artifacts particularly ceramics and glass, indicating the young nailers also may have lived inside the nailery. This study investigates whether the nail boys maintained some semblance of childhood or fully took on the mantle of adulthood by forming a household of their own independent of their parents, as expressed in the local production and consumption of household goods. This question is explored within the contexts of the archaeology of slavery, household archaeology, and the archaeology of children. The intersection of these three themes this study artifact abundance indices and Pearson residuals are used to compare artifacts from the nailery to artifacts from industrial and dwelling s ites across Monticello plantation I hypothesize d that if the nail boys were participating in food production and


vi consumption, the abundance of refined and utilitarian ceramics and glass would be similar to or higher than the abundance of those artifacts in dwelling sites. If the abundance of the nailery artifacts was lower than those for dwelling sites and was therefore more similar to those for industrial sites, the nail boys probably did not participat e in domestic activities. The indices and r esidual s reveal a high abundance of refined ceramics and glass in the nailery and a low abundance of utilitarian ceramics, which would have been needed to cook and store food. T he data suggest the nail boys engaged in the consumption of food and associated artif acts but participated in little or no food production. It is likely that their age and gender prevented them from fully engaging in food production within the nailery. This project adds to the fledgling research into slave children, who have traditionall y been ignored by childhood, slave, and household archaeologists.


1 Chapter 1 : Introduction The lives of enslaved African Americans in c olonial and early America have become a topic of great interest for archaeologists, historians, and the public in recent years Nowhere is the intersection of these three groups more frequent than at Monticello, providing a wonderful opportunity for new knowledge to be disseminated quickly and widely. M onticello was plantation home in Charlottesville Virginia between 1771 and 1826, and it is an excellent place to study the lives of enslaved people due to good archaeological preservation and extensive historical documentation Scholars examining slave sites around the country have s upplied a wealth of information on slave diet and subsistence, health, religion, labor, identity, gender, resistance, production and consumption of goods, housing, household composition, and other subjects (Crader 1990; Orser 1990; Samford 1996; Hudson 199 7; Morgan 1998; Orser and Funari 2001; Fesler 2004; Heath 2004; Samford 2004; Galle 2010). The boom in slavery research has unfortunately neglected the liv es of enslaved children Similarly, children have a limited presence in interpretive and research m aterials at Monticello. There are numerous opportunities, however, to study enslaved Row, an area of domestic and industrial buildings near the mansion that was used by as


2 many as 40 slaves Many of the slave quarters along Mulberry Row were home to slave children whose parents labored in the mansion or the industrial buildings. As they got older, some of these children along with other youth, also worked in the mansio n or industrial buildings (Stanton 2000:105, 132; Stanton 2002:177) In particular, the site of this was a nail making workshop staffed by a group of preteen and teena boys. manufacturing business resulted in many documents His gs, wives, and children, and tracked their adult careers and which of his plantations they lived on in adulthood. Unfortunately we know very little about their daily lives as teenage nailers and the lack of information on other slave children at Monticell o makes it hard to speculate what the lives were like I t is important to learn more about early lives because we know so little about slave childhood at Monticello or the way childhood events affected the adult lives of slaves. Ma ny of the nail boys held some of the most important adult positions like butler and head gardener, and it is very likely that their childhood experiences shaped their lives as adults (Stanton 1996:23 24) Contrary to our own modern, Western constructio ns of childhood as a time of innocence and dependency (Kamp 2001:3) slave children worked long hours at manual labor and some may have lived separately from their parents. In fact, excavations at revealed a surprisingly high amount of domestic artifa cts, leading to Kelso and that the nail boys may have lived in the nailery at least some of the time (Kelso 1997) organize the


3 slaves into households and many of these lists sh ow the nail boys grouped together, suggesting the boys were considered an individual household (Jefferson 2003b) In this thesis, I will discuss the extent to which the enslaved nail boys created a functioning household of their own inside the nailery D id the nail boys maintain some semblance of childhood or did they fully take on the mantle of adulthood by forming a household of their own, independent of their parents, as expressed in the local production and consumption of household goods? In this study, I use abundance indices and Pearson residuals to compare amounts of artifacts from the nailery to amounts of artifacts from a variety of domestic and industrial sites at Monticello in order to household activity. To measure this, I coined the term meaning the intensity and variety of domestic activities done inside a building. I discuss this term further in Chapter 3. This project is focused on one indicator of householdness: dietary production and consumption as seen through ceramic, glass, and utensil artifacts. I hypothesize that if the nail boys were engaging in food production and consumption and hence had a high level of householdness the abundance of r efined and utilitarian ceramics, glass and utensils would be similar to or higher than the abundance of those artifacts in domestic sites. If the abundance of the nailery artifacts was lower than those for d omestic sites and was more s imilar to those for industrial sites, the nail boys probably did not participate in domestic activities and therefore had low householdness In addition, distribution maps can show locations of nail manufacturing and possible domestic activities inside th e activities in the structure


4 I consider my research question and results within the frameworks of the archaeology of slavery, household archaeology, and the archaeology of children. The inte rsec tion of these three theme s provides a more vivid and realistic understanding of the thesis, particularly household production and consumption, household compositio n, and activities, such as apprenticeship, through the archaeological record and have discussed the concept of childhood as a social construction. Using all three theme s allows for a interpretation of the nailery site. Unfortunately, the three the me s have overlooked the study of enslaved children, leaving an important group of people out of scholarly awareness and discussion. This project can sh ed light on how independent the nail boys were from their families. Modern teens and preteens in Weste rn society do not usually live separately from their parents and they are considered to be incapable of handling this level of independence Even in early America, most free children lived either with parents, other adult family members, or legally manda ted guardians as in the case of pauper apprenticeship (Herndon and Murray 2009:7). Enslaved children were viewed differently, especially by their masters. These children began working at very young ages and both parents and masters assigned them heavier workloads as they became capable of performing more demanding tasks Most slave children took on adult workloads and received adult rations around age 10 or 12 and were therefore considered


5 adults by their masters (Schwartz 2000:14) Slave children exper ienced a very limited childhood. It is not very farfetched to suggest that some older children were forced to live a part from their families due to the whims of their masters. The incidence of children living apart from parents is just one of many questi ons yet to be answered about the lives of young slaves. By focusing on the domestic artifacts left behind by a group of about enslaved children. I hope that this work w ill inspire others to research the lives of enslaved children in many archaeological contexts. This thesis is organi zed into multiple chapters. Chapter Two first explores the history of slavery in North America with a focus on the Chesapeake region. Then I examine the history of Monticello plantation and the nailery, including what is known about the nail boys. Chapter Three focuses on anthropological and archaeological theoretical perspectives that influence the analyses and conclusions in this study. Specifically, I discuss the archaeology of slavery, household archaeology, and the archaeology of children I also explore varying definitions and trends within each area of study. In Chapter Four I first discuss Oriol Pi he nailery site, which proved that the nailery had actually existed. Then I describe William Kelso 1983 nailery excavation including the excavation methodology and artifacts and features found. The large amount of domestic art ifacts found during the 1982 1983 excavation led to the hypothesis that the nail boys lived inside the nailery


6 In Chapter Five I analyze data from the nailery and twelve industrial and domestic sites from Monticello plantation. Abundance indices and Pe arson r esiduals are used to learn if the nail boys took part in domestic production or consumption. Artifact distribution maps demonstrate where inside the nailery these domestic activities may have been done. Chapter S ix concludes the study with a brie present ideas for future research on the nail boys and other enslaved children at Monticello. Additionally, I describe p lans for the presentation of my results on the Digital Archaeological Archive of Comparative S lavery.


7 Chapter 2: Historical Context History of Slavery From the fifteenth to the nineteenth centuries, Great B ritain, Portugal, France, and other European countries imported West African slaves to various colonies around the world (Taylor 2001:78) The British carried more slaves to colonies than any other country in the eighteenth century; approximately half of these slaves ended up in British colonies, the rest being sent to French and Spanish colonies (Taylor 2001:324) Slaves provided the lab or needed to produce important British trade commodities such as tobacco, rice, and sugar (Taylor 2001:324) Africans were first imported into Virginia around 1619, and older children and adolescents were prized because they were old enough to do difficul t work but still had many decades of work ahead of them (Morgan 1975; Morgan 1998) The majority of Africans imported to Virginia came from Senegambia and the Bight of Biafra (Morgan 1998:62) During the seventeenth century the slave status of transpla nted Africans did not hinder them from creating meaningful relationships with white indentured servants, who could claim a similarly low status (Morgan 1998:8, 9) These two groups often ate, made love, ran away, stole, and celebrated together (Morgan 199 8:9) As the numbers of new African slaves increased and the numbe rs of white indentured servants decreased, the


8 groups became more separate and racial distinctions solidified. Th e chasm between African born slaves and white indentured servants expanded because of the foreign status of new slaves, who did not know English and whose appearances seemed so different from those of Anglo Americans (Morgan 1998:13) Recent research on the early importation of slaves indicates that white Virginians switched to slave labor because slaves were less expensive than indentured servants. Slaves initially worked in the same manner as indentured servants and not in gangs, showing that slave owners did not buy slaves because they wanted to change the mode of labor (Foge l 1989:35 36) The importation of slaves was banned in the United States in 1807, but illegal importation continued with ten to twenty thousand slaves brought in every year until the end of the Civil War (Schneider and Schneider 2007:51) Early on, most s ettlement by whites and their slaves occurred in the tidewater region of Virginia. People began settling the piedmont region at the start of the eighteenth century and by the American Revolution approximately 45 percent of the Virginian population lived i n that area (Morgan and Nicholls 1989:215) Piedmont soil was ideal for growing oronoco (also spelled orinoco) a popular type of tobacco that provided large profits for farmers and enticed many to move to the area (Morgan 1975:302; Morgan and Nicholls 19 89:216) These new settlers to the region brought their slaves and continued to purchase more. After the American Revolution, more slaves lived in the piedmont than in the tidewater (Morgan and Nicholls 1989:217) Tobacco cultivation was the primary p urpose of most Virginia plantations during free season and well


9 were generally small because tobacco needed close attention throughout the growing process; most planters owned between one hundred and two hundred acres by the late colonial period (Morgan 1998 :36, 43 44 ) The cultivation of tobacco required such close attention that each slave was expected to work only two acres at a time (Morgan 1998:42) Wealthy planters who owned a large number of slaves such as Thomas Jefferson, tended to also manufacture needed items at home or diversify crops. T he majority of slave owners owned less than twenty sla ves (Morgan 1998:41 42) It was more common to have one or two slaves who were fairly familiar with tools but who were not true artisans (Morgan 1998:54) It was very rare for a plantation to have slaves trained in blacksmithing, shoemaking, or tailorin g (Morgan 1998:54) Slaves trained in th ose three skills or in carpentering had very high market value and retained this value for much of their lives (Marks 1987) value came from their knowledge and skill combined with the c onvenience of producing needed goods for the plantation. Masters could also sell the goods made by slave artisans or hire out the slaves for extra profit (Marks 1987 :546, 547, 549 ; Schneider and Schneider 2007 :112 ) If skilled slaves were present on a pl antation or farm, they were almost universally men (Berlin and Morgan 1993 :19 ; Morgan 1998 :205 ). where they learn ed a trade from a white craftsma n, while others learned from previously trained slave s (Morgan 1998:214; Schneider and Schneider 2007 :111 112 ) Only older children and adults who wanted to learn a trade and were likely retain interest were trained because of the high cost (Schwartz 2000:149) Sl ave artisans, almost always living on very large plantations like Monticello, had a higher rank than field hands.


10 These skilled slaves often received better quality food, clothing, and shelter and, with their knowledge of the world outside the plantation, sometimes became community leaders (Berlin and Morgan 1993:17 18) S till, s killed slaves were not given lighter labor loads than field hands (Fogel 1989:47) Although female slaves were not trained as artisans, some achieved recognition for their domestic skills, such as dressing hair, cooking, spinning, weaving, and making clothes (Schneider and Schneider 2007 :112 ) Whether they worked in the fields or as artisans, slaves labored very hard. Both men and women worked six days a week and had duties lasting until late at night. Workdays varied fr om eleven to twelve hours a day under normal conditions to between thirteen and sixteen hours a day during the busiest periods (Schwartz 2000:53) Slaves received Sundays and the holidays of Christmas, Easter, and Whitsuntide off of work (Morgan 1998:195) Some slave owners also gave slaves a half day off every Saturday, although the slaves were forced to work a full day if rain postponed work earlier in the week (Fogel 1989:77) Two systems of labor were used throughout the colonies and young states : t asking and ganging. Tasking, predominantly used in the South Carolina l owcountry, defined a required amount of work to be done by each slave every day. For example, under the task system a slave may have been required to weed a certain number of acres of land, or install a specified length of fence a day (Berlin and Morgan 1993 :14 15 ; Morgan 1998 :179 180 ) Supporters of this system argued that it gave the slaves more freedom; once the a llotted work had been completed slaves had the rest of the day to the mselves Although this is theoretically true, the majority of owners purposefully set tasks that would take all day and only the hardest working slaves could achieve any free time


11 (Berlin and Morgan 1993 :15 ; King 1995 :23 ) The gang system, which was popu lar in the Chesapeake, called for the arrangement of slaves into small groups that could be easily supervised by an overseer. A slave foreman set the pace for all o ther slaves in the group and could be punished if work was not done fast enough. These sma ll gangs worked together from dawn until dusk to accomplish an assignment, such as weeding a field or transplanting tobacco seedlings (Morgan 1998 :179 187 188 ) This type of system worked well on tobacco plantations because each plant required individual ized care. Without the incentive of free time at the end of the day, slaves working under the gang system often worked slowly and shirked their duties (Morgan 1998 :191 ) The gang system was good at forcing slaves to work throughout their entire lives. M asters physical abilities and then matching tasks to appropriate slaves. Slaves usually held different jobs at different stages of life as their abilities changed ( Fogel 1989:52 54) Slaves were generally better fed and had better overall health in the Chesapeake compared to other regions (Taylor 2001 :324 ) This, combined with the availability of female slaves especially after 1700 caused the Chesapeake slave popul ation to increase primarily by childbirth rather than by the importation of Africans (Morgan 1998 :84 ; Schneider and Schneider 2007 :51 ; Taylor 2001 :324 ) When females began to be imported in large numbers, m ost were girls who were nearing puberty. These g irls were good investments because they would be able to bear children and thereby increase the slave population within a few years of their arrival (Morgan and Nicholls 1989 :221 ; Reinier 1996:159 ) Owners were pleased when their slave women produced chil dren


12 labor force, and their perpetuation of slave society (Schwartz 2000:20) Owners even praised themselves for the birth of slave children since they saw this as proo f of their kindness in allowing slaves to have a family life (Schwartz 2000:20) Thomas Jefferson (Morgan 1998:94) After the American Revolution, slaves w ere never again imported to Virginia because slave births exceeded slave deaths (Morgan 1998 :62 ) In fact, this natural increase caused the United States to become the world leader in the use of slave labor (Fogel 1989:33) Owners and parents of slave chi Owners believed that slaves developed habits, such as obedience, discontent, or complacency, while very young. Therefore owners took a strong interest in young children because they wanted children to develop an allegiance to them and realize that they and not parents, were in charge of the plantation (Schwartz 2000:77) This extra attention was both a curse and a blessing for slave families. Owners sometimes provided favors or extra supervision for young c hildren, which benefited the family. On the other hand, owners also attempted to change the way slave parents raised their children, (Schwartz 2000:77) Children were forced to cope with the conflicting desires of their parents and the owner. As Schwartz (2000:78) points out; For their part, children had to learn how to negotiate a dangerous world, which entailed pleasing two sets of adults with very different expectations. Their depende nce encouraged them to respect whatever adults looked out


13 for their interests, but children in their early years had difficulty determining who had their best interests at heart. Slave children used different strategies to please both their masters and par ents. Some learned good manners and did what they were told. Other s lave children used deception or ran away to escape punishment (Schwartz 2000 : 113 114 ) Some children tried to avoid punishment by going from their parents to the master or vice versa fo r a pardon. Some enslaved youth pitted masters and mistresses against one another if they held differing beliefs about punishing children (Schwartz 2000 :113 114 ) Slave infants were cared for by an assigned slave caretaker while their parents worked, and when a little older, children were left by themselves in the dwelling during the day (King 1995 :13 ; Schwartz 2000 :69 70, 79 ) Children learned to stay in groups of two or more and look out for each other. Worried about their safety without adult supervi sion, s ome slave parents put bells on their children so they could locate them when they were out of sight. Adults also told stories of scary men like Bloody Bones and (Schwartz 2000 :81 ) Unfortunate ly, slave children were not able to spend much time with their parents during the work week, since the adults often worked until late at night and children went to bed early. If parents did not visit their children during the day, children might go a day or two without seeing their parents ( Illick 2002:39; Schwartz 2000 :87 88 ) T he relationships the children developed with their parents, other relatives, and community members helped them adjust to living in slavery (King 1995 :18 ) When they reached the ag e of five, slave children were no longer treated specially by masters. These children were assigned tasks appropriate to their physical abilities


14 such as gathering eggs, caring for horses, manuring fields, picking worms off tobacco plants, cleaning silver (Reinier 1996:156; Schwartz 2000:108) Because these slave children were property or family members, they were punished if they did not perform up to the expected standards (Schw artz 2000:108) If owners approved of the ways slave parents punished their disobedient children, then parents retained the right to discipline their children. Besides working for the master, children had to do chores at home to help their parents. Thes e chores could be as rigorous as the work they did for the master. Parents made children gather firewood, clean, care for younger siblings and relatives, or cook (Schwartz 2000:123) During middle childhood, some slave children were trained in skills tha t their parents did not know. These children were placed under the instruction of other trusted slaves, even other child slaves (Schwartz 2000:117) As they took on multiple responsibilities, time for play was greatly reduced. Most were only able to pla y in the evenings or during holidays (Schwartz 2000:128) Childhood became increasingly filled with work the older a slave boy or girl grew (Schwartz 2000:135) Slave children were provided with a one piece garment, called a shirt tail for boys and a sh ift for girls, as their only clothing until they were able to perform adult work and were therefore given adul t clothing. As they grew, the one piece garment covered less arger amounts of food generally coincided with them reaching the ages of ten to twelve (King 1995 :16, 22 ). By the ages of ten to twelve, most young slaves began performing adult work ( Illick 2002:41; King 1995 :25 ; Schwartz 2000 :14 ) Older children and ado lescents also


15 continued to gain responsibilities in the home, including laundering, manufacturing cloth, and supplying food for the family (Schwartz 2000:133) Girls and boys were separated ad ideas of appropriate work for each gender, and they delegated chores accordingly (Schwartz 2000 :137, 138 ) the owners would not punish the child, the parents, o r the entire slave community (Schwartz 2000:154) As children reached adolescence and learned adult tasks, they were more likely to be sold away from their families ( Illick 2002:42; Reinier 1996:159; Schwartz 2000:163) Not only was this an emotionally t raumatic experience, but it was child to supply food or complete needed chores (Schwartz 2000:163) Slaves labored into old age. Elderly male slaves moved from working as field hands to being gardeners or watchmen. Older females worked as nurses for the young and the sick, spun cotton, wove cloth, and sewed clothing. Elderly skilled slaves may have been sold or hired out to work for someone else. Most slave owners vie wed older slaves as a burden and some stopped providing for them once they could no longer work (Covey and Eisnach 2009:22; Fogel 1989:55) These slaves were left to depend on the generosity of other slaves for food, shelter, clothing, and other items (Fo gel 1989 :55 ) In early Virginia, slaves were housed in dormitories or barracks Over time, slave housing became more private, with single family homes and duplexes becoming the most common types of slave quarters (Morgan 1998:104) Housing also improved in quality ; early slave quart ers were made of clapboards but b y the mid eighteenth century, log construction, which was more economical and efficient than clapboards was popular.


16 Eventually some slave quarters even had sills and brick underpinnings (Morg an 1998:109) Nevertheless, t he majority of single family quarters were one room buildings with dirt floors, one window, and one door. Duplexes housed two families and were two room structures with one door at each end and a wall separating the rooms (Je wett and Allen 2004:264) The interiors of slave dwellings were sparsely furnished, but most were equipped with an iron pot, an iron pail or kettle, possibly a frying pan and ceramics (Morgan 1998:114) Bowls and jars were generally used instead of plat es because slaves usually ate one pot meals like stews (Morgan 1998:114) Mattresses were made of ticking stuffed with grass, hay, cor n shucks, or pine needles (Schwartz 2000:83) M any domestic activities occurred outside around a fire because of the res tricted space and lack of indoor lighting common to most slave cabins (Morgan 1998:121) Most slave in the Chesapeake, even lived inside work or storage buildings (M organ 1998:107, 123) The heads of slave families and unmarried slave adults were given food rations once a week. The rations, which often consist ed of cornmeal, salt pork, rice, potatoes, and fatback were sometimes the minimum amount of food necessary f or the slaves to keep up their productivity (Covey and Eisnach 2009:11; Schneider and Schneider 2007:83). Some masters gave extra food as reward for good work or withheld food as a punishment for disobedience or running away (Schneider and Schneider 2007 : 80; Schwartz 2001:37 ). Slaves enhanced their rations wi th food they grew, gathered, hunted or fished themselves. Studies have found faunal and archaeobotanical remains of many types of wild food sources, such as opossum, turtle, nuts, fruits, and legume s, in slave domestic deposits ( Mrozowski et al. 2008; Scott 2001 ). Slaves who were allowed to


17 maintain their own garden often grew vegetables, such as beans, cabbage, and collard greens, that supplemented their rations (Covey and Eisnach 2009:73, 78 79). Enslaved African Americans also sold handmade crafts and extra food in order to supplement their rations and earn their own money (King 1995 :16 ; Schwartz 2001 :38 ) Slave children ng feeding chickens, gathering eggs, pounding rice with a pestle and mortar, and checking rabbit traps (Schwartz 2001:37) Some slaves, including children, resorted to stealing from the ( Schneider and Schneider 2007 :80 ; Schwartz 2001 :37 ) House servants although the amount of leftovers would be limited in quantity ( Covey and Eisnach 2009:19 and Schneider 2007:80) The lack of variety in slave diets caused numerou s health issues. Slaves were more susceptible to blindness, rickets, pellagra, toothaches, scurvy, beriberi, and skin and eye irritations because of malnutrition (Schneider and Schneider 2007:80) Combining this issue with poor sanitary and working condi tions and weather exposure, slaves were sick quite frequently. Fever, rheumatism, and the above mentioned malnutrition illnesses were extremely common. Other illnesses like venereal diseases, lockjaw, tuberculosis, pleurisy, pneumonia, leprosy, cholera, and yellow fever also affected slaves. Pregnant women were very vulnerable to illness and other physical problems if they were worked too hard during late pregnancy or while nursing or were not cared for properly during childbirth (Schneider and Schneider 2007: 81 ) Enslaved children often had stunted growth due to a poor diet that frequently did not include meat ( Covey and Eisnach 2009:25; Illick 2002:41 ; Steckel 1986:726, 732 734 )


18 History of Monticello and the Nailery Monticello Plantation is located i n near the city of Charlottesville in Albemarle County, Virginia (Figure 2.1). It was the plantation home of Thomas Jefferson, and is currently owned and operated by the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, a p rivate, nonprofit organization committed to running M onticello in a manner consistent with T homas Figure 2.1 The location of Monticel lo in the Eastern United States


19 It is unknown why Jefferson chose the location of Monticello for his primary plantation. By placing his home at th e top of an 867 foot mountain, he gave up the benefits of living next to the Rivanna R iver and he had to construct roads and cut down forests to get to the top of the mountain (McLaughlin 1988 :34 ) He may have been enchanted by the view; while studying la w he often hiked to the top of Monticello for quiet reflection (McLaughlin 1988 :34 ) The land had been passed on to him from his father, and Jefferson decided to move there from his childhood home at Shadwell, which is approximately four miles away ( Berns tein 2003 :10 ; Thomas Jefferson Foundation 2005) He may have moved to get away from his mother, to try out his architectural ideas, or to create a home for a future wife (Bernstein 2003:9 10) Construction began in 1769 when he was twenty five years old (McLaughlin 1988 :33 ) Two weeks after their marriage in 1772, Jefferson and his new wife Martha Wayles Jefferson moved into the one habitable room at Monticello and waited for the main portion of the house to be completed ( Bernstein 2003 :10 ; Thomas Jeffer son Foundation 2005) Besides the Monticello plantation (also known as the home farm), Jefferson owned outlying lands, known as quarter farms, named Tufton, Lego, and Shadwell. His total landholdings, including Monticello and the quarter farms, were appr oximately 5,000 acres. These quarter farms were run by resident overseers (Thomas Jefferson Foundation 2003b) Additionally, he owned a plantation near Bedford, Virginia called Poplar Forest, which he used as a personal retreat from busy Monticello until 1823, when he sold it to his grandson in Subsequent births and deaths caused the number of slaves to fluctuate around 200 l iving


20 at Monticello at a time, although Jefferson owned 619 individual enslaved people throughout his life (Reed 2007:301; Stanton 2000) The first slave to live full time at Monticello was Betty Brown, who moved to the plantation around 1771 or 1772 and was twelve years old at the time. She was a member of the large Hemings family and worked as the personal servant of Martha Wayles Jefferson ( Reed 2007 ) Interestingly, Betty survived into the 1830s when she was in her seventies ( Stant on 2000 :156 ) Jeff erson rarely purchased or sold slaves. The purchase of slaves was only done to reunite families or to allow two slaves to marry. The sale of slaves was only done to relieve debt or get rid of a rebellious individual ( Reed 2007 ) Robert Hemings, a person al attendant to Jefferson and brother to Sally Hemings, was allowed to purchase his freedom in 1794. He did this by borrowing money from a Fredricksburg Virginia doctor who owned (Reed 2007:5) Jefferson only freed six other slaves, either while he was alive or in his will (Stant on 2002:187) Harriet and Beverly Hemings, daughter and son of Sally Hemings, were allowed to run away without pursuit after they each turned twenty one. Jefferson may have allowed this because he is believed to h ave been their biological father (Reed 2007:6) of his slaves as were sufficiently white to pass for white men, to withdraw quietly from (Stanton 2000:116) caught, and just before going back to Charlottesville, he ran aw ay again and was not pursued (Stanton 2000:116)


21 unrelated individuals. Starting in the 1790s, it was common for parents and their children to occupy their own dwelling (Sta nton 2000:43) Slaves were provided with weekly food rations consisting of a peck of cornmeal, four salted fish, and a half pound of pork or pickled beef (Stanton 2000:29) The annual clothing allotment was a winter and summer suit of clothes, with blank ets provided every three years. Hats, socks, and burlap sacks used as beds were distributed occasionally ( Stanton 2000 :29 ) Every slave household had a poultry yard and many had a garden where vegetables were raised (Stanton 1996 :38 ) T he slaves were al exchange for silver or take these goods to the Sunday market in Charlottesville ( Stanton 2000 :29 ) Slaves also earned money by completing particularly difficult or unpleasant tasks. The mon ey was usually used to obtain goods, such as colorful cloth, sugar, tea, and coffee, which were not provided by Jefferson (Stanton 2000 :29 ) Like the majority of plantation owners, Jefferson worked his slaves very hard. until sundown. Jefferson used the task system to assign work to skilled slaves, and these tasks were designed to last throughout the daylight hours. Evenings, Sundays, and some holidays were free from work. was several days long ( Stanton et al. 2008 ) At Monticello, child slaves began working at very young ages. In his Farm Book, Jefferson ( 2003 a :77 ) listed the types of work that children did, "Child ren till 10. years old to serve as nurses. From 10. to 16. the boys make nails, the girls spin. At 16. go into the ground [wor k in the field] or learn trades


22 (punctuation in original). Once they reached age 16, slave children were considered adult labo rers and were assigned full size workloads ( Stanton et al. 2008) Like most slaves, Monticello slaves had a great deal of work to do after the sun went down. Clothes needed to be repaired, children needed to be cared for, food had to be prepared, and su pplemental subsistence activi ties had to be done. E venings were also a time to relax and enjoy the company of friends and family. Former Monticello slave Isaac Jefferson recalled nighttime slave gatherings centered around music and dancing (Stanton 2000 : 31 ) Story telling and prayer gatherings may also have played an important role in Monticello slave life. One document suggest s that Christian slaves at Monticello were allowed to hold prayer meetings within slave dwellings (Stanton 2000 :32 ) The childr en probably occupied their free time by playing with toys, which were mostly handmade, playing both object centered games like dominoes and marbles ding informal athletic competitions (The Plantation Community: Questions and Answers, General Slavery Information File, Jefferson Library, Charlottesville, Virginia ) They may have let their imaginations run wild as they explored the fields, forests, and river on the plantation. Besides the well known mansion, Monticello plantation consisted of numerous slave dwellings, work buildings, roads, gardens, orchards, fields, storehouses, a stable, (Thomas Jefferson Foundation 2005) Many of the work buildings were located along Mulberry Row, which was a trail just to the south of the mansion. Seventeen structures, mainly slave dwellings and work buildings, were situated along this 1,000 foot path (Thomas Jefferson Foundation 2003b) The number


23 and types of buildings on Mulberry Row changed multiple times as Jefferson designed and redesigned his plantation. The earliest phase of Mulberry Row construction, stone dwelling for free workers and/or slaves (Building E ), a wooden slave quarter (Building o ), and the joinery (Building C ) (Figure 2.2) (Clites and McCray 2010) The second phase of Mulberry Row, between 1791 and 1810, was the heyday o f construction (Figure 2.3). The only building from the first phase that was no longer standing at this (Building i D ), the nailery (Bui lding j ), the nailrod and iron storehouse (Building l ), the smokehouse/dairy (Building m ), the wash house (Building n ), two never documented buildings that may have housed free workers or slaves (Mulberry Row Structure 1 (MRS 1) and Mulberry Row Structure 2 (MRS 2)), a shed (Building p ), a slave dwelling (Building q ), three identical single family slave quarters (Buildings r s t ), and a stable (Building F ) (Clites and McCray 2010) The third and final phase, representing the years 1811 1830, featured on ly two new buildings and the removal of many others (Figure 2.4) The new buildings were the 1809 Stone House, used as a slave dwelling, and Building E buildings from the previous phases were left standing the j oinery, the nailrod and iron storehouse, Buildings r s and t and the stable. This phase coincided with the construction of the north and south wings of the mansion, where many activities previously located on Mulberry Row were then housed (Clites and M cCray 2010)


24 Figure 2.2 Phase 1 of Mulberry Row (Clites and McCray 2010) Image reproduced with permission of the authors


25 Figure 2.3 Phase 2 of Mulberry Row (Clites and McCray 2010) Image reproduced with permission of the authors


26 F igure 2.4 Phase 3 of Mulberry Row (Clites and McCray 2010) Image reproduced with permission of the authors


27 The manufacture of nails began in 1794 as a source of income as Jefferson revitalized the farming function of the plantation after his long abse nce when he was the Minister to France and the Secretary of State ( Thomas Jefferson Foundation 2010 ; Stanton 1996 :22 ) Jefferson decided on manufacture as the best source of income over selling slaves or land (Shayt 1983:59) During this time he also swi tched the plantation from tobacco to wheat cultivation, which temporarily decreased farm production ( Stanton 1996 :23 ) In 1795 Jefferson (2000c:341) wrote to a friend; I concluded at length however to begin a manufacture of nails, which needs little or n o capital, and I now employ a dozen little boys from 10. to 16. years of age, overlooking all the details of their business myself and drawing from it a profit on which I can get along till I can put my farms into a course of yielding profit. Jefferson s elected nail production because it required very little money up front and it was an activity that put to work the male child slaves who, at 10 years of age, were not yet strong enough to take on adult workloads in the fields (Shayt 1983 :65 ) The combinat ion of cheap supplies and free labor made this venture promising. Jefferson (2000a:305) remarked; My proper object then you will observe is to confine myself to those branches of the nail business, which being beyond the performance of the cutting machin e, has no competition but from human labor. In this the cheapness of my means gives me the advantage of others. He purchased nailrod, which was usually shipped by water from Philadelphia to Richmond, then on to Milton, a small town along the Rivanna Riv er. From there it was


28 brought by wagon to Monticello (Bear 1967:16) Nails were forged from nailrod, which were long thin bars of rolled or hammered iron (Shayt 1983:22) The nailrod was made into nails of seven sizes ranging between six pennies and twe nty pennies (Thomas Jefferson Foundation 2003a, b) had a few different meanings: number of nails per pound, price in pence for one hundred (Shayt 1983:13; Wells 1998:88) (Wells 1998:97) For example, a 6d nail was two inches long while a 20d nail was four inches long (Shayt 1983:14) Today size of the nail (Wells 1998:88) the purchas e of a nail cutting machine that used hoop iron to create four penny brads; yet even with this new technology the heads of the cut nails were still made by hand (Thomas Jefferson Foundation 2003b) Interestingly, the money used to purchase the nailrod used stocks. In 1793 William Short m including this nailrod. Jefferson stopped this practice in 1798, but did not draw up his account with Short until 1800 when he discovered that he owed his friend $9,000 plus interest. By making monthly payments he was able to pay off the debt by July 1807 (Bear and Stanton 1997:908)


29 The first nail production probably took place inside the bla Mulberr y Row. It is unknown exactly when the Mulberry Row nailery building was constructed. There are two conflicting views on this issue, which is further complicated by the presence of at least three other naileries around the plantation that have been identi fied either in documents or archaeologically ( Figure 2.5). In 1796, Jefferson began filling out a declaration for fire insurance for the mansion and the buildings on Mulberry Row from the Mutual Assurance Society; he never turned this declaration in and finally completed another declaration in 1800 that was filed with the Society (Oberg 2002:244). The 1796 insurance document includes Building j j is a shed to be added to D t by 18. f. for the nailers, to be built immediately, and making one building with D it is included in the valuation of D as if it were already built, (punctuation in original) The first view i s that the nailery on Mulberry Row was constructed soon after the insurance document was written


30 Figure 2.5 Locations of all possible nail making activities on Monticello plantation are shown in purple. The location of Site 17, overseer Edmund B a


31 It is currently hypothesized that the nailery building was in use from 1796 to around 1800, and may have been destroyed by 1803 (Hill 2003:76) This view is supported by the presence of nails made by the nail cutting m achine bought in 1796 and Unfortunately there are no historical documents that describe the construction or use timeline of this structure, so the actual known. In 1799, it is known that Jefferson began discussing the possibility of building a new shop located elsewhere on the plantation (Hill 2003:75) Perhaps the Mulberry Row nailery became structurally unsound or was too far away from the man who woul d supervise the nail boys after Jefferson left in 1801 to be the President. In a letter dated to December 1800, indicating that this new nailery structure had not yet b een built (T. Jefferson to J. W. Eppes, letter, 13 December 1 800, L. Stanton Files, Monticello Department of Archaeology, Charlottesville, V irginia ). These two references may be talking about a nailery/smith shop built for a hired white blacksmith, Willia m Stewart, who was supposed to take over the job of supervising nail production and also teach blacksmithing skills to some slaves. This workshop/nailery was supposedly located just down the mountain slope from and to the northeast of the mansion and belo w the first roundabout but a rchaeologists have yet to locate it (Hill 2003:75) (see Figure 2.5). A rchaeological evidence from the Stewart Watkins site, the location of the home of Stewart and later workman Elisha Watkins, revealed the second highest abun dance of wrought and cut nails on the plantation after the Mulberry Row nailery (Figure 2. 6 ) One explanation for this interesting find suggests that Stewart may have been stockpiling metal scraps and


32 unfinished tools for his own use or removing wasted sc rap material so Jefferson did not see it, as Jefferson closely monitored the amount of waste made during nail manufacture (Heath 1999:210) In January [in April ] be at home, and shall engage Whateley [a workman] to undertake to build the new shop, out & out Looney 2008) his business and financial acco unts and legal records, states that in September 1802 he paid two stonemasons, Joseph Moran and William Maddox, for their work on both the L Again, this probably refers to Stew move the nail on the whole I think it will be be st for them [nail boys] al 1802). The reason for this move, after all the work and money put into constructing the Stewar t was a notorious drunkard. Edmund Bacon, hired as overseer in 1806, beleave it will be impossople to get him to do them The old man has never done one or not more th an one days work since you left heare. He is eternally drunk and like a mad and punctuation


33 Figure 2.6 Location of Ste wart Watkins site to the south and west of the mansion Once Stewart was fired in 1807, Jefferson suggested moving the nail making


34 Field (see Figure 2.5). This woul d allow Bacon to more easily supervise the nail boys. Letters between Jefferson and Bacon record their discussions about the potential location of the nailery; Jefferson (Betts 1987:447) (capitalization in original) wrote; indeed after further reflection I think I can fix a place for the nailery more convenient to you, and as much so to myself; or perhaps indeed let it remain where it is. this we will decide on when I come home which will Bacon (1807) (spelling in origina l) also made suggestions based on his experiences running the plantation; In case you should moove the shop would it not be best sir to have the nailing and shop at one house then Joe [foreman of nail boys and blacksmith] would all ways be in place whare he could get assistance from the nailry and do the nail tools without any ill conveniency Also it would be more convenient to haul coal to one place than twoo. one to the sou th and a smaller one to the west, called Site 18 and Site 15 respectively (see Figure 2.5). Full excavation has not yet been done and ceramics found in shovel test pits were not adequate to determine which site was used first (Hill 2003:75) Large number s of that he may have been storing these items for later use in the nailery/naileries. Archaeologists have also located a possible nailery/blacksmith shop along w ith a domestic structure at the bottom of the mountain slope near the Rivanna River, called


35 indicating that by that time it was no longer in use (Jefferson 1793 1795) Wh en in use, it was likely the main blacksmith shop for the entire plantation. The second view of the dating of the Mulberry Row nailery argues that the structure was built in 1809 or later At the time of excavation, the archaeological evidence suggested that this may be the case because the back wall of the structure coincided perfectly with a fence installed in 1809 ( Sanford 1984 :30 ) If this view is correct, then the other naileries around the plantation predated the Mulberry Row structure. A competin g explanation for the post holes argues that the nailery posts were reused for the fence line; this explanation supports an earlier construction date for the nailery (Hill 2002:5) Nail making was done by up to 14 slave boys, ranging in age from 10 to 16, and sometimes up to age 21 (Thomas Jefferson Foundation 2003a,b) In a 1795 letter, Jefferson (2000a:304 305) (punctuation in original) commented; I am engaged in a nail manufactory, which I carry on altogether with my own boys, and am enlarging it as m ore and more of these grow up. I have 9 now at work, and in the course of the year shall have 16. under the care of a smith of my own, so that I have not a single hired hand. The names of the nail boys are known because of Jeffer s arnaby Gillette, Bartlet, Ben Hix, Ben Snowden, Brown Colbert, Burwell Colbert, Cary, Dav y Hern, Jr., Moses Hern, Isaac Jefferson, James/Jamey Hubbard, Phill Hubbard, (Bedford) John, (Bedford) Davy, Joseph Fossett, Lewis, Shepherd, and Wormley Hughes (Ree d 2007:34) Four of these boys, James and Phill Hubbard, (Bedford) John and (Bedford) Davy, were brought from Poplar Forest expressly for the purpose of making nails


36 (Stanton 1996:18) These youths worked at two forges for six days a week, twelve hours a day, under the supervision of a slave foreman ( McLaughlin 1988 :111 ) The nail boys were required to work very hard; for example, in one day in April 1796, thirteen year old James Hubbard made seven pounds of eight penny nails. This means that he swung h is hammer more than twenty thousand times that day ( Stanton et al. 2008) The general nail making process was composed of a number of steps. To begin, a nailer would put one nailrod into the forge fire, using the bellows to pump air in and make the fire hotter if needed. The hot end of the nailrod was then removed from the fire and placed on an anvil (Sanford 1984:50; Shayt 1983:23) Next, th e hot end was beaten until it tapered into a point. The rod was then placed on a hardy (a triangular shaped chi sel that was set into the anvil) and a deep notch was cut above the taper. Next the entire rod was placed into a heading tool, where the taper was twisted or snapped off at the notched site. The broken end of the tapered rod was then hit with the hammer to form a head, and the finished nail was tossed into a pile of cooling nails (Sanford 1984:50; Shayt 1983:23) At Mont responsible for making one size of nail (Sanford 1984:43; Shayt 1983:75) In February 1796, a nail cutt ing machine Jefferson had ordered arrived, as he noted in a letter to his son in (Jefferson 2000g ) This machine was used to cut four penny brads from hoop iron. One nail boy was then responsible for making this type of nail, as recorded in one of four pennies only, our neighborhood requiring no other cut nail, so that is it but a small (Thom as Jefferson Foundation 2008) Sometimes these nails had


37 hand made heads, but most were headless and likely were used for finishing work or any woodworking that used thin, lightweight woods (Chris Mundy, personal communication 2010). Jefferson visited the nailery daily for the first three years in order to oversee production and during this time he kept very detailed records (Figure 2.7) He provided daily production minimums based on the average production of the boys ( Stanton 1996 :23 2000 :47 ) After rising at dawn, he weighed out the amount of nailrod that was to be made into nails that day, and at dusk he returned to weigh the nails produced by each boy. He then recorded how much nailrod was wasted by each nail boy that day ( Stanto n 1996 :23 ) This may have caused competition among the boys and would have provided Jefferson with feedback control and a way to reward or punish the boys (Shayt 1983: 75 76) he boys on their best behavior. The nailery also provided Jefferson the opportunity to observe the skills of the boys so he could choose an appropriate future career for them. The nail boys were able to influence their future career by either working har d or not working hard. Most were generally industrious and later held the most important artisan and household posit ions o n the plantation, although those few who resisted their work became field hands (Stanton 1996 : 23 24) For example, at age 16 Joe Fos sett, a former nail boy, became the foremen of the nailery while also learning to be a blacksmith (Stanton 1996:25) (Jefferson 2003a:77)


38 Figure. 2.7 Pa (Jefferson 1796 1800) (Courtesy of the Hu ntington Library, San Marino, California ) Jefferson threw himself into the daily work of running both the farming and industrial sections of his plantation. immersed in farming & nail making (for I have set up a Nailery) that politics are entirely (Betts 1944:219) Writing to John Adams in 1795 about his busy days running the plantation, Je fferson (2000d :363) and my nail manufactory I have my hands full. I am on horseback half the day, and counting and measuring nails the other half. Jefferson was very proud of the nailery project. He bragged to a French fri making is to me in this country what an additional title of nobility or the ensigns of a new order are in Europe" (Jefferson 2000b:341) The nail manufacture business was very successful during the first three years while Jeffe rson visited regularly. "A nailery which I have established with my own negro boys now provides completely for the maintenance of my family, as we make from 8. to 10,000 nails a day and it is on the increase" (Jefferson 2000a:405 406) Additionally, in


39 1 795 Jefferson ( Jefferson 2000h:388 ) In his Farm Book, he recorded expected nail production. He es timated that after six months of experience, a nail boy could make 500 nails a day and with a year of experience the boy could make 800 nails a day (Jefferson 2003a:110) The best nail boy would make 884 nails a day, while a hired hand would make 1000 nai ls a day (Jefferson 2003a:110) 1800, records much information about the nail business. Besides the daily production of time. These charts showed the amount of nailrod used and nails produced over that time, the overall during the time period, and a calculation of the average daily profit Jefferso n earned from (Jefferson 1796 1800) Jefferson also wrote down all the nail sales that occurred, the size and amount of each type of nail on hand, and the orders and received shipments of nailrod (Jefferson 1796 1800) Even when away, he required that detailed riting from Philadelphia Jefferson (2008b) (spelling in original) gave exact instructions as to t he contents and timing o f the I should like to recieve the w eekly report of the boys w ork whenever you write to me, and also a journal of the nails sold. If you would write to me always the day after you recieve a letter from me, so that it might come by return of the same post, I would do the same here, so that a letter written


40 by each about every three weeks would keep one possessed of the progress of the several works & enable me to give d irections. In 1805, while in Washington serving as President, he sent a letter to a different overseer at Monticello, instruc I pray you to keep a very exact account of all the nails sold, & a separate one of those delivered for my use, this being essential to show what the nailery turns out (Betts 1987:446) A white man was almost always in charge of the nailery operati ons. Some of these men were overseers, such as Gabriel Lilly and Edmund Bacon, while others were hired workmen, such as William Stewart. Great George, a trusted slave, was overseer from 1796 to 1799 and was the only slave owned by Jefferson to rise to th is position ( McEwan 1991:139; Stanton 2000:36) Foremen were slaves who were in charge of groups of slave laborers. They often worked alongside their charges to ensure the work (McL aughlin 1988:141) Little George, also known as Smith George, was the son of Great George and was first foreman of the nailery. He retained that position until he died in 1799 ( Stanton 2000 : 34 ) Little George was very dependable, as recorded by Jefferso in law George I am sure could not stoop to my authority & I hope and believe he pushes your interests as well as I (Betts 1987:436) One of the overseers, Richard Richardson, wr ote to Jefferson about the current told the Boys they was to Be under his [Gabriel Lilly, another overseer] direction and Joe [Joseph Fossett, a former nail boy who became foreman] to say when their nails was made tow Big or t oo Small ( Jefferson 2008 a ) (capitalization and spelling in original)


41 While the nailery was profitable, the boys were rewarded with new clothes (Stanton 1996:27) Additionally, Isaac Jefferson, a former nail boy, recalled in his memoir that Jefferson p rovided the boys with a large weekly food ration that may have been twice the size of the rations given to a field worker (Bear 1967:23; McLaughlin 1988:112) This recollection example, one meat beef to share (Jefferson 2003c) Once Jefferson left Monticello to return to public life, the na dropped. At this time, cheaper British nails became available to Virginians, and, p rofits decreased by twenty percent ( Jefferson 2000f:580 ) Problems were compounded because without daily supervision by Jefferson, the cooped up nail boys became unruly (Stanton 1996:28) The nail boys often caused Jefferson problems, p robably out of boredom from their monotonous job. One can imagine the difficulty in fo rcing pubescent and post pubescent energetic boys to work twelve hours a day, six days a week at the same repetitive, boring job (McLaughlin 1988:111) Jefferson considered the nailery to be a (McLaughlin 1 988:112) When the most dependable foreman, Little George, became seriously ill and could not oversee the nailery, the nail boys stopped working ( Jefferson 2000 e ; McLaughlin 1988 :111 112 ) A few years later, Jefferson (T. Jefferson to J. Dinsmore, letter 1 December 1802,


42 Workmen Long File, Jefferson Library, Charlottesville, Virginia ) (spelling in original) voiced frustration to his hired white carpenter; I am quite at a loss about the nailboys remaining with Mr. Stewart. They have long been a dead exp ense instead of a profit to me. in truth they require a rigour of discipline to make them do reasonable work, to which he cannot bring himself. A typical day in the nailery turned dangerous in May 1803 when one eighteen year old nail boy, named Cary, at tacked Brown Colbert, a fellow nail boy, with a hammer. (Miller et al. 2007) ( Stanton 1996 :30 2000 :77 ) Furious, Jefferson wrote home that the law shall inflict no punishment on Cary, it will be necessary for me to make an example of him in terrorem to others, in order to maintain the police so rigorously necessary among the nail (Stanton 1 996:30). Jefferson ordered that Cary was to be remaining Monticello slaves (Stanton 19 96:30) In fact, Jefferson was willing to take a with so distant an exile of his as to cut him off compleatly from ever again being heard (Stanton 1996:30) (spe lling in original) later recalled another incident of disobedience at the nailery. In 1807, Bacon entered the nailery to fill a nail order. Knowing that the nailery always kept a stock of each kind of


43 nail on hand, he noticed that all the eight penny nails were gone, although all the other nail types were present (Pierson 1971:104) For reasons unknown to us, he suspected a nail boy named James Hubbard Jr. (also known as Jame y or Jim) of stealing the nails. nails. After a rain, Bacon saw muddy tracks veering off of a path and leading into the woods. He followed the tracks until he found a large, buried box filled with nails. He immediately reported the find and his suspicions of James to Jefferson. The next day, Jefferson sent for James and confronted him with the find. Bacon recalled that James (Pierson 1971:105) When James returned to the seeking religion a long time, but I never heard anything before that sounded so, or made me feel so, as I did when master (Pierson 1971:105) Baco n remembered that soon after the incident James requested a permit to go and get baptized and that afterward he was always a good servant (Pierson 1971:105) R ecent researchers believe that Bacon may have misremembered the name of the accused nail boy. J ames Hubbard was a rebellious slave who ran away twice, once before and once after the stolen nail incident, and would not brother Phill Hubbard (Stanton 2000:79 8 0)


44 The nail boys did not work solely in the nailery. A large section of land needed to be cleared of trees and brush in 1801 so Thomas Mann Randolph (Betts 1987:160) in the absence of Jefferson, ordered some nail boys to do this; fields] to take the lads from the shop, leaving 3 full fires of the boys with at the axe than, wholly without control, in idleness & mischief, about the Shop. Jefferson (Library of Congress 2010) approved of this change in plans; You have done exactly what I would have wished, and as I place the compliance with my contract with Mr. Craven befor e any other object, we must take every person from the nailery able to cut and keep them at it till the clearing is completed. The following therefore must be so employed. Davy, John, Abram, Shepherd, Moses, Joe, Wormly, Jame Hubard, with the one hired by Lilly making 9. Besides these, if Barnaby, Ben, Cary, Davy, Phill Hub. Lewis, Bartlet and Brown, enough for tw Jefferson (Betts 1987:443) continued on in another letter; them morally and physically, and I hav e work enough of that kind, with


45 enough kept in the nailery to supply our standing customers. There is another reason for employing only the weaker hands in the nailery. I do not believe there is rod to employ the whole any length of time; and none can be got to them till April. Besides group tasks, individual nail boys helped out in other areas of plantation work. Wormley Hughes worked part of the time as a doorman, assisting guests wit h their horses and getting items and running errands (Reed 2007:7) Before he started training as a blacksmith, Joseph Fossett did chores around the mansion such as waiting tables, getting water, making fires, and running errands (Reed 2007:10) Burwell Colbert also worked in the house, probably in the kitchen and dining room, during his years as a nail boy (Stanton 2000; Stanton et al. 2008:121) Barnaby Gillette worked part of the year in the nailery and the other part as an apprentice to the enslaved shoemaker on the plantation (Stanton 2000:89) The eventual end of nail manufacture was not due to a decline in orders for nails; Jefferson did not have the money or c redit necessary to purchase nailrod because of his poor business choices which included not collecting payments owed to him and trading nails for other services (Bear 1961:4) The nailery was closed temporarily around 1810 or 1811, but manufacture began again in 1815, once the War of 1812 ended ( Bear 1961 ; Shayt 1983 :90 ) The last mention of nail making activities was in 1823, when Jefferson received a letter from a friend and business associate that referenced an order of nailrod that was being shipped to Monticello ( Bear 1961 ; Shayt 1983 :92 ) The large nailrod


46 order suggests that nails were again being sold, possibly to alleviate some of the debt Jefferson was facing in his last years (Shayt 1983:92) Thomas Jefferson was about $107,000 in debt when h e died on July 4, 1826 ( Reed 2007 ) In his will he freed five slaves, including two former nail boys: Burwell Colbert (former nail boy), Joseph Fossett (former nail boy and nail foreman), Madison Hemings, Eston Hemings (both of whom may have been Jeffers o Hemings), and John H including his mansion, land, and 130 slaves were sold at an estate auction to pay off his debts (Reed 2007:3)


47 Chapter 3: The Archaeology of Slave ry, Households, and Children Archaeologists often focus on one topic of interest and privilege its perspective over other topics. For example, an a rchaeologist most interested in studying the landscape might interpret a mansion and garden complex differ ently than an archaeologist interested in examining domestic activities. Similarly, a n archaeologist focused on gender issues may come up with different responses to a factory site than an archaeologist studying the manufacturing process Although focus ing in one field of concentration allows an archaeologist to make significant contributions to that specialty it also greatly increases the likelihood of neglecting the complexity inherent in every al construction s and social institutions daily and archaeologists should try to address as many of these cultural influences as possible in their studies. Three themes that all provide different insights into the lives of the nail boys are the archaeology of slavery, household archaeology, and the archaeology of children. For the nail boys, their status as slaves may have been their most important identity when in the presence of Jefferson or the overseer, but their status as children/youths or their hous ehold membership may have been most important when dealing with other slaves. The intersection of the archaeology of slavery, household


48 archaeology, and the archaeology of children provides a richer and more realistic understanding of the complex lives of Archaeology of Slavery African American archaeology and the archaeology of slavery are relatively recent developments within historical archaeology ( Ferguson 1992:xxxv, xxxvi; Orser and Funari 2001 :62 ) In the mid twentieth centu ry, plantation archaeologists focused on order to learn about the or with the ultimate goal of building reconstruction ( Orser 1990:119,123 ) Nevertheless, some archaeologists did investigate the lives of blacks outside the plantation setting. In 1943, Ripley Bullen and enslaved woman in Andover, Massachusetts (B aker 1978:1). The Civil Rights Movement encouraged the majority of archaeologists to take another look at sites related to African Americans ( Ferguson 1992 :xxxv ; Genovese 1970 :474, 483 ; Orser and Funari 2001 :62 ) It became a moral mission to reveal the lives of those who had been left out of the written record, and although this applies to many groups of people, it was seen as especially relevant to the study of African Americans (Singleton 1999:1) Although these studies provided new information on the lives of African Americans, many of the conclusions were simplistic; complex social relation s necessary to maintain African American cultural identity were ignored and researchers assumed that these communities were able to reproduce African material cult ure (Singleton 1999:2) The structure of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966


49 a long with pressure from African American activists continued to push archae ologists to investigate African American sites ( Ferguson 1992 :xxxviii ) In 1967, Charles Fairbanks undertook the first slave archaeology done on plantations by excavating the slave cabins at Kingsley Plantation ( Ferguson 1992 :xxxvi ; Orser 1990:123 ) Fairbanks followed this research by partnering with Jerald Milanich in the early 1970s to exc avate slave cabins, (Otto 1984:2). excavations to the public in his important 1984 book named Ca 1794 1860: Living Conditions and Status Patterns in the Old South From 1975 to 1978, the Columbia University Department of Anthropology Field School excavated New ty of freed African Americans dating from the early nineteenth to the early twentieth centuries (Geismar 1980:60, 64). Similarly, other archaeologists excavated freed African American and slave sites during the 1960s and 1970s (Bridges and Salwen 1980; Ja ckson 1977; Schuyler 1980; Smith 1977). In spite of the work by these archaeologists by 1980 there was still no defined sub field of African American archaeology (Ferguson 1992) Even today, those that study African American and slave archaeology do not usually have specialized training in black history or social issues ( Ferguson 1992 :xl ) Archaeologists have generally focused on only a few topics within the realm of slave archaeology. Scholars have supplied a wealth of information on slave diet and su bsistence, health, religion, labor, identity, gender, power relations and resistance, production and consumption of goods, housing, household composition, socioeconomic status, and other subjects (Crader 1990; Fesler 2004; Galle 2010; Heath 2004; Hudson


50 19 97; Morgan 1998; Orser 1990; Orser and Funari 2001; Samford 1996, 2004; Thomas 1998; Wilkie 2000a) have been investigated in order to find evidence of ethnic identity with the ultimate go al of developing a way to identify African Americans in the past (Sanford 1996:134) This research area can be problematic, as it focuses on certain ethnic markers and ignores the socia l complexity that explains why these markers exist, change, and remain (Singleton 1999:8) It can also be very hard to determine a specific cultural provenance for African American traditions. It is likely that traditions did not have the same meaning in the Americas as they did in Africa because the social systems were no t the same (Singleton 1999:8) S ome studies have successfully shown connections between African heritage and the development of African American music, folklore, aesthetics, crafts, language, and religion (Singleton 1999:8) A rchaeologists have usually centered on slave sites located on the large plantations of wealthy planters and political leaders that date to the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries For example, Oakley Plantation (Wilkie 2000a) the Hermitage (Thomas 1998) Monticello (Cra der 1990; Gal l e 2010; Kelso 1997) and Saragossa Plantation (Young et al. 2001) are just a few of the large plantations that archaeologists have investigated. In these studies, archaeologists furthered our understanding of slaves by examining identity co nstruction, diet, consumption of material goods, daily life, coping strategies, and power relations between masters and slaves. One understudied topic that h as relevance to this study is the incidence of slaves living in work or storage buildings. Many hi storical documents describe slave cabins used throughout the South to house slaves. Few, if any, discuss slaves who lived in their


51 place of work. Archaeologists have the potential to discover and investigate this phenomenon through the domestic materials found in these structures. The kitchens at the Kingsmill Plantations doubled as slave dwellings (Kelso 1984:129) The same may have been true for other more permanent outbuildings there (Kelso 1984:203) Similarly, archaeological and phot ographic remai ns indicate that the second floor of the Willcox detached kitchen, located on Flowerdew Hundred, may have housed slaves (Deetz 1993:145) Kingsmill in order to attend to the horses and the race track, if one existed there (Kelso 1984:127 128) One nineteenth century visitor to a Maryland farm recorded that the building (King 1994:285) Many more similar situations are likely to be revealed through archaeological and historical research. More research needs to center on both slave and free African American sites from the early and mid eighteenth century, free African American sites in general, urb an slave sites, and slave sites located on small farms and middling plantations (Sanford 1996:136) Other topics, such as slave childhood and child labor, the daily life and work of elderly slaves, and the incidence of slaves living in work or storage bui ldings, have been overlooked or neglected and should be investigated in the future. Household Archaeology ( Bermann 1994:30) The specific field of household archaeology is primarily a North American


52 phenomenon, although domestic sites are studied everywhere (King 2006:295) This field rose out of settlement archaeology, which focuses on the distribution of th e vestiges of human actions on the landscape. Students of settlement archaeology, who were primarily Mesoamerican archaeologists, realized that past cultures could not be fully understood without research on the places where everyday people lived out thei r lives (Ashmore and Wilk 1988:7; Pluckhahn 2010:333) locations of past household activities and theoretical concepts from Mesoamerican archaeology also influenced the deve lopment of this field (King 2006:295) In the 1930s, household archaeology got its start in the Chesapeake region through the New Deal programs. During this time the homes of the Founding Fathers began to be restored with the help of archaeological eviden ce for the architectural spaces and domestic furnishings (King 2006:295) during the 1960s turned historical archaeologists toward studying the lives of ordinary people, rather than focusing on the lives of well kno wn or wealthy people like the Founding Fathers. T he continuously growing literature on Mesoamerican household archaeology has provided examples of how household evidence can be useful. Mesoamerican archaeologists were some of the first to connect the def inition of a household as a social unit with archaeological evidence, and forty years ago they were using the disparities in households to learn about the evolution of villages, craft activity, subsistence, and division of labor ( Flannery and Winter 1976; King 2006:296) More recently, Mesoamerican archaeologists have investigated the role of children in prehistoric households and


53 archaeological data, and cultural site formation processes that ca n affect the makeup and condition of a household among other topics (De Lucia 2010; Santley and Hirth 1993) Household archaeology began to take off in the 1960s all around the world (Ashmore and Wilk 1988:7) Historical archaeologists became fu lly awar e of the advantages of studying households in the 1980s, and historical household archaeology has grown steadily since (Brandon and Barile 2004:5) Household archaeology can offer important points of view. Households are the most basic social unit in the majority of communities and they can give insights into the lives of everyday people in the past, who spent much of their time acting as members of households (Ashmore and Wilk 1988:1; Gerritsen 2004:143; Netting et al. 1984:xxii; Pluckhahn 2010:332) Hou seholds provide archaeologists with another explanation for cultural change, reducing their dependence on large scale systems as explanations (Pluckhahn 2010:332) agency is directed at their daily, domestic life (Gerritsen 2004:143) The material remains of households can support, refute, or give new evidence not found in related texts and ethnographic data (Allison 1999:7) Investig ation of households is considered by some to be an inappro priate topic for archaeology because there are important questions that cannot be addressed archaeologically ; however, one should keep in mind that household archaeology answers different questions than anthropology and history, and in fact the questions t hat anthropology, history, and archaeology ask can be complementary and mutually supportive (Allison 1999:5) According to King (2006:312) one of tradition of shifting between


54 individual lives and wider social contexts, identifying the complexities of particular Defining a household depends greatly on the time period and the cultural context, as the roles, functions, and memberships of a household change based on the setting and the activity occurring in that structure (Ashmore and Wilk 1 988; Bermann 1994:2 3; Wilk and Netting 1984:1) A major problem is the potential for as these two terms are generally synonymous in modern Western culture. To combat this issue, archaeologists have focused on what households do instead of what a household is (Hendon 1996:45 46; King 2006:297) on the research questions and culture(s) being examined. Definitions can be very vague, residential, (Stewart Abernathy 2004:53) or a group of people coresiding in a dwelling or residential (Blanton 1994:5) Ander son (2004:111) provides a more specific definition of a household; A household is a person or a group of people who live together in one or more structures, who carry out daily activities necessary for the maintenance and social reproduction of the group w ithin a specific space associated with the residence, and who interact with other households. These activities are the necessary daily maintenance activities that sustain members of the household and their shared space, including food


55 preparation, refuse disposal, raising children, growing food provisions within the yard, cleaning, bathing, doing laundry, and socializing. Also, these activities include working in some capacity to provide basic necessities for life, which may not occur within the househol d space. Some scholars have decided to subscribe to a three component definition of a household by focusing on social, behav i oral, and material aspects. Social refers to the demographic unit, behavioral reflects the activities performed, and material desc ribes the structure, activity areas, and possessions (Wesson 2008:12; Wilk and Rathje 1982:618) recognize the social and behavioral facets of a household. Some argue that it is difficult, but possible (Wesson 2008:12) Wilk and Netting (1984:5) describe another way of designating a household. The y list the most frequent types of spheres as production, distribution, transmission, reproduction, and co residence. Other spheres, such as banking and political action, can occur in the household but most of the time do not. Households then are defined as the point where these spheres overlap the most (visualized as a Venn diagram) Each household is made up of a unique group of individuals so not every household will contain the same spheres (Bermann 1994:23; Wilk 1991:37; Wilk and Netting 1984:5) M ost scholars agree that co residence is a requirement of a household, and some go further to argue that there can be differing levels of co residence in households; for example, some household members may not reside with the other household members


56 because they have moved away for employment but they still support the other members by sending money back (Anderson 2004; Wilk and Netting 1984:17 19) Ethnographic studies have shown some people may co reside but regard themselves as parts of different residen ces, or people who live in separate structures may consider themselves a part of a larger, aggregate household (Wesson 2008:10) However, co residence is not the deciding factor in all definitions of a household, and some researchers focus on the relation ships among the residents. Wesson (2008:10) of the household concept is a social group that shares a culturally defined set of kinship kin residents or fict ive kin are studied (Anderson 2004:109) If co residence is used as the defining characteristic of households, what happens when there are guests or people who live in the same building but do not share living areas or food stores (Netting et al. 1984:xxv i) ? Basing the definition of a household solely on co residence can cause a problem type of marriage occurred when enslaved spouses lived on different plantations (Fesle r 2004:184; Pluckhahn 2010:334) Often the husband would travel to visit his wife and children once or twice a week (Burke 2003:63; Fesler 2004:184) Abroad marriages were more common in areas where slaveholders owned few slaves, allowing slaves little o pportunity to find a suitable partner at the home plantation (Burke 2003:58; Pluckhahn 2010:334) However, this is not always the case, and abroad marriages have been documented at larger plantations, including Monticello (Stanton 1996:14) Individuals e ngaged in an abroad marriage would have considered themselves to be a family unit, but they did not share a household, and may or may not have pooled resources. Without


57 strong historical documentation linking the residents of two households by abroad marr iage, archaeologists may never be able to tell that this type of relationship occurred. Ashmore and Wilk (1988) make a distinction between a household and a co residential group. They define a household as a maximum defin able number of activities, including one or more of the following: production, consumption, pooling of resources, reproduction, coresidence, and shared (Ashmore and Wilk 1988:6) This includes those living in one area or people who are far away from one another. On the other hand, they define a co residential group This group need not be equivalent to a household, in that people often live in the same building without sharing in the ac (Ashmore and Wilk 1988:6) This group of people can be a part of a larger household, or be members of separate households. Nash (2009:224) makes a different distinction, the cor esidential group that used the occupation surface, features, and the artifact assemblag e of a dwelling Without documents describing the relationships of the individuals who lived in the dwelling and how activities were portioned out, it can be impossibl e for archaeologists to determine whether the residents fit the definition of a situations. (1988:6) definitions of a household and a co definition of a household implies that


58 determination of what constitutes a household is actually a matter of degrees and is not fixed. examined here. Historical documentation does not indicate whether or no t the nail boys pooled resources or shared ownership of objects. We cannot know for sure if the nail boys were co resident because it is not addressed in documents although it seems likely. The nail boys probably did engage in social reproduction as the y learned how to make nails from the enslaved foreman and older nail boys. This study does not address reproduction, but it could be examined in a study of the many mistake nails, called anvil wasters and hardy wasters, found in abundance throughout the n ailery site. The only examined in this study are production and consumption because artifactual evidence is able to address whether or not these occurred In this project evidence of household production will su ggest that the nail boys were working together as members of their own independent household, while evidence of only consumption will imply they were still acting as members of their Archaeology of Children The archaeo logy of children, which examines the roles of children in past societies, is a relatively new field that developed out of gender archaeology. The seminal (Baxter 2008:160; Lillehammer 1989)


59 childhood, and archaeology have been published, especially after the year 2000 (Baxter 2008:1 60) Before this field emerged, archaeologists thought children were invisible in the archaeological record, especially due to an alleged difficulty in knowing what types (Sofaer Derevenski 1994:8) Children have primarily been studied as part of gender archaeology due to the association of women and children and the prevailing idea that children belong in the home (Kamp 2001:3; Lillehammer 2000:17, 18) Researchers can easily fall into the trap o importance of their contributions to their communities (Lillehammer 2000:17) Reasons for not studying children archaeologically are strikingly similar to previously state d reasons for not studying women. As Sofaer Derevenski (1994:10) points out; their activities, uncertain ty as to how to see their activities in the archaeological record and the tendency towards artefact association in an exist at the wea ker end of the dichotomized dimensi therefore placed in a category with other marginalized groups (Rothschild 2002:1) Even researchers who focus solely on the archaeology of children interpret the material culture of children through adults; children are not studied as people with individual social identities (Sofaer Derevenski 2000:8)


60 In archaeology, children are designated physiologically, often in relation to chronological age (Sofaer Derevenski 2000:8) Arc haeological investigations of children have frequently centered on burials and grave goods (Lucy 2005:44; Roveland 2001:40) The remains are examined for information about age, nutrition and disease, while grave goods are studied as indicators of social status (Roveland 2001:41; Sofaer Derevenski 2000:6) In addition, labor, craft specialization, and the acquisition of technological competence are popular topics in the study of children, especially as more and more researchers become aware of the econo mic potential of young workers (Baxter 2005:4) Archaeological evidence of unskilled artifact production may indicate the presence of child apprentices (Baxter 2008:167; Roveland 2001:47) Although this idea has mainly been used by prehistoric archaeolog ists to study flintknapping, it may be appl icable to that show evidence of unskilled workmanship would have been made by novice artisans (Kamp 2001:13) The nail b oys had to be trained in order to become competent nailers excavation. Small or miniature artifacts have also been used to study children (Baxter 2008:167; Lucy 2005:45; Roveland 2001:42; Sofaer Derevenski 2000:7) These objects are considered toys because of their small size and this designation reduces their interpretational value (Sofaer Derevenski 2000:7) Non etheless the fact that children throughout history constantly interact ed with adult sized objects should not be overlooked (Sofaer Derevenski


61 1994:10) A rchaeologists who want to study children also need to understand the past adult world because childre adult cultural traditions (Lillehammer 1989:90) The concept of childhood is a social construction used to understand the first part (Baxter 2008:161; Kamp 2001:3; Lucy 2005:43; Marten 2007:8; Rothschild 2002:2) Although biological changes do occur as a young person matures, the meanings attributed to these changes depend on the culture to which the young person belongs (Kamp 2001:3) Being a social construction, childhood cann ot be removed from other constructions like race, class, and gender (James and Prout 1990; Lucy 2005:44; Marten 2007:8) Age is very often used as a way to organize societies and this must be taken into account when studying the past. In fact, children h ave specific roles to play that are established by the society and culture they live in ( James 2007 :270 ) Today, children in Western cultures are viewed as passive and unable to fully participate in modern society (James and Prout 1990; Roveland 2001:39; Sofaer Derevenski 2000:7) They are considered unproductive, vulnerable, innocent, and dependent upon adults (Kamp 2001:3; Lucy 2005:56) The contributions of children to their economic and social spheres are undervalued. This is not, however, how child ren were viewed for all of history. over time and or the same meaning or significance for different cultures, classes, ethnicities, ages, and genders of young people (Lucy 2005 :14; Roveland 1997) The modern view of children is culturally specific, yet unfortunately has influenced our views (Baxter 2008:161; Kamp 2001:3; Lucy 2005:66; Sofaer Derevenski 2000:11) Archaeologists must be careful not to impose our modern beliefs


62 and expectations, even those based on ethnography or history, on past children, as this can cause bia s (Rothschild 2002:3 4) More specifically, making assumptions about past construction of socioeconomic models of the division of labor and from gaining new understandings of artifacts (Sofaer Derevenski 1994:13) We must also take care not to create distinct stages where none existed in past cultures; although every child fol lows the same basic biological development, the cultural recognition of their increasing maturity differs (Rothschild 2002:4) The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, established in 1989, defines a child as anyone under the age of 18 (Blu ebond Lagner and Korbin 2007:242) Biologically, childhood is the time of life between infancy and puberty (Lillehammer 1989:90) because childhood varies according to the l ocation, culture, ethnicity, gender, history, and time period in question (Bluebond Lagner and Korbin 2007:242) In anthropology and problematic; this is an issue that further r esearch into children can illuminate (Bluebond Lagner and Korbin 2007:245) Like adults, children have agency yet also must work within social constraints and in relation to the actions of others (Bluebond Lagner and Korbin 2007:242; Lucy 2005:60) Chil dren are able to contribute to and even change their culture by interacting with its institutional and social structures (Lucy 2005:59) They initiate actions by choice, not instinct, and through their actions they are able to construct their own lives (S ofaer Derevenski 2000:11) creative,


63 active participants and producers innovation and change (Roveland 1997:14) This is especially relevant for th ose interested in socialization or transmission of cultural norms. In some research cultural influence has been given a negative connotation; children have been described as t and therefore make site interpretation harder for archaeologists (Hammond and Hammond 1981:636; Lucy 2005:46) The effects of children have even been equated with the effects of animals or other post depositional activity on a site (Lucy 2005:46; Sofaer Derevenski 1994:8) Children also have the ability to use objects in different ways than originally intended by adults. This observation has been used as an excuse to push children aside as On the other hand, some studies have shown that patterns of the overall assemblage, meaning that children are visible archaeologically (Baxter 2008:169) It is important to note that child views of other groups of people. Rather, children should be included as one of many equally important groups in a multi perspective view of culture (Bluebond Lagner and Korbin 2007:242) R egarding children as social actors can stimulate interest in others who may not ordinarily view children as worthy of study (Bluebond Lagner and Korbin 2007:245) Anthropology and archaeology have great potential to provide new information culture. First, a nthropologists are skilled in


64 (James 2007:262) Second, anthropology investigated the (James 2007:262) Third, archaeologists can provide new insights st, w hich is important because; Definitions of what it means to be a child, for a child and as a child, is of central concern in anthropological discussions of childhood. Documenting childhood experiences in the past becomes an essential contribution to under standing chi ldhood as a social construction [Baxter 2005:6]. Similarly, studying children can lead to insights into individuality, gender, and life stages as other important social constructions (Wilkie 2000b:111) Fourth, archaeologists have the processes of socialization (Baxter 2005:6) All researchers must be aware, however, of the potential to further disempower children by simplifying the diversity in their e (James 2007:262) Archaeologists do not usually consider the impact children had on their household and community. Households that include children must organize all household activities around the needs of the children. As they get older, children take on higher workloads and greater responsibilities within the household. Archaeological investigations of household sites should consider the adjustments made in order to accommodate child care and the acti vities of children who acted with agency (Wilkie 2000 a :148 149)


65 Archaeologists should be attuned to the possibility of the presence of children at the sites they study since children were present at all past times and locations (Baxter 2008:171 172 ) In deed, archaeologists do not need to be trained in any new methodology in order to study children; they only have to alter their understanding of how diverse people of different ages and age groups lived in the past (Baxter 2005:3) Studying children can h elp to answer questions that archaeologists have traditionally viewed as important, and can tie archaeology to significant conversations going on in various subfields of anthropology (Baxter 2005:6) Including children in the interpretation of archaeologi cal sites will provide a richer, more complete understanding of past cultures and communities. Ens lave d children lived in situations very different from what most modern children experience Enslaved children also had lives far removed from those of th eir free peers. Slave children were generally considered to be miniature adults who just had to be taught how to work; the idea of childhood as a special time had not yet appeared and in fact would have seemed ridiculous to early Americans (McLaughlin 198 8:109) children in colonial and early America (Marten 2007:3) 94). Of course, the experience of free, especially white and wealthy, children during this time was very different from enslaved children. Although she makes this point about ancient Greek (2000:45) statement is very applicabl e to the lives of American slave children;


66 It is therefore very likely that the children of poo or slave families were, through the necessity of being put out to work as soon as they were physically able, integrated into the adult world at a much earlier age than their more socially and economically favoured counterparts After the Revolutionary War, the dominant ideology regarding children particularly free white children, began to change. Education replaced training and work as the primary avenue for white children to become successful in life (Brewer 2009:184). The education of enslaved African Americans was illegal, so enslaved children often could not take advantage of the shift in thought. Similarly, very few schools were available to free Africa n American children (Reef 2002:31). On the other hand, w ealthy white children filled their days with formal schooling (Schulz 1985:71). Urban middle class ad ults in early America began to release their children from work responsibilities to focus more on education ( Mintz 2004 :76 ) Some counties provided free education for poor children although many of these children were not able to benefit from that opportunity because their families needed their income or help at home ( Reef 2002:27; Schulz 1985:72 8 0 ). related tasks around age 5 or 6, and by age 12 or 14 they were expected to work almost as hard as a dults (Herndon 2001:30). White y eomen farmers, who owned few or no slaves, needed their children at home to help with farm related labor ( Reef 2002:xi 27 ; Reinier 1996:151 176 177 ) children performed many of


67 the same chores as slave children, and on s ome farms they often worked alongside their enslaved counterparts (Reinier 1996:176) Boys aged 7 or 8 assisted their fathers in agricultural work like plowing, sowing seeds, and weeding (Reef 2002:2). They also engaged in other necessary tasks like washing laundry, hauling water, and churning butter (Mintz 2004:135). Although they worked beside slaves, the white children benefited from their elevated status through various privileges, such as drinking from the communal water gourd before the Af rican Americans (Reinier 1996:176). Urban working class children ran errands, engaged in street trades, gathered wood, delivered dairy products, and scavenged (Mintz 2004:135; Schulz 1985:70). Many poor children were bound out through an apprenticeship ( Herndon and Murray 2009:5; Schulz 1985:70). Pauper apprenticeship, also known as indenture, was a common method of dealing with problematic free children in colonial and early America. Indentured children were legal servants to masters for a period of ye ars. During that time they would serve the master and in return receive clothing, food, shelter, rudimentary education in reading, writing, and arithmetic, and training in a craft 5, 8 12 13 ; Illick 2002:29; Reinier 1996:129 130 ). Children most likely to be bound out were poor, orphaned abandoned, known to be or their parents were notorious in the community for being troublemakers (Herndon and Murray 2009:3, 9). Indenture d children were in fact considered property, similar to the status of slaves (Herndon and Murray 2009:14). U nlike the nail boys and other enslaved children, apprenticed children could look forward to the day when their


68 indenture ended and they became offi cially free (Herndon and Murray 2009:17). At the end of their apprenticeship, indentured children often received freedom dues, many times in the form of clothing, money, furniture, livestock, land, or tools (Herndon and Murray 2009:16). Slave children wh o later ran away, were manumitted by their owners, or purchased their own freedom could not expect any type of parting gift from their masters. experiences in youth with those of the nail boys to learn how Jefferson may have treated Jefferson Randolph and Maria Jefferson Eppes were unusually well educated compared to other women of the period (McLaughlin 1988:188). Jefferson noted in a letter that the education of his grandchildren would likely fall into the hands of his daughters and he wanted them to b e prepared (McLaughlin 1988:188 191). Jefferson brought his daughters along when he lived in Paris and he enrolled them in a highly respected convent to ensure their continued education. At the convent the girls studied topics considered appropriate for females, including music, literature, languages, dance, needlework, and drawing (Gordon Reed 2008:279; McLaughlin 1988:191). Upon returning to America, Maria lived with her aunt, Elizabeth Eppes, in order to learn domestic skills like cooking and househol d management. Had she not gotten married soon after arriving in America, Martha would probably also have moved in with from France that Martha needed help in this area (McLaughlin 1988:191). Interestingly,


69 While living in France, Martha was old enough to attend balls and other fashionable social events. Jefferson spent quite a bit of money for ne w clothes for her to wear to these events. She also received an allowance to spend as she pleased (Gordon Reed 2008:259 260). Maria was not yet old enough to attend social events and so Jefferson did not spend as much money on her. With such a strong f fairly safe to assume that had Jefferson had legitimate, living, white sons they would have received a high very different from be highly educated; he instead focused on their ability to follow instructions and perform manual labor. The only education mandated by Jefferson was in nail making, and, for some b oys, in about how young people should be raised. Like Jefferson, most slaveowners did not care about the education of the child slaves on their plantations. Owners attitudes toward slave children were based on the idea of keeping them healthy and well fed until they could be put to work (McLaughlin 1988:109) Owners then reaped the benefit of this (King 1995:9) In the past, children all around the world were often used for labor, but unfortunately the experiences of slave children have only rarely been contextualized within the history of childhood and child labor (Diptee 2007:49) Researchers may be more inclined to


70 (Kamp 2002:76) Children were and cont inue to be a vital part of every society (Roveland 1997:14) Their actions influence the economic and cultural development of their communities. know it today. The nail boys are excellent examples of individuals who would be considered dependent children today, but who had likely left their childhood behind years ago. They were not the only young people to experience this, and further research into the responsibilit ies and labor of children throughout time may lead to exciting new insights into past communities. Children are an important group of people to study; not only were children present in every community, they grew up to be the adults archaeologists often fo lives? What influences did children have on the culture of the adults in the community? The more archaeologists know about past children, the better they can reach their goal of fully u nderstanding historic and prehistoric cultures. The themes of archaeology of slavery, household archaeology, and archaeology of children all provide important insights to this thesis. Together, they create a well rounded theoretical perspective that is a lives. Although these themes are useful, another important area of study has been neglected by researchers. Archaeologists studying slavery have extensively examined slave households yet have rarely conside red the lives of enslaved children and the multiple roles they fulfilled. Household archaeologists have studied slave households and also children in various societies, but they have not researched slave children.


71 Childhood archaeologists have researched children from many time periods and locales but have virtually ignored slave children. This thesis looks at the intersection of these three themes, therefore making an important contribution to each. This project brings awareness of the lack of informat ion on the lives of enslaved children and also demonstrates that these three themes can be combined to provide new perspectives.


72 Chapter 4 : P revious Archaeological Work The first archaeological investigation of nailery took place in 19 57. Oriol Pi Sunyer (1957) directed excavations along a section of Mulberry Row in order to two foot wide (0.6 m) parallel trenches were excavated along the length of Mulberry Row, with smaller trenches intersecting the long ones at right angles. The long trenches were set seven and a half feet (2.2 m) apart (Pi Sunyer 1957:11) Initially the long trenches were divided into four sections so that the artifacts could be classifi ed more easily: A and B, A1 and B1, A2 and B2, A3 and B3 (Pi Sunyer 1957:6) Once structures were found and identified, the artifacts were relabeled according to the structure to which they related. All trenches were excavated to a depth of two feet (0.6 m) because undisturbed soil was located at most about 18 inches (45.6 cm) down (Pi Sunyer 1957:7) Pi (Structure IIA) confirmed that the nailery had actually been built and used; this fact was never explicitly stated in historical documents (Pi Sunyer 1957; Sanford 1984) He found that the nailery was constructed out of wood and had a dirt floor that was covered in ash, charcoal, and burned soil (Pi Sunyer 1957; Sanford 1984) The st ructure was laid out in a rectangle of 50 feet by 18 feet (15.2 m by 5.5 m) and these dimensions match (Pi Sunyer 1957:29) The


73 insurance document also calls for the nailery to be built directly next to the b shop, and Pi artifacts along with many artifacts hinting at domestic occupation, such as glass, ceramics, and tools were recovered from the nailery (Pi Sunyer 1957: 12) The diversity and number of artifacts indicated that a more controlled excavation was needed. In 1982 1983, William M. Kelso and Douglas W. Sanford led a full excavation of the nailery site (Figure 4.1) The excavation began with a grid system of eight foot (2.4 m) squares separated by two foot (0.6 m) balk walls. This grid system was used to take out the modern strata and backfill from Pi the fence line which borders the nailery to the south (Sanford 1984:28) After the modern fill was removed, a smaller size grid system was used in order to obtain better control of artifact location. Initially piece plotting was used to record artifact location, but it was quickly dropped due to the high artifact de nsity and logistics and cost of this way of recording (Sanford 1984:28) Thereafter, only some diagnostic artifacts were plotted. Figure 4.1 Photograph of the completed nailery excavation in 1983. Note that the rectangular area of stones on the far r postholes outline the dimensions of the nailery (Courtesy of Montic ello Department of Archaeology) The excavated area measures approximately 60 ft by 20 ft (18.3 m by 6.1 m)


74 The excavation of the occupat ion layer was done with four foot (1.2 m) squares separated by 2 x 4 ft (0.6 x 1.2 m) balk walls. The high artifact quantities found in this in situ (Sanford 1984:29). The smaller gri d was useful in obtaining more precise provenience data and helped the excavation to be completed within the time frame planned in the research design. The 1982 1983 excavations revealed that the nailery (also known as Building j ) (Sanford 1984:30) The west wall of the nailery D ), and the southern wall is best represented by postholes corresponding to the 1809 fence line (a solid wooden paling), makin g it possible that fence line made up one wall of the building. If true, it could mean that the nailery was not constructed until 1809 or later although this is currently a source of debate (see Chapter 2 for an explanation of the competing hypotheses) ( Sanford 1984:30) The numerous postholes on the northern end of the fence lines. Rectangular postholes suggest that a door was likely positioned in the southeast co rner of the structure (Sanford 1984:35) Window glass fragments were concentrated on the southeast and east sides of the structure, demonstrating the probable locations of windows (Sanford 1984:46) The occupation zones were split into three strata: the upper zone, named AA, which designated later occupation, the lower zone, named AB, which designated earlier occupation, and a third zone, named AC, which was only described in the eastern half of the site. The AC zone was essentially a large, dense charco al deposit associated with a number of circular pit like features that were interpreted as the holes where the anvil


75 posts (supports) sat (Sanford 1984:30) The anvil posts outlined two U shapes around some empty space where the forges sat. The purpose o f the forges was to hold the fire the bellows. A lack of evidence for bellows support posts may mean that the bellows were suspended from the upper framing of the build ing (Sanford 1984:48) The western third of the excavation area was characterized by a darker color and higher concentrations of charcoal, slag, and waste iron. The stone and brick remnants of three forges were also discovered in this area (Sanford 1984: 31) The nail cutting machine Jefferson bought in 1795 may have been stationed in the southwest corner, as evidenced by the many small triangular machine cut nails found there. The central area of the site was essentially empty and therefore was believed to have been used for a different purpose than both the far ends, where the forges and nail making evidence were found (Sanford 1984:31) It was hypothesized that this area may have been used as a work and storage space (Sanford 1984:37 38) In the sout hwestern end of the structure was a dense concentration of charcoal, slag, and iron artifacts, such as nailrod, hoop iron, a padlock, and a carriage/wagon jack arm. This pile may represent artifacts made or repaired in the shop or objects that were to be recycled. This discovery also reinforced Pi other work than just nail manufacture (Sanford 1984:36) Significantly, the hoop iron was found near the triangular nails made by the nail cutting machine. Hoop iron was the material from which these nails were cut. Unfortunately, no part of the nail cutting machine has ever been found (Sanford 1984:36 37)


76 Fourteen types of nails were found in the nailery site, and Jefferson recorded eight of these types as made t here by the nail boys Those made there include rosehead wrought nails, clasp/T head wrought nails, wrought brads, tacks, horseshoe nails, wheel or tire nails, scupper nails (used to nail leather to wood, especially for bellows), and triangular machine cu t nails (Sanford 1984:40 41) The other types of nails found during the excavation were machine cut nails made elsewhere and purchased, and nails used represent mistakes ma de by the nail boys. Hardy wasters were those nails that were incorrectly cut off from the nailrod with a chisel (known as a hardy), and anvil wasters were those nails that had misshapen heads. When too much nail body, called shank, was used to make the head, it would bend and the bent nail, now known as an anvil waster, was unusable (Sanford 1984:41) Analysis of distribution maps showed that nail production was done at both the western and eastern ends of the nailery, although the eastern end showed longer and/or ertain slaves made certain sizes of nails, distribution maps did not show large differences in the locations of different nail sizes (Sanford 1984:43) Two c oncentrations of nailrod were present in the AA level; a large one was located along the center and eastern portions of the southern wall in what is a possible storage area/refuse pile, and the other was situated in the southwest corner (Sanford 1984:42) The AB zone showed different locations of nailrod concentration, one in the northeast corner and one in the southeast corner. The AB southeast corner concentration was in the same area as part of the south central/southeast AA concentration, although it was much smaller (Sanford 1984:43)


77 The AA zone also revealed a concentration of chain links, farrier related objects, and bar iron in the open, central area of the site, implying that this area was used for non nail making, blacksmithing activities later (Sanford 1984:46) The excavation showed that the plan for the structure was similar to that of Jeffer s ( Figure 4.2 ). There is some controversy as the exact building drawn in this plan. The undated drawing may have actually been a design for (Sanford 1984:47) The details of the structure have never b een verified archaeologically or in other historical documents (Sanford 1984:47). It is possible that this drawing predates the construction of the adjacent nailery and depicts the layout of the blacksmith shop when it was also used for nail making. Anot her suggestion is that the plan depicts one of the other naileries on the plantation instead of the one on Mulberry Row.


78 (Sanford 1984 :Figure 50 ) (Labels added by author) Objects related to nail ma king were not the only artifact types found in the nailery. Glass of all types, animal bones, buttons, pipes, utensils, gunflint, and many kinds of ceramic sherds were unearthed ( see Appendix A for the variety of ceramics ). Domestic material was found in both the AA and AB levels, leading to the hypothesis that the nail boys lived in the nailery at least some of the time (Kelso 1997) The earlier AB layer had a more scattered distribution of these artifacts, but with a general eastern orientation. The c eramic, bone, and wine bottle glass found in this layer had the highest densities near the doorway, in what may be a trash midden area (Sanford 1984:46) The domestic artifacts found in the AA layer were higher in number and were spread over a


79 slightly la rger area in the eastern part of the structure. Very small amounts of these materials were found in the western end of the site. This may mean that the nail boys only ate meals in one area of the building (Sanford 1984:46 47) No post 1820s ceramic type s were found in the nailery, perhaps supporting the documentary evidence that nail making activity stopped in the 1820s, likely around 1823 when the last recorded shipment of nailrod occurred (Sanford 1984:54) Unfortunately, the excavation of the nailery did not provide evidence to suggest how the building was destroyed. Fire is not thought to be the culprit as no charring was noticed around the postholes, and any burned fragments could easily be explained by the presence of at least three forges in the building. More likely, the building was either dismantled or abandoned and later collapsed. The large amounts of iron and potentially useable tools found in the occupation layers lend credence to the abandonment idea (Sanford 1984:54 55) This thesis w have lived inside the nailery. Both the 1957 and 1982 1983 excavations of the nailery recovered large amounts of domestic artifacts. Kelso and Sanford assumed that these artifacts indi cate the nail boys ate in the nailery, but they never tested this belief or the possibility of the boys engaging in other domestic activities. What were the nail boys doing in the nailery?


80 Chapter 5 : ailery excavation revealed a large number of domestic artifacts, causing them to hypothesize that the nail boys lived in the nailery. olds. I will investigate this issue further to better determine whether the boys engaged in any domestic activities in the nailery, which The purpose of this thesis is to determine th e level of hous eholdness among the nail boys. I use the term structure. As discussed in Chapter 3 I examine only one aspect of householdness: artifactual evidence of dietary production and consumption. Were the nail boys working together to create a fully functioning independent household, complete with the production and consumption of household goods, especially food and food related items? This would indicate the young boys were taking on the household responsibilities of adults and therefore were engaging in a high level of householdness. Or were they still related artifacts indi vidually from their own families? This would mean they were engaging in a low level of householdness.


81 Statistical analyses of the types, numbers, and distributions of artifacts can shed light on the daily lives of enslaved people, a topic that historica l documents often do not discuss. Archaeological remains allow us to estimate per capita discard rates that show the flow of goods through time (Galle 2006:26) These discard rates can reveal the quantities of various artifact types in buildings, which p rovides information on the kinds of activities that took place there. More specifically, I will use discard rate comparisons among various sites to understand the level of household production activities, or householdness, that took place inside the naile ry. Determining if the nail boys created a fully functioning household of their own requires two statisti cal analyses. Abundance i ndices and Pearson residuals are used to establish the level of dietary household production, or householdness, in the naile ry in relation to other sites at Monticello. These two white skilled laborers, and a drywell/refuse pit. Some sites were able to be broken into phases, which were studied separately in order to better differentiate separate periods of occupation. I hypothesize that if the nail boys were creating a high level of householdness, analyses would show large amounts of utilitarian ceramics, which would have been needed t o cook and store food. On the other hand, if the nail boys were creating a low level of householdness in the nailery, very few utilitarian ceramics would be seen because the amount of food production would have been minimal. All data were obtained from th e Digital Archaeological Archive of Comparative Slavery ( DAACS ) database ( www.daacs.org ) and are accessible to anyone. Counts of the ceramic ware types used during the analysis can be found in Appendix A I used the statistical program SAS 9.2 to perform all the analyses and create the resulting graphs.


82 As with many archaeological datasets, there are limitations to the data used in the analysis below. All analyses in this thesis are based on counts of artifacts. While using counts of artifacts can be u seful, it is also prone to bias because of the different sizes of the artifact fragments (Byrd and Owens 1997 :316 ). This is particularly true of ceramics, which are the main focus of the analyses in this thesis. Ceramic sherd counts have a low degree of validity in abundance analyses (Byrd and Owens 1997:315; Nance 1987:280). Validity means how well an analysis measures what it is supposed to measure. Of course, archaeologists want the highest validity possible in their analyses. When they break, ceram ics fragment into a variable number of small pieces. As this breakage occurs, the number of sherds increases exponentially as the size of sherds decreases. This exponential rise in number of sherds as they shrink in overall size causes distortion in asse mblages with sherds of various sizes. The distortion compromises the validity of sherd counts during relative abundance analysis (Byrd and Owens 1997:316). In usage, the disposal, and the post 1973 :352). All of these factors can inject bias into the ceramic analysis. One way to correct for the bias inherent in using ceramic sherd counts for relative abundance analysis is to u se sherd surface area. Surface area of sherds is not affected by the breakage of ceramics into pieces of different sizes Unfortunately measuring the surface area of every sherd is not practical and therefore is not likely to be a method used in archaeo logical analyses (Byrd and Owens 1997:317; Chase 1985:218). Byrd and Owens (1997:317) suggest that effective area can be used as a close substitute for surface area. They argue that sherds can be separated into different size groupings by putting


83 them th rough nested screens. Then the number of sherds in each screen is multiplied by the square of the screen size and then summed (Byrd and Owens 1997:317). Relative abundance analysis based on effective area removes the distortion created when only sherd co unts are used (Byrd and Owens 1997:319). A second way to correct for the bias created when using sherd counts for abundance analysis is to use sherd weight. Solheim (1960:325) points out that using both counts and weights during analysis and then compari ng the two results can provide more information about the assemblage than either one alone. After analyzing ceramics by give more accurate statistical results than cou using sherd weight in ceramic analysis is that the density of sherds can vary depending on the materials, like temper, used to make the vessel. The variability of sherd density means that the weight of a group of sherds is only partly determined by the number of sherds in the sample (Byrd and Owens 1997:316; Orton et al. 1993:169). A third option to correct for bias in ceramic an alysis is to use estimated vessel equivalents or EVE In this type of analysis, distinctive features like rims, bases, and handles are used to estimate the proportion of the vessel that is represented. T he proportion s are then added together (Orton 1982 :2). The fourth way to correct for bias is to use the minimum number of vessels also known as MNV In this method ceramic vessels are recons tructed as much as possible. S herds that could possibly have come from the same vessel but do not cross mend wit h other pieces are included as part of that vessel. Variations of this method use diagnostic


84 features like base sherds, rim sherds, and handles (Orton 1982:1). The MNV method is very useful, but it does depend upon the skill of the archaeologist doing th e reconstruction (Orton 1982:2). Another problem with MNV is its tendency to underestimate the number of vessels represented by the sherds (Orton 1982:2). Both EVE and MNV work toward understanding how ceramics were actually used in past societies, since people generally use ceramics in vessel, not sherd, form (Egloff 1973:352, 353). In spite of the biases of count data and the other options available, count data were used in this thesis due to the availability of count data, the lack of weight data for the smallest sherds, and the very small number of diagnostic sherds and sherds that cross mended from the nailery site. The artifacts studied in this project come from the three zones, named AA, AB, and AC, discussed in Chapter 4. These levels are believe d to be the original, undisturbed occupation layers relating to the nail boys. The archaeologists who worked on the 1982 1983 excavation considered these to be primary deposits, not fill from the 1957 excavation. Current archaeologists at Monticello crea ted a Harris Matrix that demonstrates the AA, AB, and AC contexts were located beneath the known disturbed zones (Karen Smith, personal communication 2011). The AA, AB, and AC layers revealed heavy organic charcoal deposits in close association with struc tural features, nail making tools, and manufacturing waste, further indicating that the contexts were original (Sanford 1984:30) In addition, the level of admixture with artifacts dating to post Jefferson periods is extremely minimal at the nailery site, quite unlike other sites on


85 Abundance Indices and Pearson Residuals In order to determine if the nail boys were creating a high or low level of householdness I needed a statistic artifact assemblage to the artifact assemblages of other known domestic and industrial sites on Monticello. This test should compare utilitarian, tableware, and teaware ceramics, along with other domest ic remains, to determine if there are differences in the abundance of these items among the structures. Following Galle ( 2004, 2006, 2010) abundance i ndices were calculated to learn about the discard rates of certain artifact types. Many archaeologists, including Markin (1997), Knight (2004), Kent (1992), Neiman et al. (2000), and Hill (2007), have used abundance indices in a variety of contexts. Abundance i ndices allow researchers to estimate the discard rate of one artifact type in relation to the dis card rate of a second artifact type. The discard rate of the second artifact type is used as a baseline rate because it must either remain constant over time or change in a predictable way (Galle 2006:172 173) For th is thesis the equation for the abunda nce i ndex is: (Artifact Group 1) (Artifact Group 1 + Artifact Group 2) where Artifact Group 1 is the artifact type I am interested in while Artifact Group 2 is the artifact type that represents the baseline discard rate (Galle 2004:46, 2006:173) Two dif ferent artifact types were used as the baseline discard rate wine bottle glass and total ceramic form. Galle (2006:175 176) determined that the discard rate of wine bottle glass is constant over time at Monticello. Total ceramic form is the combination of discard rates for every shape of ceramic vessel found at Monticello. Ceramic vessel forms are divided into three categories based on their function: utilitarian, tableware, and teaware


86 d be placed in the tableware category (Aultman et al. 2010). Using this as the baseline discard rate allowed me to compare the discard rate of an individual vessel catego ry, such as utilitarian, against the discard rate of all vessels. Gra phs are used to illustrate the abundance i ndices. The Y axis consists of the abundance i ndex values, which were calculated with the equation mentioned above. The equation results in v alues that range from 0 to 1.0, with higher values indicating a greater representation of the type of artifact being examined (Hill 2007:424). Mean ceramic dates are used as the X axis to show changes in artifact discard rates over time. These dates were calculated using the Digital Archaeological Archive of Comparative Slavery (DAACS) MCD Type list, which compiles all possible combinations of ware type, decorative technique, and applied color that occur in the DAACS ceramic table and assigns each combina tion a date range (Thomas Jefferson Foundation 2004) Sherds exhibiting multiple decorative elements, which each have a specific date range, are dated based on the decorative type with the shortest length of manufacture. The DAACS MCD Type list may be fo und on the DAACS website, www.daacs.org (Thomas Jefferson Foundation 2004) Each abundance i ndex graph has a red tren d line that shows estimated i ndex values across the time periods for each analysis. It is interesting to see how actual i ndex values comp are to the estimated values represented by the trend line. Pearson r esi duals were calculated for most abundance i ndices in order to better differentiate the nailery from the other sites. Residuals that show the nailery as an outlier


87 indicate that there is a large difference among the nailery and other sites for those artifact t ypes. The formula for Pearson r esiduals used in this study is: (y i i ) where y i is the th response and i is the corresponding predicted mean. ( SAS Ins titute Inc. 2002 2010 ). The data on the nailery were compared to data on a variety of sites on Monticello plantation. These sites included industrial sites such as the blacksmith shop and Building l the storehouse for iron, and domestic sites like the St ewart Watkins site, the home of free white workers and their families, and Building s a slave quarter site (Table 5.2). By comparing the nailery to many different sites, I can better determine whether the nailery is more similar to industrial sites, dome stic sites, or lies somewhere in between. If the sites, it is very likely that domestic tasks were being done by the nail boys. If the lie closer to those of industrial sites and far from those of domestic sites, it is likely that little to no domestic activity was being done by the nail boys.


88 Table 5.1 List of Ceramic Vessel Forms and their Categorization as Tableware, Teaware, or Utilitarian Ceramic Vessel Form Category Basket Tableware Berry Dish Tableware Bottle Utilitarian Bottle, Blacking Utilitarian Bowl Tableware Box Tableware Castor Tableware Chamberpot Utilitarian Coffee Pot Teaware Colander Utilitarian Cup Te aware Cup, Lidded Tableware Drug Jar/Salve Pot Utilitarian Flower Pot Utilitarian Griddle Utilitarian Jar Utilitarian Jar, Mustard Utilitarian Jug Utilitarian Milkpan Utilitarian Mold, Jelly Tableware Mug/Can Tableware Pipkin Utilitarian Pitche r/Ewer Teaware Plate Tableware Platter Tableware Porringer Tableware Saucer Teaware Sea Kale Pot Utilitarian Serving Dish, misc. Tableware Storage Vessel Utilitarian Tankard Tableware Tea Caddy Teaware Teabowl Teaware Teacup Teaware Teapot Teaw are Tureen Tableware Unid. Tableware Tableware Unid. Teaware Teaware Unid. Utilitarian Utilitarian Vegetable Dish Tableware


89 Table 5. 2 Mean Ceramic Date, Function, and Occupant data for comparative sites. See Appendix B for more d etailed discussion of each site Structure and Phase Mean Ceramic Dates for Phases Function Occupant Source of Information Site 7 P3 1786 Domestic White Overseer www.daacs.org Site 8 H1, P3a P3b 1789, 1807, 1792 Domestic Slaves www.daacs.org Site 17 1797 Domestic White Ov erseer Building l PM 1797 Industrial, Domestic Slaves www.daacs.org Building o P2, P3 1785, 1792 Domestic Slaves www.daacs.org Building r PE 1799 Domestic Slaves www.daacs.org Building s P1, P2 1798, 1812 Domestic Slaves www.daacs.org MRS 2 P1, P2 17 89, 1811 Domestic Slaves or White Workers Clites and McCray 2010 Blacksmith Shop 1792 Industrial Slaves Kelso et al. 1984 Elizabeth Hemings 1797 Domestic Slaves www.daacs.org Stewart Watkins 1796 Domestic White Workers www.daacs.org Dry W ell P1, P2 177 6, 1782 Food Storage and Trash Jefferson Household www.daacs.org Ware Type Groups First, ceramics were split into two categories: coarse and refined. Coarse ceramics include all ware types used in the preparation, cooking, and storage of food, while refined ceramics were those ware types that sat on the table. The baseline discard rate for the abundance i ndices is wine bott le glass. The formula for the abundance i ndex of the coarse ceramic ware types is: (Coarse Ware Types) (Coarse Ware Types + Win e Bottle Glass ) and the formula for the abundance i ndex of the refined ceramic ware types is:


90 (Refined Ware Types) (Refined Ware Types + Wine Bottle Glass) The coarse ware index revealed a positive curve with a p value of 0.1608 (Figure 5.1). This tre nd shows an increase in discard of coarse ware types over time, although there is variation among sites with similar mean ceramic dates. The nailery has the second lowest abundance i ndex value, indicating a very low coarse ceramic discard rate compared to w ine bottle glass discard. Its i ndex value is lower than the values of all the domestic sites, sugges ting that less dietary production was occurring there compared to domestic si tes. The site with the lowest i ndex value is the blacksmith shop, which mak es sense as this structure does seem to have housed slaves. The use of this structure was likely limited to industrial activity. The blacksmith shop is one end of the continuum from no domestic activity to only domestic activity and therefore is a good s ite for comparison with the nailery.

PAGE 100

91 Figure 5.1 Results of Abundance Index for Coarse Ware Types The refined ware index showed a po sitive curve with overall high abundance i ndex values and a p value of 0.0 149 (Figure 5.2). Located slightly above th e cur ve, the nailery has an intermediate abundance i ndex value, meaning that its discard rate of refined wares was neither extremely high nor extremely low when compared to other sites at ndex value is close to the i nd ex values for six slave dwelling phases: Building s Phases 1 and 2, Site 7 Phase 3, Site 8 Phases 3a and 3b, and MRS 2 Phase 2. The similar values demonstrate a comparable variety and intensity of domestic activities, or householdness, among the nailery a nd the dwellings of enslaved people. This result is very different from the result of the coarse ware i ndex, where the nailery showed a much lower level of householdness than domestic structures.

PAGE 101

92 Clearly there were some differences in the activities taki ng place in the nailery and domestic sites. Interestingly, Building l the storehouse for iron, also has a refined ware i ndex value very close to the nailery and some dwelling sites. This similarity may indicate a domestic use for Building l an idea tha t has been recently hypothesized (Galle 2010:34) Future research should continue to investigate this issue. Pearson residuals were computed and plotted. The plotted residuals (Figure 5.3) show that the nailery does not have the same ratio of coarse wa re to refined ware ceramics as most of the other structures on Monticello. The nailery has results that are most like Building l Middle Phase, which is the storehouse for iron, and Building s Phase 1, which is a slave quarter on Mulberry Row. Figure 5.3 supports the previous results abundance of coarse ware ceramics shows that some differences exist.

PAGE 102

93 Figure 5.2 Results of Abundance Index of Refined Ware Types Ceramic Form Next, abundance indices and Pearson residuals were computed on the basis of ceramic form. As noted above, the form of a ceramic vessel is categorized into one of three groups: utilitarian, tableware, and teaware (Table 5.1). One set of abundance form s Pearson residuals was done with wine bottle glass in the denominator.

PAGE 103

94 Figure 5.3 Pearson Residuals for Ware Type Groups The formula for the Utilitarian Abundance Index by All Ceramic Forms (Figure 5.4) is: (Utilitarian) (Utilitarian + Tableware + Teaware) This i ndex provides a p value of 0.8932 and shows a slightly posi tive curve with the na ilery having the second lowest abundance i ndex value and only the Elizabeth Hemings site having a lower value The Elizabeth Hemings site is unusual because it has very few utilitarian ceramics. It has been suggested that Elizabeth Hemings was the only occupant in the house, which, along with the relatively short occupation span, may explain the small amount of utilitarian ceramics (Neiman et al. 2000:45). Th e Utilitarian Abundance I ndex by All Ceramic Forms ratio of utilitarian ceramics to other

PAGE 104

95 ceramics is very low compared to the other sites, supporti ng the results of the previous i ndices. The nailery has fewer utilitarian ceramics than most dwelling sites, indicating that less food preparation, cooking, and storage was done by the nail boys. Figure 5.4 Abundance Index for Utilitarian Form by All Ceramic Forms (Teaware + Tableware + Utilitarian)

PAGE 105

96 The abundance index for Utilitarian Form by Wine Bottle Glass showed relatively similar resul ts. The formula for this index is: (Utilitarian) (Utilitarian + Wine Bottle Glass) The p value is 0.0246 and the curve is strongly positive. The overall abundance index values are slightly lower on this graph than the previous one (Figure 5.5). The nai lery again has the second lowest abundance index value and the blacksmith shop has the boys were only rarely participating in dietary production tasks. The slave quarte r sites analyzed here all have higher index values because more production activity was being done in those structures. Figure 5.5 Abundance Index for Utilitarian Form by Wine Bottle Glass

PAGE 106

97 Tableware is the next ce ramic form to be studied. The abund ance i ndex for Tableware by All Ceramic Forms was created using the formula: (Tableware) (Tableware + Tableware + Teaware) and revealed a negative curve with a p value of 0.405 2 (Figure 5.6). The nailery has the third highest abundance i ndex value. Sit es with similar values are Site 17, which is the slave dwelling MRS 2 Phases 1 and 2, and the blacksmith shop. The nailery has higher amounts of tableware than most of the domestic sites, demonstrating that the nail boys enga ged in food producti on activities. T he b lacksmith shop also has a high i ndex value for tablewar e probably because most of the few ceramics that were found there were of tableware or teaware form. Figure 5.6 Abundance Index for Tableware Form by All Ce ramic Forms (Teaware + Tableware + Utilitarian)

PAGE 107

98 An abundance index for Tableware Form by Wine Bottle Glass was calculated with the formula: (Tableware) (Tableware + Wine Bottle Glass) and produced a positive curve with overall lower values than the previ ous graph (Figure 5.7). The p value is 0.0198. The nailery is again located high above the curve and is the fifth largest abundance index value among the sites analyzed here. Sites with similar values are Stewart Watkins, known to be the home of white h ired workmen and their families, Site 17, once the home of white overseer Edmund Bacon, MRS 2 Phase 2, a slave quarter on Mulberry Row, Site 7 Phase 1, recognized as the home of another white overseer, Building r Early Phase, another Mulberry Row slave qua rter, and Building l Middle Phase, recorded as the storehouse for iron. The similar results continue to support the notion that some domestic activities were occurring in the nailery because the es.

PAGE 108

99 Figure 5.7 Abundance Index for Tabl eware Form by Wine Bottle Glass Teaware is the final ceramic form to be analyzed. The formula for the abundance i ndex for Teaware by All Ceramic Forms is: (Teaware) (Utilitarian + Tableware + Teaware) and the resulting curve is almost flat with a p value of 0.9690 (Figure 5.8). The nailery is located just above, but touching, the curve and is in the middle of abundance i ndex values. Dwelling sites are located both above and below the nailery, showing that th e of domestic activities. This abundance i ndex points to the in a higher intensity of teaware use than some slaves who lived in a structure that functioned solely as a dwelling. The t wo sites w ith the most

PAGE 109

100 similar i ndex values to the nailery are the blacksmith shop and Building o Phase 3, once a slave qua rter on Mulberry Row. T he blacksmith shop has a high percentage of teaware and tableware compared to utilitarian ceramics providing an explanation for ndex value in this calculation Figure 5.8 Abundance Index for Teaware Form by All Ceramic Forms (Teaware + Tableware + Utilitarian)

PAGE 110

101 The abundance i ndex for Teaware by Wine Bottle Gl ass was calculated with the formula: (Teaware) (Teaware + Wine Bottle Glass) and has a p value of 0.0934 (Figure 5.9). The nailery is touching the positive curve and again is located in the middle of the abundance i ndex values, suggesting a domestic use for the structure. Dry Well Phase 2, originally a food storage hole and later trash pit used by the Jefferson household, has the clo sest value to the nailery. The similarity between the Dry Well and the nailery is very interesting because it shows that t he Jefferson household was discarding teaware at nearly the same rate as the nail boys were discarding teaware. The Pearson r esidual comparing Utilitarian by Teaware Fo rms from the All Ceramic Forms abundance i ndic es shows the nailery near some of the do mestic sites (Figure 5.10). It is located within the high Teaware/low Utilitarian section of the graph. Many of the other domestic sites, such as MRS 2 Phase 2 and Building s Phase 2, are located in the high Utilitarian half of the graph. This means tha t the nailery had less food preparation and storage activity but the same or higher teaware based food consumption activity when compared to the other domestic sites.

PAGE 111

102 Figure 5.9 Abundance Index for Te aware Form by Wine Bottle Glass

PAGE 112

103 Figure 5.10 Pea rson Residual of Utilitarian by Teaware Forms for All Ceramic Forms Abundance Indices The Utilitarian by Tableware Pearson Resid ual from the All Ceramic Forms abundance i ndices places the nailery in the high tableware/low utilitarian section of the grap h (Figure 5.11). As shown on this plot, t he nailery is slightly separated from the other sites and has the highest residual for tableware but the second lowest residual for utilitarian ware Figures 5.10 and 5.11 support the results from the coarse ware versus refined ware Pearson residual (Figure 5.3) because all three show that utilitarian wares were only rarely used in the nailery when compared to d omestic sites

PAGE 113

104 Figure 5.11 Pearson Residual of Utilitarian by Tableware Forms for All Ceramic Forms Abunda nce Indices The final Pearson resi dual for the All Ceramic Forms abundance i ndices compares Teaware and Tableware forms. The nailery is located in the high Tableware/high Teaware section and is near the zero Teaware line (Figure 5.12). It has on e of the highest Tableware residuals on the chart. MRS 2 Phases 1 and 2 and Site 17, both domestic sites, have similarly high Tableware residuals, although their Teaware residuals are lower than that of the nailery. This calculation supports the hypothes is that domestic tasks were occurring in the nailery. Combined with the previous Pearson residual plots the dominance of teaware and tableware over its utilitarian ware indicates that food consumption was hap pening regularly in the nailery but food production may not have occurred as frequently.

PAGE 114

105 Figure 5.12 Pearson Residual of Teaware by Tableware Form for All Ceramic Forms Abundance Indices The Pearson r esidual for Utilitarian by Teaware Form for the Wine Bottle Glass Abundance In dices shows the nailery located in the high Teaware/low Utilitarian quarter of the graph (Figure 5.13). T he nailery lies next to the zero Teaware line, indicating a medium amount of teaware. Site 8 House 1, MRS 2 Phase 1, Building o Phase 2, Building o P hase 3, and Dry Well Phase 1, all domestic sites, are also placed in this section, further demonstrating similar activities taking place among the nailery and those structures. T he nailery has a similar utilitarian residual to the blacksmith shop, suggest ing that the level of food production in the nailery was akin to that in buildings used solely for industrial purposes.

PAGE 115

106 Figure 5.13 Pearson Residual for Utilitarian by Teaware Forms for the Wine Bottle Glass Abundance Indices The Ut ilitarian by Table ware Pearson r esi dual for the Wine Bottle Glass A bunda nce I ndices shows the nailery in the high Tableware/low Utilitarian section (Figure 5.14). The other sites in this section are Stewart Watkins, Dry Well Phase 2, and Building l Middle Phase, all either domestic sites or sites with a domestic component. The nailery has the lowest Utilitarian residual in this section and the second lowest Utilitarian residual overall, again suggesting low food production tasks. Interestingly, the nailery is separated fr om all the other comparative sites, demonstrating that although the nailery shows activity levels comparable to those at many of the other sites, it does not conform to either a fully domestic or a fully industrial pattern.

PAGE 116

107 Figure 5.14 Pearson Residual for Utilitarian by Tableware Forms for the Wine Bottle Glass Abundance Indices The Teaware by Tableware Pearson Resi dual for the Wine Bottle Glass Abundance I ndices placed the nailery inside the high Tableware/low Teaware quarter although it is touching the zero Teaware line (Figure 5.15). Other sites in this section of the graph are the domestic sites of slaves or white overseers, namely MRS 2 Phases 1 and 2, Site 17, and Site 7 Phase 3. The nailery has a higher Tableware and Teaware residual than man y of the comparative sites, including the domestic sites Building o Phases 2 and 3 and Site 8 Phases H1, 3a, and 3b. This Pearson residual shows that Tableware was slightly more abundant than Teaware in the nailery.

PAGE 117

108 Figure 5.15 Pearson Residual for T eaware by Tableware Forms for the Wine Bot tle Glass Abundance Indices Utilitarian Ceramic Material The next step was to understand where the nailery stood in terms of utilitarian ceramics as defined by ceramic material. In this context, utilitarian c eramic material includes all coarse earthenwares and stonewares, with a few exceptions. Most exceptions are those stonewares that were used for table or teawares: White Salt Glaze Stoneware, Jasperware, Rosso Antico, Black Basalt, Staffordshire Brown ston eware, Turner type stoneware, Westerwald/Rhenish stoneware, and Nottingham stoneware. Other material typ es excluded from this analysis were Native American ceramics and redware identified to be mat erial types were plotted in an abundance i ndex with wine bottle glass as the denominator, th e nailery again has a very

PAGE 118

109 low abundance i ndex value, very close to that of the blacksmith shop and Dry Well Phase 1 (Figure 5.16). The Elizabe th Hemings site has the lowest i ndex value because it has no ceramic sherds that fall into the utilitarian category. All oth er slave dwellings have higher abundance i ndex values than the nailery a sign that more food production and storage was done at those dwellings than at the nailery S urprisingly, Building l the storehouse for iron, has an i ndex value that is higher than the nailery and is very similar to those of the slave dwellings. Again, future research should address the hypothesis that Building l dou bled as a slave quarter. The trend line in this abundance i ndex graph, with a p value of 0.0018, shows a statistically significant increase in the amount of utilitarian materials being discarded over time at Monticello Figure 5.16 Abundance Index f or Utilitarian Ceramic Material

PAGE 119

110 Specific Ware Types The final ceramic analysis examined the three most numerous ware types at the nailery: creamware, pearlware, and Chinese porcelain. Abundance i ndices for these ware types were calculated using the formulas: (Creamware) (Creamware + Wine Bottle Glass) (Pearlware) (Pearlware + Wine Bottle Glass) (Chinese Porcelain) (Chinese Porcelain + Wine Bottle Glass) The Creamware i ndex, with a p value of 0.1078, reveals that the nailery lies on the line of expected values ( Figure 5.17). It h as a higher abundance i ndex value than most of the comparison sites, including MRS 2 Phases 1 and 2, Site 8 Phases 3a and 3b, Building o Phases 2 and 3, and Building s Phase 1, all domestic slave structures. Evidence again may suggest an occupation in Bui lding l which has an i ndex value only slightly lower than that of the nailery and MRS 2 Phases 1 and 2.

PAGE 120

111 Figure 5.1 7 Abundance Index for Creamware The abundance i ndex for Pearlware shows a statistically significant increase in the discard rate of pe arlware over time, with a p value of 0.0052 (Figure 5.18). In this plot the nailery has a larger abundance i ndex value than all but one of the domestic slave sites, the Elizabeth Hemings site. Both phases o f the Dry Well also have lower i ndex values, wh ich may indicate less pearlware discard by the Jefferson family compared to the nail boys. As with the Creamwar ndex value is a little higher than Building l

PAGE 121

112 Figure 5.1 8 Abundance Index for Pearlware The Chinese p orc elain abundance i ndex, with a p value of 0.0639, produced the most striking result of the specific ware type indi ces (Figure 5.19). This plot demonstrates that the nailery has the second highest abundance i ndex value of all the sites, with the Elizabeth H emings site being higher. All other slave domestic sites, the overseer and white laborer sites, and Dry Well phases discarded less Chinese porcelain than the nailery. It is possible that because of his daily presence and keen interest in the nail boys, J efferson gave these expensive ceramics to the boys when he no longer had any a more public space. Yet another possibility is that the nail boys stole the Chinese

PAGE 122

113 resorted to theft if they did not have enough ceramics for their daily needs, to gain res pect from their peers, to rebel against their enslaved status, or a variety of other reasons. Further research should investigate these and other possibilities to determine why there is so much Chinese porcelain at the nailery site Glass Containers and Tableware Glass Although ceramic analyses form the basis of this thesis, other artifact types can provide additional evidence for or against the presence of production and consumption. The next analysis examines glass artifacts with food based functio ns, with the exception of wine bottle glass as this forms the denominator of the abundance index equation. Figure 5.19 Abunda nce Index for Chinese Porcelain

PAGE 123

114 Window glass, glass beads, and other glass artifacts not related to food production and consump tion were not analyzed in this thesis. All gla ss artifacts with possible food related functions were divided into two groups: Glass Containers and Tableware Glass. Glass artifacts classified as Glass Containers include jars and various types of bottles, w hile glass artifacts with, for example, the forms of bowls or tumblers are placed in the Tableware Glass gro up. The abundance i ndex equation for the Glass Containers is: (Glass Container) (Glass Container + Wine Bottle Glass) and the equation for Table G lass is: (Tableware Glass) (Tableware Glass + Wine Bottle Glass) The Glass Container abundance i ndex has a p value of 0.182 1 and shows that the ndex value is close to the middle of the group (Figure 5.20). Four domestic sites, namely Site 17 Site 7 Phase 3, Site 8 H1 and Phase 3a, and Building s Phase 2, along with one industrial site, the blacks mith shop, have very similar i ndex values to the dom e stic and industrial sites have abundance i ndex values near the nailery. In fact, the blacksmith shop has higher i ndex values than some domestic sites, such as MRS 2 Phase 1 and Building o Phases 2 and 3. Future investigations should examine why glass co ntainer fragments are so prevalent in the blacksmith shop.

PAGE 124

115 Figure 5.20 Abundance Index for Glass Contai ners The a b undance i s place near the center of the abundance i ndex values (Figure 5.21). This graph, w ith a p value of 0.1613, ndex value is close to or higher than most of the comparative sites. In this i ndex, the Stewart Watkins site, the home of former white ski lled laborers, has the closest i ndex value to the nailery. Site 7 Phase 3, the home of an overseer, Dry l Middle Phase, the storehouse for iron and possibly a dwelling, all have similar v alues as well. This abundance i ndex suggests the nail bo ys used tableware glass equal to or more than other people in their dwellings.

PAGE 125

116 Figure 5.21 Abundance Index for Tableware Glass The Pearson residual comparing glass container and tableware glass data reveals that Building r Early Phase, a slave quart er, and Site 17, the home of overseer Edmund Bacon, have the most similar residual s to the nailery (Figure 5.22). The nailery is located in the low Glass Container/high Tableware G lass section of the graph, but is touching the zero line for Glass C ontaine rs. Th e calculation depicted in this plot makes very apparent that the nai lery has a higher abundance of Glass Container and Tableware G lass fragments than many other domestic sites at Monticello and supports a hypothesis of domestic activities taking pla ce in that building.

PAGE 126

117 Figure 5.22 Pearson Residuals for Glass Containers and Tableware Glass Utensils Utensils, defined as flatware used for eating or cooking, are the final artifact type analyzed in this thesis. The equation used for this analysis is: (Utensils) (Utensils + Wine Bottle Glass) The U tensil abundance i nd ex produced the overall lowest i ndex values of all the analyses and had a p value of 0.4503 (Figur ndex value places it near the middle of the comparati ve sites. The known slave domestic sites MRS 2 Phase 1, Building o Phase 3, Site 7 Phase 3, Site 8 Phases H1, 3a, and 3b, and the Elizabeth Hemings site all fall below the nailery. Additionally, Site 17, the house of white overseer

PAGE 127

118 Edmund Bacon, also has a lower i ndex value than th value demonstrates that domestic tasks were occurring in the nailery in varieties and intensities similar to those of other domestic sites. In this abundance i ndex, Building l the storehouse for iron, has a higher index value than the nailery, again suggesting domestic activities taking place there as well. Figure 5.23 Abundanc e Index for Utensils

PAGE 128

119 Building l: The Storehouse for Iron Although Building l is not the focus of this thesis, it is important to note that the structure a storehouse also u sed briefly as a tin shop, had abundance index and Pearson r esidual results that were close to and sometimes higher than the nailery. This evidence supports the hypothesis that this structure was used as a slave dwelling at some point. As with the nailery, Jefferson documented Building l on the 1796 Mutual Assurance Society (Jefferson 200 2:243) During his investigation of Mulberry Row, Pi Sunyer located Building l which he called Structure III, and undertook limited excavation at that locale (Scholnick et al. 2001) In 1981, Kelso and Sanford carried out the full excavation of this bui lding, revealing a brick and greenstone cobble paving and the base of what was then thought to be a chimney, but more recently has been determined to be a small forge (Scholnick et al. 2001:7) Based on the presence of annular pearlware and documentation showing the first shipment of nail rod in 1794, Kelso dated the construction of Building l to between 1790 and 1796 (Scholnick et al. 2001:10) The layout of the 1809 fence line, also excavated by Kelso, suggests that Building l was still standing when th e fence was installed (Scholnick et al. 2001) In fact, ceramic types dating to the 1810s and 1820s suggest that the structure was standing and (Scholnick et al. 2001:39) Although nail rod and assorted iron artifac ts were found in large numbers during excavation, the presence of other artifact types, like ceramics, glass, and faunal remains, indicate a possible domestic use for the structure. Based on documentary analysis, some hypothesize that the nail boys may ha ve lived in Building l as it is next door to the nailery (Galle 2010:34) If

PAGE 129

120 Building l was indeed occupied by nail boys for at least part of its life, there are a number of possibilities that may explain the need to use it for domestic purposes There may have been too many nail boys for them all to occupy the nailery, so adjacent Building l would have provided a convenient place to house them Another possibility is that Building l was used as a secondary nailery and domestic site while the nailery w as in use; perhaps the most trustworthy nail boys were allowed to work there under less supervision. Building l may have replaced the nailery as the center for nail making and nail boy occupation after the nailery was dismantled Similarly, after the nai lery was abandoned, Building l may have housed nail boys who made nails for mansion use or sale, while nail boys at other locations, such as those who worked at Sites 15 and 18, may have made nails for plantation wide use (Figure 2.5). Unfortunately, the occupants of Building l may never be concretely identified. Distribution Maps Distribution maps of the nailery w ere made in order to study the location of ceramics within the nailery compared to the location of nails. Where inside the nailery did the domest ic activities indicated by the abundance indices and Pearson r esiduals take place? Where do concentrations of domestic artifacts lie in relation to nails? This research is preliminary and should be used as a basis for more in depth studies of the n ailery. Distribution maps were created using ArcGIS A map of the quadrats was digitized to create two layers showing the upper and lower quadrats. The quadrats shown 1983 excavati on. The upper quadrats are those that include levels that may have been

PAGE 130

121 disturbed by Pi surface levels. The lower quadrats are those that consist exclusively of undisturbed occupation layers found at deeper levels Figure 5.24 shows the distribution of ceramics in the lower quadrats. Two images are shown. The top image, in red, was created using the counts of ceramics from each quadrat. The bottom image, in green, shows the density of ceramics, meaning that the number of sherds in a quadrat was divided by the area (in feet) of that quadrat. The different levels, represented by darkening colors, were created using natural breaks. Both images show a concentration shown in the darkest colors, of ceramic s near the south central and southeastern section of the nailery. Analysis of the results of the 1980s excavation indicate s that the eastern half of the nailery was dominated by anvils, while the western half housed the forges. It is possible that the ea stern half had more space because anvils are much smaller than forges and can be moved to make even more room for domestic activities. Postholes found during the 1982 1983 excavation suggested the location of a door in the southeast corner of the nailery. Were the nail boys leaving their trash at and around the doorway? Did they eat near the doorway in order to get fresh air? The next figure (Figure 5.25) shows the distribution of ceramics in the upper quadrats. As before, the top image, in purple, is the distribution by ceramic count, and the bottom image, in blue, is the distribution by ceramic density. The color c lassifications were created using natural breaks The ceramic count revealed a higher concentration of sherds in the two southern quadrat s, while ceramic density revealed the highest concentration in the southernmost quadrat and the second highest concentration in one of the northern quadrats.

PAGE 131

122 The next two figures represent the distribution of nails in the nailery. Figure 5.26 depicts the distribution of nails in the lower quadrats. Only complete (i.e. unbroken) wrought nails were used in the distribution maps. Complete machine cut nai ls were not included because the majority, 95 percent, of them were found in four units in the southwest ern corner of the nailery site (Sanford 1984:44). As before, the top, red image represents counts of nails in each quadrat and the bottom, green image represents the density of nails in each quadrat. Although nails seem to be more spread out throughout the structure, there is a higher concentration in the eastern half where, according to Sanford (1984:38, 48) most of the anvils were likely located The nails are concentrated against both the northern and southern walls of the nailery, whereas the cera mics were primarily found next to the southern wall. This spatial pattern showing a north south contrast could be a reflection of the dominance of nail making activities in the building or of the placement of the nail boys as they worked. Based on both t he ceramic and nail distributions in the lower quadrats, trash may have been pushed against the walls of the buildings so that it was out of the way. Figure 5.27 shows the distribution of nails in the upper quadrats. Li ke Figure 5.25, the top, purple c olor reflects the distribution pattern of nails by count and the bottom, blue color shows the distribution pattern of nails through nail density. The highest count of nails was found in the southernmost quadrat and the number of nails decreases as one lo oks north. The highest density of nails was found in the southernmost and northernmost quadrats, mimicking the dual southern and northern concentrations found in the lower quadrat nail distributions. Again, this could be suggestive of the removal of garb age away from the central activity area.

PAGE 132

123 Figure 5.24 Count (top) and density (bottom) of ceramics in the lower quadrats

PAGE 133

124 Figure 5.25 Count (top) and density (bottom) of ceramics in the upper quadrats

PAGE 134

125 Figure 5.26 Count (top) and density (botto m) of nails in lower quadrats

PAGE 135

126 Figure 5.27 Count (top) and density (bottom) of nails in the upper quadrats

PAGE 136

127 Discussion Households are made up of groups of people who work together to perform various activities, including production, consumption, co residence, pooling resources, and reproduction (Ashmore and Wilk 1988:6). This thesis focuses on production and consumption because these are the most easily visible in the archaeological record. The analyses presented in this thesis demonstrate that so me domestic activity was taking place at the na ilery. T he nailery had abundance i ndex values near those of known enslaved and free person domestic sites, pointing to a similarity in the types and levels of activities taking place at these domestic sites a nd at the nailery. Analysis of the statistical tests suggest s that while the nail boys were eating food in the nailery at the same rate as other enslaved people ate food in their dwellings, the boys were not processing, cooking, and storing food at the sa me rate as others. In fact they were barely processing, cooking, or storing food at all. This makes logical sense, as 10 to 16 year old boys were not expected to process, cook, and store food ; these activities were the purview of the female, even in slav e households (Schwar tz 2000: 172) Although the nail boys did not participate in dietary production, they did engage in the consumption of food and related objects an activity routinely done in households. These data, combined with historical documentatio n, suggest that the nail boys were eating in the nailery during the work week, but were still participating in their in those households The boys were not creating a fully functioning household of their own; if they had been, a much stronger presence of utilitarian ceramics would have been seen in the archaeological record. The nail boys may have also been sleeping in the nailery

PAGE 137

128 although this is not likely to be proven a rchaeologically due to the loss of direct lines of evide nce. P erishable materials like the cloth sacks that were used as bedding, have not survived in the archaeological record of the nailery. Further evidence of the nail boys living in the nailery may c records in his Farm Book. Jefferson catalog ed handouts of meat and bread rations, clothing, blankets, and shoes, and often grouped the slaves by household and sometimes denoted this with brackets. In many of these inventories the nai l boys are listed together and are sometimes bracketed separat ely from other households. T he bread list of May 1797 (Figure 5.28) shows the names of 15 na il boys together in one bracket. Next to the bracket is the number 15, indicating one ration of brea d per nail boy (Jefferson 2003b) The boys engaged in some activities characteristic of households, particularly the consumption of food and associated goods. Perhaps relatives brought food, and therefore tableware and teawar e ceramics, glass, and utensi ls, to the boys at mealtimes, or the boys related artifacts back. Future research should investigate the variety of wares and decorations found in the nailery to determine if the ceramics were c oming from multiple households. Perhaps cross mends or decoration matches between the nailery and other domestic sites can also support the suggestion that ceramics were coming into the nailery from a variety of dwellings Cross mends between ceramics fr om the nailery and Building l may lend credence to the hypothesis that some nail boys lived in the storehouse. O ther statistical analyses may show more similarities in the activities taking place in both the nailery and Building l further supporting the idea of a connection between the buildings In addition, analysis of the distribution maps shows that domestic activities were taking place

PAGE 138

129 primarily in the eastern half of the nailery. Future research should investigate the distribution of glass, utensi ls, and different ceramic ware types within the nailery to learn if there are any strong differences in their locations. F column. Original manuscript from The Coolidge Collection of Thomas Jefferson Manuscri pts at the Massachusetts Historical Society. Image courtesy of the Massachusetts Historical Society at www.thomasjeffersonpapers.org

PAGE 139

130 There is likely no one definitive reason why the nail boys did not engage in a higher level of householdness in the naile ry; instead, a complex combination of many different factors is likely the cause. The young age s and gender were probably strong influences on their activities, just as the age and gender of modern people affect their actions today. This hypothesis could be tested by comparing these results to structure once used as a workshop by a group of young enslaved women. Archaeological data cannot be obtained for this structure because it is still standing today, so any analyses are limited to historical documents. Another hypothesis is that because Jefferson provisioned the boys with food, they may not have needed to participate in food production. Jefferson may have even rec ognized that with their high workload they would not have had time to procure and prepare food. The boys may have taken the unprocessed food back to their families so it could be turned into an edible meal. Although direct evidence of this is not likely to be found in any documents, further documentary research could reveal similar situations at Monticello or other contemporary plantations.

PAGE 140

131 Chapter 6 : Conclusion Th e analyses presented in this thesis demonstrate that the boys who labored in Montice and utensil goods The consumption of food and goods suggests that the boys spent a great deal of time in the workshop, ate several meals a day there and as a result had to participate in some household tasks. In this sense, they engaged in a low but important, level of householdness. Our modern society views the idea of children living apart from their guardians as inappropriate but it may have been quite common in coloni al and early America The nail boys were likely transitioning from being children dependent on their parents and relatives to young adults who took on the pressure of learning to live apart from the family group. All children must go through a similar t ransition, but slave children had to learn to live more independently much earlier than modern children. Enslaved people were considered adults around age 12, which greatly limited any sort of ogical studies of slave children are very scarce, leading to an incomplete understanding of their daily lives and labor.

PAGE 141

132 detailed records and letters. We know the names of ma siblings, what occupations the boys had as adults, who they married, the names of their during adulthood Very little, however, is known about their lives as nailers. What we know comes mostly from letters written by Jefferson, his relatives, and his overseers. These participation in activities, such as playing. This research is the first to investigate what these individuals experienced in their youth and helps flush out the began with a review of historical documents. This thesis has given rise to many new questions and avenues for future research. As mentioned previously, much work can be done to better illuminate the relationship between the nailery and Building l the storehouse for iron and a possible slave dwelling. The high abundance of Chinese porcelain at the nailery should be explored to better understand why young boys used such fancy ceramics in a workshop Documentary if the gender of the nail boys infl uenced their participation in domestic tasks. Further study of historical documents at Monticello and other contemporary plantations may provide insight into the occurrence of enslaved children living away from adult relatives but who continue to particip ate in the domestic production done by their relatives. The distribution of artifacts within and around the nailery should be studied in more detail to find patterns related to the domestic use of the structure. New research should study the abundances o f nailery artifacts based on artifact weight estimated vessel equivalents, or

PAGE 142

133 minimum number of vessels The results of that research should be compared to the analyses presented in this thesis to correct for biases in the count data used here. With mor e time, weight data can be collected for the smallest nailery sherds and perhaps more cross mends can be found among the nailery sherds, allowing for weight, EVE, and MNV analyses. Finally, future research should focus on identifying other domestic activi ties that took place in and around the nailery. Recent studies at Monticello have examined archaeological evidence for the sweeping of the yards surrounding slave dwellings (Elizabeth Sawyer, personal communication 2011). Slaves on many plantations used the yard surrounding their dwellings for a variety of activities including food preparation cleaning, and gardening ( Armstrong 1990; Battle 2004; Edwards 1998 ; Heath and Bennett 2000 ). Perhaps the nail boys used the yard around the nailery for domestic activities or play. A study focusing on what, if any, activities took place in the yard surrounding the nailery could help further our understanding of the activities and lifeways of enslaved children. The results of this research will be uploaded to The Digital Archaeological Archive of Comparative Slavery (DAACS), a web based initiative developed by Monticello archaeologists with the goal of enhancing inter site archaeological research. The website, www.daacs.org, offers access to historical background, explanations of previous archaeological fieldwork and interpretation, site maps, chronologies, and the descriptions and measurements of every single artifact from 33 individual sites located in the Chesapeake, Carolinas, and the Caribbean. In mid 2011, t he nailery data will be uploaded to DAACS. During spring 2011 I will write the historical background and excavation and interpretive history sections for the nailery and adjacent blacksmith shop

PAGE 143

134 and help prepare the rest of the data to be put online. Wri ting and posting this information on the DAACS website is the last step of this thesis project. The availability of the data presented above will make the results of this thesis more readily accessible to researchers and other interested people, and foste r more interest in the roles and lives of enslaved children. This thesis project has the potential to not only provide new information about a level of house hold ac tivity among past groups. It will also shed light on the lives of slave children, who are rarely studied and are underrepresented in interpretive materials. Since the results of this project will be available on DAACS, I hope that this research can serve as a catalyst for future interest in slave children and their roles in households.

PAGE 144

135 References Cited Allison, Penelope M. 1999 Introduction. In The Archaeology of Household Activities edited by Penelope M. Allison, pp. 1 18. Routledge New York. Anderson, Nesta 2004 Finding the Space Between Spatial Boundaries and Social Dynamics: The Archaeology of Nested Households. In Household Chores and Household Choices: Theorizing the Domestic Sphere in Historical Archaeology edited by Kerri S Barile and Jamie C. Brandon, pp. 109 120. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, A labama Armstrong, Douglas V. 1990 This Old Village and the Great House: An Archaeological and Historical ica. University of Illinois Press, Urbana, Illinois. Ashmore, Wendy and Richard R. Wilk 1988 Household and Community in the Mesoamerican Past. In Household and Community in the Mesoamerican Past edited by Richard R. Wilk and Wendy Ashmore, pp. 1 27. Univ ersity of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque New Mexico Aultman, Jennifer, Kate Grillo, Nick Bon Harper, Jillian Galle 2010 DAACS Cataloging Manual: Ceramics. Electronic document, http://www.daacs.org/aboutDatabase/pdf/cataloging/Ceramics.pdf accessed June 8, 2010. Bacon, Edmund 1807 Edmund Bacon, Monticello, to Thomas Jefferson, 1807 November 8. Manuscript on file, Special Collections, University of Virginia Library, Charlottesville, V irginia

PAGE 145

136 Battle, Whitney 2004 A Space of Our Own: Redefining the Ens laved Household at Andrew Household Chores and Household Choices: Theorizing the Domestic Sphere in Historical Archaeology edited by Kerri S. Barile and Jamie C. Brandon, pp. 33 50. The University of Alabama Press, Tusca loosa, Alabama. Baxter, Jane Eva 2005 Introduction: The Archaeology of Childhood in Context. In Children in Action: Perspectives on the Archaeology of Childhood Vol. 15, edited by Jane Eva Baxter, pp. 1 9. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropolo gical Association. University of California Press, Berkeley California 2008 The Archaeology of Childhood. Annual Review of Anthropology 37:159 175. Bear, James A., Jr. and Lucia C. Stanton (editors) 1997 gal Records and Miscellany, 1767 1826 Vol. 2. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N ew J ersey Bear, James Adam, Jr. (editor) 1967 Jefferson at Monticello University of Virginia Press, Charlottesville, V irginia Bear, James Adam, Jr. 1961 Thomas Jef ferson Manufacturer. The Iron Worker XXV(4):1 11. Beaumont, Lesley 2000 century Athens. In Children and Material Culture edited by Joanna Sofaer Derevenski, pp. 39 50. Routledge, New York. Berlin, Ira and Philip D. Morgan 1993 Introduction: Labor and the Shaping of Slave Life in the Americas. In Cultivation and Culture: Labor and the Shaping of Slave Life in the Americas, edited by Ira Berlin and Philip D. Morgan, pp. 1 45. Universit y Press of Virginia, Charlottesville, V irginia Bermann, Marc 1994 Lukurmata: Household Archaeology in Prehispanic Bolivia Princeton University Press, Princeton, N ew J ersey Bernstein, R. B. 2003 Thomas Jefferson Oxford University Press, New York.

PAGE 146

137 B etts, Edwin M. (editor) 1944 1824, with Relevant Extracts from His Other Writings University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville, V irginia 1987 from O ther Writings University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville, V irginia Baker, Vernon G. 1978 Ceramics from the Site of a Nineteenth Century Afro American. Papers of the Robert S. Peab ody Foundation for Archaeology 8. Phillips Academy, Andover, Massachusetts. Blanton, Richard E. 1994 Houses and Households: A Comparative Study Plenum Press, New York. Bluebond Lagner, Myra and Jill E. Korbin 2007 Challenges and Opportunities in the A nthropology of Childhoods: An American Anthropologist 109(2):241 246. Brandon, Jamie E. and Kerri S. Barile 2004 Introduction: Household Chores; or, the Chore of Defining the Household. In Hou sehold Chores and Household Choices: Theorizing the Domestic Sphere in Historical Archaeology edited by Kerri S. Barile and Jamie C. Brandon, pp. 1 12. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, A labama Brewer, Holly 2009 Apprenticeship Policy in Virg inia: From Patriarchal to Republican Policies of Social Welfare. In Children Bound to Labor: The Pauper Apprentice System in Early America edited by Ruth Wallis Herndon and John E. Murray, pp. 183 197. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York. Bridges, Sarah T. and Bert Salwen 1980 Weeksville: The Archaeology of A Black Urban Community. In Archaeological Perspectives on Ethnicity in America: Afro American and Asian American Culture History edited by Robert L. Schuyler, pp. 38 47. Baywood, Farmingdale, New York. Burke, Diane Mutti 2003 Missouri Slave Families. In Searching for their Places: Women in the South Across Four Centuries edited by Thomas H. Appleton, Jr. and Angela Boswell, pp. 57 58. University of Missouri Press, Columbia, M issouri

PAGE 147

138 Byrd, John E. and Dalford D. Owens, Jr. 1997 A Method for Measuring Relative Abundance of Fragmented Archaeological Ceramics. Journal of Field Archaeology 24(3):315 320. Chase, Philip G. 1985 Whole Vessels and Sherds: An Experimental Investigation of their Quantitative Relationships. Journal of Field Archaeology 12(2): 213 218. Clites, Elizabeth and Brian McCray 2010 Monticello Before the Mansion: A Comparative Study of Early Domestic and Indus trial Structures on Mulberry Row. Poster presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Historical Archaeology, Jacksonville, F lorida 2010 The Retreat. Electronic document, http://www.poplarforest.org/retreat accessed June 2, 2010. Covey, Herbert C. and Dwight Eisnach 2009 What the Slaves Ate: Recollections of African American Foods and Foodways from the Slave Narratives Greenwood, Santa Barbara, California. Crader, Diana C. 1990 Slave Diet at Monticello. American Antiquity 55(4):690 717. Deetz, James 1993 Flowerdew Hundred: The Archaeology of a Virginia Plantation, 1619 1864 University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville, V irginia De Lucia, Kristin 2010 e Construction of Childhood in Early Postclassic Mexican Households. American Anthropologist 112(4):607 624. Diptee, Audra Abbe 2007 Imperial Ideas, Colonial Realities: Enslaved Children in Jamaica, 1775 1834. In Children in Colonial America edited by J ames Marten, pp. 48 60. New York University Press, New York. Edwards, Ywone D. 1998 and Archaeological Analysis of Slave Houses and Yards. In Keep Your Head to the Sky: Interpreting Afr ican American Home Ground edited by Grey Gundacker, pp. 246 271. University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia.

PAGE 148

139 Egloff, B. J. 1973 A Method for Counting Ceramic Rim Sherds. American Antiquity 38(3):351 353. Ferguson, Leland 1992 Uncommon G round: Archaeology and Early African America, 1650 1800 Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C Fesler, Garrett R. 2004 Living Arrangements among Enslaved Women and Men at an Early Eighteenth Century Virginia Quartering Site. In Engendering Afri can American Archaeology: A Southern Perspective edited by Jillian E. Galle and Amy L. Young, pp. 177 236. The University Of Tennessee Press, Knoxville Tennessee Flannery, Kent V and Marcus C. Winter 1976 Analyzing Household Activities. In The Early Mesoamerican Village edited by Kent V. Flannery, pp. 34 47. Academic Press, New York. Fogel, Robert William 1989 Without Consent or Contract: The Rise and Fall of American Slavery W. W. Norton & Company, New York. Galle, Jillian E. 2004 Designing Wo men: Measuring Acquisition and Access at the Hermitage Plantation. In Engendering African American Archaeology: A Southern Perspective edited by Jillian E. Galle and Amy L. Young, pp. 39 72. The University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, Tennesee. 2006 St rategic consumption: Archaeological evidence for costly signaling among enslaved men and women in the eighteenth century Chesapeake. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, V irginia 2010 Costl y Signaling and Gendered Social Strategies Among Slaves in the Eighteenth Century Chesapeake: An Archaeological Perspective. American Antiquity 75(1):19 43. Geismar, Joan H. 1980 Skunk Hollow: A Preliminary Statement on Archaeological Investigations at a 19 th Century Black Community. In Archaeological Perspectives on Ethnicity in America: Afro American and Asian American Culture History edited by Robert L. Schuyler, pp. 60 68. Baywood, Farmingdale, New York.

PAGE 149

140 Genovese, Eugene D. 1970 The Influence of the Black Powder Movement on Historical Scholarship: Reflections of a White Historian. Daedalus 99:473 494. Gerritsen, Fokke 2004 Archaeological Perspectives on Local Communities. In A Companion to Archaeology edited by John Bintliff, pp. 141 154. Blac kwell, Malden, M assachusetts Gifford, E. W. 1951 Archaeological Excavations in Fiji. Anthropological Records 13:189 288. Gordon Reed, Annette 2008 The Hemingses of Monticello: An American Family W. W. Norton, New York.a Hammond, Gawain and Norman Ha mmond 1981 American Antiquity 46(3):634 636. Heath, Barbara J. 1999 rican American Life edited by Theresa A. Singleton, pp. 193 217. University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville, V irginia 2004 Engendering Choice: Slavery and Consumerism in Central Virginia. In Engendering African American Archaeology: A Southern Persp ective edited by Jillian E. Galle and Amy L. Young, pp. 19 38. The University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, T ennessee Heath, Barbara J. and Amber Bennett 2000 American Yards. Histori cal Archaeology 34(2):38 55. Hendon, Julia A. 1996 Archaeological Approaches to the Organization of Domestic Labor: Household Practice and Domestic Relations. Annual Review of Anthropology 25:45 61. Herndon, Ruth Wallis 2001 Unwelcome Americans: Living on the Margin in Early New England University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.

PAGE 150

141 Herndon, Ruth Wallis and John E. Murray 2009 Apprenticeship. In Children Bound to Labor: The Pauper A pprentice System in Early America edited by Ruth Wallis Herndon and John E. Murray, pp. 3 18. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York. Hill, Martha 2002 Building j /Nailery/Nailery Addition. Manuscript on file, Monticello Department of Archaeology, Ch arlottesville, V irginia 2003 Mulberry Row Project Summary. Manuscript on file, Jefferson Library, Charlottesville, V irginia Hill, Matthew E., Jr. 2007 A Moveable Feast: Variation in Faunal Resource Use among Central and Western North American Paleoindi an Sites. American Antiquity 72(3):417 438. Hudson, Larry E., Jr. 1997 To Have and to Hold: Slave Work and Family Life in Antebellum South Carolina The University of Georgia Press, Athens Georgia Illick, Joseph E. 2002 American Childhoods. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia. Jackson, Susan 1977 Current Research: Southeast. Society for Historical Archaeology Newsletter 10(2):21 24. James, Allison 2007 Potentials. Amer ican Anthropologist 109(2):261 272. James, Allison and Alan Prout 1990 Introduction. In Constructing and Reconstructing Childhood: Contemporary Issues in the Sociological Study of Childhood edited by Alan Prout and Allison James, pp. 1 6. The Falmer pres s, New York. Jefferson, Thomas 1793 1795 Field notes of a survey, of the feilds of Monticello, begun Sep. 27, 1793. Manuscript on file, Massachusetts Historical Society, Boston. 1796 1800 Nailery Account Book. Manuscript on file, William Andrews Clark Me morial Library, University of California, Los Angeles California 1802 To James Dinsmore. Manuscript on file, Jefferson Library, Charlottesville, V irginia

PAGE 151

142 2000a To Henry Remsen. In The Papers of Thomas Jefferson Vol. 28, edited by John pp. 304 305. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N ew J ersey 2000b To James Lyle. In The Papers of Thomas Jefferson Vol. 28, edited by John Catanzariti, pp. 405 406. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N ew J ersey 2000c To Jean Nicolas Demeunier. In The Paper s of Thomas Jefferson Vol. 28, edited by John Catanzariti, pp. 340 342. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N ew J ersey 2000d To John Adams. In The Papers of Thomas Jefferson Vol. 28, edited by John Catanzariti, pp. 363. Princeton University Press, P rinceton, N ew J ersey 2000e To John McDowell. In The Papers of Thomas Jefferson Vol. 31, edited by John Catanzariti, pp. 83. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N ew J ersey 2000f To Thomas Mann Randolph. In The Papers of Thomas Jefferson Vol. 28, ed ited by John Catanzariti, pp. 579 580. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N ew J ersey 2000g To Thomas Mann Randolph. In The Papers of Thomas Jefferson Vol. 28, edited by John Catanzariti, pp. 616 617. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N ew J ersey 2000h To Henry Remsen. In The Papers of Thomas Jefferson Vol. 28, edited by John Catanzariti, pp. 388 389 Princeton University Press, Princeton, N ew J ersey 2002 Declaration for the Mutual Assurance Society. In The Papers of Thomas Jefferson Vol. 29 edited by Barbara B. Oberg, pp. 239 244. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N ew J ersey 2003a Farm Book, 1774 1824. Electronic document, http://www.thomasjeffersonpapers.org, accessed March 29, 2010. 2003b Farm Book, 1774 1824, Page 52. Electronic document, http://www.masshist.org/thomasjeffersonpapers/cfm/doc.cfm?id=farm_52&archiv e=all&hi=on&mode=&noimages=&numrecs=13&query=77&queryid=&rec=&st art=1&tag=text&user=, accessed January 10, 2011. 2003c Farm Book, 1774 1824, Page 56. Electronic document, http://www.masshist.org/thomasjeffersonpapers/cfm/doc.cfm?id=farm_56&numr ecs=16&archive=farm&hi=on&mode=&query=56&queryid=&rec=5&noimages= &start=1&tag=text&user=, accessed January 10, 2011.

PAGE 152

143 2008a From Richard Richardson. Electronic document, http://rotun da.upres s .virginia.edu/founders/TSJN 01 32 02 0238, accessed June 16, 2010. 2008b To Richard Richardson. Electronic document, http://rotunda.upres s .virginia.edu/founders/TSJN 01 31 02 0309, accessed June 16, 2010. Jewett, Clayton E. and John O. Allen 20 04 Slavery in the South: A State by State History Greenwood Press, Westport, C onnecticut Kamp, Kathryn A. 2001 Where Have All the Children Gone? The Archaeology of Childhood. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 8(1):1 34. 2002 Working for a Li ving: Childhood in the Prehistoric Southwestern Pueblos. In Children in the Prehistoric Puebloan Southwest edited by Kathryn A. Kamp, pp. 71 89. The University Of Utah Press, Salt Lake City Utah Kelso, William M. 1984 Kingsmill Plantations, 1619 1800 : Archaeology of Country Life in Colonial Virginia Academic Press, San Diego, C alifornia 1997 Archaeology at Monticello: Artifacts of Everyday Life in the Plantation Community Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation, Charlottesville, V irginia Kent, Sus an 1992 Studying Variability in the Archaeological Record: An Ethnoarchaeological Model for Distinguishing Mobility Patterns. American Antiquity 57(4):635 660. King, Julia A. 1994 Rural Landscape in the Mid Nineteenth Century Chesapeake. In Historical A rchaeology of the Chesapeake edited by Paul A. Shackel and Barbara J. Little, pp. 283 299. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D. C. 2006 Household archaeology, identities, and biographies. In The Cambridge Companion to Historical Archaeology ed ited by Dan Hicks and Mary C. Beaudry, pp. 293 313. Cambridge University Press, New York. King, Wilma 1995 Stolen Childhood: Slave Youth in Nineteenth Century America Indiana University Press, Bloomington, I ndiana

PAGE 153

144 Knight, Vernon James, Jr. 2004 Char acterizing Elite Midden Deposits at Moundville. American Antiquity 69(2):304 321. Library of Congress, Manuscript Division 2010 Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Mann Randolph, Jr., Janurary 9, 1801. Electronic document, http://memory.loc.gove/cgi bin/query/P?m tj:98:./temp/~ammem_eMGZ::, accessed June 16, 2010. Lillehammer, Grete 1989 Norwegian Archaeological Review 22(2):89 105. 2000 The World of Children. In Children and Material Culture edited by Joanna Sofaer Derevenski, pp. 17 26. Routledge, New York. Lucy, Sam 2005 The Archaeology of Age. In The Archaeology of Identity: Approaches to Gender, Age, Status, Ethnicity and Religion edited by Margarita Diaz Andreu, Sam Lucy, Stasa Babic David N. Edwards, pp. 43 66. Routledge, New York. Marks, Bayly E. 1987 The Journal of Southern History 53(4):537 564. Markin, Julie G. 1997 Elite Stoneworking and the Function of Mounds at Mou ndville. Mississippi Archaeology 32:117 135. Marten, James 2007 Introduction. In Children in Colonial America edited by James Marten, pp. 1 10. New York University Press, New York. McEwan, Barbara 1991 Thomas Jefferson: Farmer McFarland & Company, Je fferson, N orth C arolina McLaughlin, Jack 1988 Jefferson and Monticello: The Biography of a Builder Henry Holt and Company, New York. Miller, Allen, Lucia Stanton and Dianne Swann Wright 2007 Getting Word: African Americans at Monticello, Daily Life: 1803 1805. Electronic document, http://www.monticello.org/gettingword/farmbook1803.html, accessed June 14, 2010.

PAGE 154

145 Mintz, Steven 2004 A History of American Childhood Belknap, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Morgan, Edmund S. 1975 American Slavery American Freedom: The Ordeal of Colonial Virginia W. W. Norton and Company, New York. Morgan, Philip D. 1998 Slave Counterpoint: Black Culture in the Eighteenth Century Chesapeake and Lowcountry University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, N orth C arolina Morgan, Philip D. and Michael L. Nicholls 1989 Slaves in Piedmont Virginia, 1720 1790. The William and Mary Quarterly 46(2):212 251. Mrozowski, Stephen A., Maria Franklin, Leslie Hunt 2008 Archaeobotanical Analysis and Interpretations of Ensl aved Virginian Plant Use at Rich Neck Plantation (44WB52). American Antiquity 73(4):699 728. Nance, Jack 1987 Reliability, Validity, and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology. In Quantitative Research in Archaeology: Progress and Prospects edited by Mark S. Aldendorfer, pp. 244 293. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, California. Nash, Donna J. 2009 Household Archaeology in the Andes. Journal of Archaeological Research 17(3):205 261. Netting, Robert McC., Richard R. Wilk and Eric J. Arnould 1984 Introdu ction. In Households: Comparative and Historical Studies of the Domestic Group edited by Robert McC. Netting, Richard R. Wilk and Eric J. Arnould, pp. xiii xxxviii. University of California Press, Berkeley California Neiman, Fraser, Leslie McFaden, and Derek Wheeler 2000 Archaeological Investigation of the Elizabeth Hemings Site (44AB438) Electronic document, http://www.monticello.org/sites/default/files/inline pdfs/hemings.pdf accessed March 17, 2011. Oberg, Barbara B. (editor) 2002 The Papers of Thomas Jefferson Vol. 29. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N ew J ersey

PAGE 155

146 Oberg, Barbara B. and J. Jefferson Looney 2008 The Papers of Thomas Jefferson Digital Edition. Electronic document, http://rotunda.upress.virginia.edu/founders/TSJN 01 32 02 0354, accessed June 14, 2010. Orser, Charles E., Jr. 1990 Archaeological Approaches to New World Plantation Slavery. In Archaeological Method and Theory edited by Michael B. Schiffer, pp. 111 154. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, A rizona Orser, C harles E., Jr. and Pedro P. A. Funari 2001 Archaeology and Slave Resistance and Rebellion. World Archaeology 33(1):61 71. Orton, Clive 1982 Computer Simulation Experiments to Assess the Performance of Measures of Quantity of Pottery. World Archaeology 1 4(1):1 20. Orton, Clive, Paul Tyers, and Alan Vince 1993 Pottery in Archaeology Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Otto, John Solomon 1984 1860: Living Conditions and Status Patterns in the Old South Academic Press Orlando, Florida. Pi Sunyer, Oriol 1957 Archaeological Explorations at Monticello Along Mulberry Row Manuscript on file at the Department of Archaeology, Thomas Jefferson Foundation, Charlottesville, V irginia Pierson, Hamilton W. 1971 Jefferson at Monticello: The Private Life of Thomas Jefferson Books for Libraries Press, Freeport, New York. Pluckhahn, Thomas J. 2010 Household Archaeology in the Southeastern United States: History, Trends, and Challenges. Journal of Archaeological Research 18(4): 331 385. Reed, B. Bernetiae 2007 The Slave Families of Thomas Jefferson: A Pictoral Study Book with an Interpretation of his Farm Book in Genealogy Charts Vol. 1. Sylvest Sarah, Greensboro, N orth C arolina Reef, Catherine 2002 Childhood in America Fa cts on File, New York.

PAGE 156

147 Reinier, Jacqueline S. 1996 From Virtue to Character: American Childhood, 1775 1850 Twayne, New York. Rothschild, Nan A. 2002 Introduction. In Children in the Prehistoric Puebloan Southwest edited by Kathryn A. Kamp, pp. 1 13. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Roveland, Blythe E. 1997 Are Children Unknowable Archaeologically? Anthropology Newsletter April:14. 2001 Archaeological Approaches to the Study of Prehistoric Children: Past Trends and Future Directions. I n Children and Anthropology: Perspectives for the 21st Century edited by Helen B. Schwartzmann, pp. 39 56. Bergin & Garvey, Westport, C onnecticut Samford, Patricia 1996 The Archaeology of African American Slavery and Material Culture. The William and M ary Quarterly 53(1):87 114. 2004 Eighteenth and Nineteeth Century Plantations. In Engendering African American Archaeology: A Southern Perspective edited by Jillian E. Galle and Amy L. Young, pp. 151 175. The University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, T ennessee Sanford, Douglas W. 1984 A Report on the Archaeological Excavations at Monticello, Charlottesville, Virginia, 1982 1983 edited by William M. Kelso, Douglas W. Sanford, Dinah Crader Johnson, Sondy Sanford, and Anna Gruber. Manuscript on file at the Department of Archaeology, Thomas Jefferson Foundation, Charlottesville, V irginia 1996 Centu ry Virginia. In The Archaeology of 18th Century Virginia edited by Theodore R. Reinhart, pp. 131 148. Archaeological Society of Virginia, Richmond, V irginia Santley, Robert S. and Kenneth G. Hirth 1993 Prehispanic Domestic Units in Western Mesoamerica: Studies of the Household, Compound, and Residence. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida. SAS Institute Inc. 2002 2010 SAS/STAT Software Version 9.2. Cary, N orth C arolina

PAGE 157

148 Schneider, Dorothy and Carl J. Schneider 2007 Slavery in America Checkmark Book s, New York. Scholnick, Johnathon, Derek Wheeler and Fraser Neiman 2001 Mulberry Row Reassessment: The Building l Site. Electronic document, http://www.monticello.org/archaeology/publications/buildingl.html, accessed August 26, 2010. Schulz, Constance B 1985 Children and Childhood in the Eighteenth Century. In American Childhood: A Research Guide and Historical Handbook edited by Joseph M. Hawes and N. Ray Hiner, pp. 57 1 09. Greenwood Press, Wesport, Connecticut Schuyler, Robert L. 1980 Sandy Groun d: Archaeology of a 19 th Century Oystering Village. In Archaeological Perspectives on Ethnicity in America: Afro American and Asian American Culture History edited by Robert L. Schuyler, pp. 48 59. Baywood, Farmingdale, New York. Schwartz, Marie Jenkins 2000 Born in Bondage: Growing Up Enslaved in the Antebellum South Harvard University Press, Cambridge, M assachusetts 2001 Family Life in the Slave Quarters: Survival Strategies. Magazine of History 15(4):36 41. Scott, Elizabeth M. 2001 Food and Soci al Relations at Nina Plantation. American Anthropologist 103(3):671 691. Shayt, David Howard 1983 The Nailery of Thomas Jefferson: Ironworkin g in Arcadia. Unpublished American Studies Department, George Washington University, Washington, D.C. Singleton, Theresa A. 1999 An Introduction to African American Archaeology. In American Life edited by Theresa A. Singleton, pp. 1 17. University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville, V irginia Smith, Samuel D. 1977 Plantation Archaeology at the Hermitage: Some Suggested Patterns. Tennessee Anthropologist 2:152 163.

PAGE 158

149 Sofaer Derevenski, Joanna 1994 Where are the Children? Accessing Children in the Past. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 7 (1):7 20. 2000 Material Culture Shock: Confronting Expectations in the Material Culture of Children. In Children and Material Culture edited by Joanna Sofaer Derevenski, pp. 3 16. Routledge, New York. Solheim, Wilhelm G., II 1960 The Use of Sherd Weig hts and Counts in the Handling of Archaeological Data. Current Anthropology 1(4):325 329. Stanton, Lucia 1996 Slavery at Monticello Thomas Jefferson Foundation, Charlottesville, V irginia 2000 Free Some Day: The African American Families of Monticello Thomas Jefferson Foundation, Charlottesville, V irginia 2002 The Plantation: A Day In The Life. In edited by Thomas Jefferson Foundation, pp. 159 187. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, N orth C arolina Stanton, Lucia, Melanie Kielb, Joshua Rothman and Charles Irons 2008 Monticello Plantation Database. Electronic document, http://plantationdb.monticello.org, accessed March 28, 2010. Steckel, Richard H. 1986 A Peculiar Population: The Nutrition, Health, and Mortality of American Slaves from Childhood to Maturity. The Journal of Economic History 46(3):721 741. Stewart Abernathy, Leslie C. 2004 Separate Kitchens and Intimate Archaeology: Constructing Urban Slavery on the Antebellum Cotton Frontier in Wash ington, Arkansas. In Household Chores and Household Choices: Theorizing the Domestic Sphere in Historical Archaeology edited by Kerri S. Barile and Jamie C. Brandon, pp. 51 74. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, A labama Taylor, Alan 2001 Amer ican Colonies: The Settling of North America Penguin Books, New York. Thomas, Brian W. 1998 Power and Community: The Archaeology of Slavery at the Hermitage Plantation. American Antiquity 63(4):531 551.

PAGE 159

150 Thomas Jefferson Foundation 2003a Blacksmith Sho p. Electronic document, http://www.monticello.org/site/plantation and slavery/blacksmith shop, accessed March 27, 2010. 2003b The Farms. Electronic document, http://www.monticello.org/plantation/farms/index.html, accessed June 2, 2010. 2003c Monticello Home of Thomas Jefferson. Electronic document, www.monticello.org, accessed March 22, 2010. 2003d Nailmaking. Electronic document, http://www.monticello.org/site/plantation and slavery/nailmaking, accessed March 27, 2010. 2004 About the Database: Mea n Ceramic Dates and Mean Ceramic Date Types. Electronic document, http://www.daacs.org/aboutDatabase/MCDTypes.html, accessed August 30, 2010. 2005 Monticello Explorer. Electronic document, http://explorer.monticello.org/, accessed March 22, 2010. 2008 Nailmaking. Electronic document, http://wiki.monticello.org;mediawiki/index.php/Nailmaking accessed June 15, 2010. 2010 http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/timeline jeffersons life accessed June 2 0, 2010. Wells, Tom 1998 Nail Chronology: The Use of Technologically Derived Features. Historical Archaeology 32(2): 78 99. Wesson, Cameron B. 2008 Households and Hegemony: Early Creek Prestige Goods, Symbolic Capital, and Social Power. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, N ebraska Wilk, Richard 1991 Household Ecology: Economic Change and Domestic Life among Kekchi Maya in Belize. University of Arizona Press, Tucson Arizona

PAGE 160

151 Wilk, Richard R. and Robert McC. Netting 1984 Households: Changin g Forms and Functions. In Household: Comparative and Historical Studies of the Domestic Group edited by Robert McC. Netting, Richard R. Wilk and Eric J. Arnould, pp. 1 28. University of California Press, Berkeley, C alifornia Wilk, Richard R. and William L. Rathje 1982 Household Archaeology. American Behavioral Scientist 25:617 639. Wilkie, Laurie 2000a Creating Freedom: Material Culture and African American Identity at Oakley Plantation, Louisiana 1840 1950. Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rou ge, L ouisiana 2000b and Childhood. In Children and Material Culture edited by Joanna Sofaer Derevenski, pp. 100 113. Routledge, New York. Young, Amy L., Michael Tuma and Cliff Jenk ins 2001 The Role of Hunting to Cope with Risk at Saragossa Plantation, Natchez, Mississippi. American Anthropologist 103(3):692 704.

PAGE 161

152 Appendices

PAGE 162

153 Appendix A: Counts of Ceramics by Ware Type Table A1.1 Counts of Creamware, Chinese Por celain, Pearlware, and Dutch/British Delftware Site Creamware Chinese Porcelain Pearlware Delftware, Dutch/British Nailery 220 238 517 2 Blacksmith Shop 4 6 4 0 Building r Early Phase 417 100 516 4 MRS 2, Phase 1 195 72 45 15 MRS 2, Phase 2 52 15 5 0 0 Site 17 309 28 424 0 Building s Phase 1 916 327 1560 7 Building s Phase 2 194 95 641 3 Site 7, Phase 1 21 1 6 68 Site 7, Phase 2 289 16 46 107 Site 7, Phase 3 716 124 124 20 Building l Middle Phase 413 164 569 4 Drywell, Phase 1 599 131 1 16 4 Drywell, Phase 2 254 114 11 18 Site 8, House 1 13 8 3 6 Site 8, Phase 3a 455 35 108 53 Site 8, Phase 3b 644 85 72 12 Building o Phase 2 1530 802 350 71 Building o Phase 3 548 310 347 11 Elizabeth Hemings 174 86 464 0 Stewart Watkins 1680 125 15 35 0

PAGE 163

154 Appendix A (Continued) Table A1.2 Counts of White Salt Glaze, English Bone China Porcelain, Porcellaneous English Hard Paste, and Westerwald Site White Salt Glaze English Bone China Porcelain Porcellaneous English Hard Paste Westerwald Naile ry 2 1 2 2 Blacksmith Shop 1 0 0 0 Building r Early Phase 7 0 18 3 MRS 2, Phase 1 11 0 0 1 MRS 2, Phase 2 0 0 1 0 Site 17 0 0 0 0 Building s Phase 1 21 0 20 4 Building s Phase 2 5 0 40 0 Site 7, Phase 1 90 0 1 21 Site 7, Phase 2 93 0 0 39 Site 7, Phase 3 49 0 1 33 Building l Middle Phase 4 1 3 1 Drywell, Phase 1 282 0 0 1 Drywell, Phase 2 49 1 5 2 Site 8, House 1 4 1 5 4 Site 8, Phase 3a 31 1 37 10 Site 8, Phase 3b 13 0 7 7 Building o Phase 2 38 0 3 10 Building o Phase 3 10 2 7 2 El izabeth Hemings 2 0 1 0 Stewart Watkins 0 0 0 0

PAGE 164

155 Appendix A (Continued) Table A1.3 Counts of Whieldon Type Ware, Black Basalt, Astbury Type, Faience Site Whieldon Type Ware Black Basalt Astbury Type Faience Nailery 0 0 0 0 Blacksmith Sho p 0 0 0 0 Building r Early Phase 0 2 2 0 MRS 2, Phase 1 0 1 0 0 MRS 2, Phase 2 0 0 0 0 Site 17 0 0 0 0 Building s Phase 1 2 10 0 9 Building s Phase 2 0 5 0 0 Site 7, Phase 1 27 0 0 0 Site 7, Phase 2 18 0 2 0 Site 7, Phase 3 19 0 1 0 Building l Middle Phase 1 2 8 0 Drywell, Phase 1 1 0 0 0 Drywell, Phase 2 16 0 0 0 Site 8, House 1 1 0 0 0 Site 8, Phase 3a 18 0 0 0 Site 8, Phase 3b 9 0 0 0 Building o Phase 2 4 21 0 0 Building o Phase 3 2 9 3 0 Elizabeth Hemings 0 0 0 0 Stewart Watkins 1 0 0 0

PAGE 165

156 Appendix A (Continued) Table A1.4 Counts of Staffordshire Brown Stoneware, Jasperware, Jackfield Type, and Canary Ware Site Staffordshire Brown Stoneware Jasperware Jackfield Type Canary Ware Nailery 0 0 0 0 Blacksmith Shop 0 0 0 0 Building r Early Phase 0 0 0 1 MRS 2, Phase 1 2 0 0 0 MRS 2, Phase 2 1 0 0 0 Site 17 1 0 0 0 Building s Phase 1 3 5 0 2 Building s Phase 2 1 1 0 1 Site 7, Phase 1 0 0 1 0 Site 7, Phase 2 0 0 2 0 Site 7, Phase 3 0 0 3 0 Building l Middle Phase 0 0 0 1 Drywell, Phase 1 0 0 0 0 Drywell, Phase 2 0 0 0 0 Site 8, House 1 0 0 0 0 Site 8, Phase 3a 0 0 4 0 Site 8, Phase 3b 0 0 1 0 Building o Phase 2 21 0 9 0 Building o Phase 3 4 0 1 0 Elizabeth Hemings 0 0 0 1 Stewart Watkins 0 0 0 0

PAGE 166

157 Appendix A (Continued) Table A1.5 Counts of Whiteware, Nottingham, Rosso Antico, and Wedgwood Green Site Whiteware Nottingham Rosso Antico Wedgwood Green Nailery 3 0 0 0 Blacksmith Shop 0 0 0 0 Building r Early Phase 20 0 0 0 MRS 2, Pha se 1 3 0 0 0 MRS 2, Phase 2 5 0 0 0 Site 17 0 0 0 0 Building s Phase 1 5 0 0 0 Building s Phase 2 73 0 0 0 Site 7, Phase 1 1 0 0 0 Site 7, Phase 2 2 4 0 0 Site 7, Phase 3 0 4 0 0 Building l Middle Phase 7 0 0 0 Drywell, Phase 1 0 0 0 0 Drywell Phase 2 5 0 0 0 Site 8, House 1 1 0 0 0 Site 8, Phase 3a 188 2 0 0 Site 8, Phase 3b 6 1 0 0 Building o Phase 2 1 0 5 12 Building o Phase 3 29 0 0 4 Elizabeth Hemings 0 0 0 0 Stewart Watkins 12 0 0 0

PAGE 167

158 Appendix A (Continued) Table A 1.6 Counts of American Stoneware, British Stoneware, Redware, and Buckley Site American Stoneware British Stoneware Redware Buckley Nailery 4 3 2 0 Blacksmith Shop 1 0 0 0 Building r Early Phase 15 26 6 1 MRS 2, Phase 1 3 3 4 0 MRS 2, Phase 2 2 4 1 1 Site 17 9 14 18 0 Building s Phase 1 107 35 24 2 Building s Phase 2 67 23 35 0 Site 7, Phase 1 0 22 28 0 Site 7, Phase 2 4 48 239 0 Site 7, Phase 3 2 55 90 0 Building l Middle Phase 19 5 9 6 Drywell, Phase 1 0 26 70 5 Drywell, Phase 2 2 7 1 6 8 Site 8, House 1 2 4 0 0 Site 8, Phase 3a 14 20 101 7 Site 8, Phase 3b 46 26 143 7 Building o Phase 2 14 38 12 1 Building o Phase 3 18 12 4 0 Elizabeth Hemings 0 0 3 0 Stewart Watkins 0 79 30 0

PAGE 168

159 Appendix A (Continued) Table A1.7 C ounts of Fulham Type, Germ an Stoneware, and Staffordshire Mottled Glaze Site Fulham Type German Stoneware Staffordshire Mottled Glaze Nailery 0 0 0 Blacksmith Shop 0 0 0 Building r Early Phase 11 0 0 MRS 2, Phase 1 1 2 0 MRS 2, Phase 2 2 0 0 Site 17 1 0 3 Building s Phase 1 14 0 0 Building s Phase 2 1 0 0 Site 7, Phase 1 1 0 0 Site 7, Phase 2 3 3 2 Site 7, Phase 3 2 0 1 Building l Middle Phase 1 0 0 Drywell, Phase 1 20 0 0 Drywell, Phase 2 8 0 0 Site 8, House 1 3 0 0 Site 8, Phase 3a 1 6 0 0 Site 8, Phase 3b 2 0 0 Building o Phase 2 41 0 0 Building o Phase 3 9 0 0 Elizabeth Hemings 0 0 0 Stewart Watkins 2 0 0

PAGE 169

160 Appendix A (Continued) Table A1.8 Counts of Iberian Ware North Midlands/Staffordshire Slipware, and Frechen Brown Site Iberian Ware North Midlands/Staffordshire Slipware Frechen Brown Nailery 0 0 0 Blacksmith Shop 0 0 0 Building r Early Phase 0 0 0 MRS 2, Phase 1 0 0 0 MRS 2, Phase 2 0 0 0 Site 17 0 0 0 Building s Phase 1 1 2 0 Building s Phase 2 4 1 1 Site 7, Phase 1 0 10 0 Site 7, Phase 2 0 29 0 Site 7, Phase 3 0 8 0 Building l Middle Phase 1 0 0 Drywell, Phase 1 0 5 0 Drywell, Phase 2 0 0 0 Site 8, House 1 0 0 0 Site 8, Phase 3a 0 0 0 Site 8, Phase 3b 0 0 0 Building o Phase 2 3 2 0 B uilding o Phase 3 0 8 0 Elizabeth Hemings 0 0 0 Stewart Watkins 0 0 0

PAGE 170

161 Appendix A (Continued) Table A1.9 Counts of Yellow Ware, Ironstone/White Granite, and Bennington/Rockingham Site Yellow Ware Ironstone/ White Granite Bennington/ Rock ingham Nailery 0 0 0 Blacksmith Shop 0 0 0 Building r Early Phase 1 2 0 MRS 2, Phase 1 0 0 0 MRS 2, Phase 2 0 0 0 Site 17 0 0 0 Building s Phase 1 1 0 0 Building s Phase 2 8 18 0 Site 7, Phase 1 0 0 0 Site 7, Phase 2 0 1 0 Site 7, Phase 3 0 1 0 Building l Middle Phase 0 2 0 Drywell, Phase 1 0 1 0 Drywell, Phase 2 0 1 0 Site 8, House 1 0 0 0 Site 8, Phase 3a 2 0 0 Site 8, Phase 3b 0 0 0 Building o Phase 2 0 0 0 Building o Phase 3 0 1 0 Elizabeth Hemings 0 0 1 Stewart Watkins 0 0 0

PAGE 171

162 Appendix B : Comparative Sites Site 7 slopes down toward the east. It made up one settlement with Site 8, located only feet s single domestic site, used by both overseers and Plantation. As mentioned, the area was home to an overseer during the Monticello Plantation period, and was in use from c. 1770 until c. 1805. Documentary evidence suggests Samuel Biddle, overseer from 1793 1794, lived in that structure. Site 7 was discovered in 1997 during the Monticello Plantation Archaeological Survey and excavations were done in 1997 1999 and 2004 and 20 06 by Monticello Department of Archaeology staff. The deposits for this site were located in the plowzone, so the site could not be split into phases using the DAACS method. However, the site was phased for the purposes of this research and Phase 3, with an MCD of 1786, was included as a comparison site (Karen Smith, personal communication 2010).

PAGE 172

163 Appendix B (Continued) Site 8 Site 8 was a domestic site located 130 feet from Site 7. This site once housed enslaved field hands and was occupied between 1770 and 1800. Although this site was not phased using the DAACS formula because it only had one stratigraphic group (plowzone), it was phased by Monticello archaeologists through Correspondence Analysis. Phases H1 (House 1), 3a, and 3b were used for this researc h. Phase H1 had an MCD of 1789, and Phase 3a had an MCD of 1807 and Phase 3b showed an MCD of 1792. Building o Building o is a Mulberry Row slave quarter site dating to c. 1770 1800, a period that coincides with the construction and occupation of th e first Monticello mansion. Evidence also indicates a possible post 1800 occupation. Fragments of stone foundation provide evidence for two distinct construction phases. The first phase consisted of a log cabin built in the 1770s and used until its dest ruction in the 1790s, after which Building o as described in the 1796 Mutual Assurance Society plat, was constructed. This slave quarter was also made of wood and had a large stone lined cellar and a small brick root cellar. Building o was excavated in 1 981 1982 by Kelso. The site was divided into five DAACS phases. During this study, Phases 2 and 3 were used for comparison to the nailery. The MCD of Phase 2 is 1785, and the MCD of Phase 3 is 1792.

PAGE 173

164 Appendix B (Continued) Dry W ell This deep pit wa Mulberry Row, in the area known as the West Kitchen Yard. The dry well was used as a cool, dry food storage pit. This feature was initially discovered by Kelso in 1979 and he led the full excavation in 1980 1981. West Kitchen Yard Phases 1 and 2, which represent the dry well and several other deposits, were relabeled as Dry Well Phases 1 and 2 for the purposes of this research. The MCD of Phase 1 is 1776 and the Phase 2 MCD is 1782. MRS 2 Mulberry Row Structure 2, known as MRS 2, was a domestic structure that was documents. It was probably occupied during the late 1780s and 1790s, and possibly into the early 1800s. A large sub floor pit or small cellar was found, along with domestic debris. It is currently unknown whether MRS 2 housed slaves or free white workers; the sub floor pit/cellar was much larger than other sub floor pits found in known slave dwellings on Mul berry Row, possibly indicating a free person occupation (Clites and McCray 2010). Phases 1 and 2 were used in this analysis. Phase 1 has an MCD of 1789 and Phase 2 has an MCD of 1811 (Karen Smith, personal communication 2010).

PAGE 174

165 Appendix B (Continue d) Blacksmith Shop The blacksmith shop on Mulberry Row was identified in 1957 by Pi Sunyer. Kelso led the complete excavation in 1982 excavated as one site with the attached nailery. The excavation revealed a cobble f loor this site is 1792. Stewart Watkins The Stewart Watkins site is the remnants of a log home with a stone foundation, brick and stone chimney base, stone hearth, and a cellar. It is located approximately 650 feet south southwest of the western edge of Mulberry Row on the southern slope of Monticello mountain. The building may have been constructed around 1799 or 1800 for blacksmith Mr. Powel, who never actually resided at Monticello. William Stewart, a blacksmith, began living there in 1801 with his family, and he lived there until his dismissal around 1807. Elisha Watkins, a carp enter, was the next occupant of the site and lived in the house between Autumn 1808 and 1810. The house appears to have been abandoned and building dismantled after Watkins left. The site was initially investigated by William Boyer in 1981 and Kelso dire cted a more complete excavation in 1989 1991. The MCD of this site is 1796; the early date of the MCD compared to known occupation dates is caused by the well used ceramics found at the site, which demonstrate the low economic position that white laborers had.

PAGE 175

166 Appendix B (Continued) Building r Building r was a log slave quarter built c. 1794 on Mulberry Row and occupied until the sale of Monticello in 1831. The building was intended to house a single family and probably looked very similar to Buildi ngs s and t Interestingly, documents point to Critta Hemings (sister to Sally Hemings) and John Hemings (brother to Sally Hemings) and his wife Priscilla as residents of Building r The remains of this structure, excavated by Kelso in 1983, were heavily disturbed during the construction of twentieth century parking lots. For the abundance i ndex analysis the Early Phase (Phase E) was used. This phase was created by combining Phases 1 and 2, which had the same MCD. The MCD for Phase E in this analysis w as calculated to be 1799. Building s Building s was another single family log slave quarter on Mulberry Row and built in the mid earth floor, a stone chimney base, and a wood lined subfloor pit. Sally Hemings may have lived in Building s upon her return from France; this would have enabled her to be close to her sister Critta (resident of Building r ). A French delft medicine jar found at Building s supports this hypothesis. Kelso led the excavation of this building in 1983 and noted some damage from twentieth century road grading, although enough of the structure remained to provide evidence of its l ayout and appearance. Phases 1 and 2 were u sed as comparison sites in the abundance i ndices. The MCD of Phase 1 is 1798 and the MCD of Phase 2 is 1812.

PAGE 176

167 Appendix B (Continued) Site 17 ll Field. who was overseer from 1806 1822. Site 17 was excavated in 2009 and 2010 by a joint partnership between Washington and Lee University and Monticello Department o f Archaeology. The excavation was led by Alison Bell and no significant architectural stratigraphic layer prevented it from being separated into phases for this study. T he MCD for Site 17 is 1797. Building l Building l the storehouse for nailrod and iron, was used for multiple purposes over its lifetime from the mid 1790s to 1826. Evidence indicates that this Mulberry Row structure was used as a tinsmithing shop, a n ailery, a slave quarter, and place to store nailrod. This log building was excavated partially by Pi Sunyer in 1957 and fully by Kelso in 1981. The excavations revealed a partial cobble and brick floor and d for comparison in the Abundance Indices and it has an MCD of 1797. This phase was created by a combination of DAACS Phases 3, 4, and 5, which had very close MCD dates of 1795, 1797, and 1796 consecutively.

PAGE 177

168 Appendix B (Continued) Elizabeth Hemings The Elizabeth Hemings site represents the home where the enslaved matriarch of the Hemings clan spent the last 10 years of her life from c. 1795 to her death in 1807. The house, located on southern slopes about 350 feet south of Mulberry Row, was const ructed of logs and had a brick and stone chimney. It was excavated during three field schools in 1981, 1995, and 1996. These field schools were led by William Boyer, Susan Kern, and Fraser Neiman, respectively. The MCD of this site is 1797.


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.