bowes 2011 jofe article

7/31/2019 Bowes 2011 JofE Article

1/21

PROVISIONED, PRODUCED, PROCURED:SLAVE SUBSISTENCE STRATEGIES AND SOCIAL

RELATIONS AT THOMAS JEFFERSONS POPLAR FOREST

Jessica Bowes

Enslaved African and African Americans in the American South during the 17th through 19th centuries livedwithin a social order established by plantation owners and reinforced through the control of food. Therefore, the

ways slaves acquired their food and other subsistence goods demonstrates aspects of the plantations socialrelations. This article examines the connection between slaves subsistence strategies and plantation socialrelations at Thomas Jeffersons Poplar Forest through the analysis of macrobotanical remains. Excavations atPoplar Forest uncovered a sub-floor pit of an antebellum slave cabin that was occupied from the 1840s through1858 and possibly as late as the abolition of slavery. The seeds and wood indicate that the slaves subsistencestrategies included provisioning or receiving food from the plantation owner, production or slaves growing theirown food, and procurement or the gathering of wild plants. By comparing the results from this sub-floor pit toanalyses of macrobotanicals dating to Thomas Jeffersons ownership, I investigate aspects of plantation socialrelations at Poplar Forest and offer a better understanding of the social and natural environment in which theenslaved African Americans lived.

Key words: paleoethnobotany, slave subsistence, plantation social relations, Poplar Forest Virginia

Au cours des XVIIe et XIXe siecles, les esclaves africains et afro-americains du sud des Etats-Unis vivaient selonun ordre social particulier. Ce dernier etait etabli par les proprietaires de plantations et constamment renforce

par le controle de la nourriture. Aussi, une etude portant sur la facon dont les esclaves obtenaient leur nourritureet autres biens alimentaires permettrait dillustrer quelques aspects des relations sociales e voluant au sein des

plantations. Cet article examine donc la relation entre les strategies de subsistance des esclaves et les relationssociales au Thomas Jeffersons Poplar Forest. Les fouilles archeologiques sur ce site ont mis a jour une fosse sousune habitation occupee par des esclaves avant la guerre de Secession, soit dans les annees 1840 a 1858, et

probablement jusqua labolition de lesclavage. Les graines et le bois provenant de cette fosse indiquent que lesstrategies de subsistance des esclaves incluaient lapprovisionnement par le proprietaire, la production de leur

propre nourriture par la culture de certaines plantes et la collecte de plantes sauvages. En comparant lesresultats de lanalyse de cette fosse avec dautres analyses de macrorestes vegetaux datant de la periode ouThomas Jefferson etait proprietaire, je peux examiner certains aspects des relations sociales sur la plantation de

Poplar Forest et offrir une meilleure comprehension de lenvironnement social et naturel dans lequel lesesclaves afro-americains vivaient.

Slavery boomed in the American South during the late 17th through early19th centuries. Many of the enslaved Africans and African Americans wereforced to live and work on plantations where owners constantly reinforced theircontrol. Patterson (1982:1) synthesizes the relationship between the slave and theslave-owner writing, slavery is one of the most extreme forms of the relation ofdomination, approaching the limits of total power from the viewpoint of themaster, and of total powerlessness from the viewpoint of the slave. However,this domination often did not culminate in a single individual fully controlling

the enslaved because, power relations are always two-way; that is to say,

Jessica Bowes, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY (e-mail: [email protected]). Recipient of the 2009Barbara Lawrence Award.

Journal of Ethnobiology 31(1): 89109 Spring/Summer 2011


2/21

however subordinate an actor may be in a social relationship, the very fact of

involvement in that relationship gives him or her a certain amount of power overthe other (Giddens 1979:6). It was within this context of power that slaves andtheir white owners, plantation managers and overseers interacted. Entwined inthe slave-owner relationship, enslaved Africans and African Americans andplantation owners regularly redefined the parameters that characterized slaveryfor each plantation. The decisions made by the seemingly powerful andpowerless, the owner and the slave, reverberated within the slave-masterrelationship and what is recovered archaeologically are tangible representationsof this relationship.

Many plantation owners manipulated the daily life of their slave labor in aneffort to reinforce the social order that kept the enslaved inferior and reliant on

their owners (Blassingame 1972). Among plantations, slaves access to food varied.Many planters were not concerned with their slaves nutritional requirements orthe palatability of their diet, but with efficiency, specifically how to economicallyfeed slaves in order to receive the desired amount of labor from them (McKee1999). Owner-supplied, or provisioned, foods established both plantation control the management of the business and social control the power over the enslaved(Lange and Handler 1985). However, provisioned foods were not the only meansof sustenance for enslaved communities. Franklin (2001:93) writes, while the foodprovisioning system controlled by slave owners played a major role in slave diets,it neither ruled their palates nor dictated how they attached meaning to food. At

some plantations, slaves were encouraged to produce their own food in gardenplots adjacent to their houses, and from some zooarchaeological analyses it is clearthat slaves procured their own food by hunting wild animals (Crader 1990). Thevaried ways of acquiring food on plantations reflect levels of social control. Usingfaunal remains, McKee (1999) created a model of the food supply to understandthe plantation social order. His analysis indicates a relationship between the sourceof slaves meat and the owners attitude toward the sources legitimacy. Forinstance, rations were controlled by the owner and therefore viewed as anacceptable source of food, whereas stolen food took control from the owner andwas discouraged (McKee 1999).

Subsistence strategies can illustrate some dynamics of slave-owner powerrelationships. Owners expressed their control through provisioned foods. Slaveowners established control simply by producing the necessary surplus needed tofeed slaves, and the ability of an owner to provision his slaves is indicative ofsuperior skill, vitality, and/or control over the labor of others (Wiessner1996:6). Because the provisioned rations were often grown with the labor of theenslaved but appropriated by the owners, these goods illustrate the ownerscontrol as they managed the resources the slaves accessed.

Food and other subsistence goods the slaves gathered from the variousenvironments around the plantation or grew in their own gardens reflect theirown, albeit small, control over their lives. In some instances, slaves were

encouraged to supplement their diet with wild resources (procured) or thosecultivated (produced) in their own yards and gardens (Heath and Bennett 2000;Westmacott 1992). Procured wood and other plant parts gathered from non-cultivated plants reflect the slaves relationship with the environment and their

90 BOWES Vol. 31, No. 1


3/21

ability to move across the landscape. Produced plants illustrate slaves

interaction and connection with the immediate dwelling and yard, an areaeasily accessed and utilized. These yards were laden with meaning as a slaveyard is said to be, at once a part of the domestic compound and a mediatingspace between the natural, public world and the constructed, private world of thedwelling (Heath and Bennett 2000:38). So slaves maintained some control in thisbuffer area between the slave cabin and the surrounding plantation.

The role of plants in slave foodways is poorly understood. Botanical remainsfrom archaeological sites provide information about slave subsistence andplantation social relationships that complement existing studies, which havelargely focused on documentary records or faunal remains (although seeMrozowski et al. 2008). Primary documents help fill in the gaps regarding the

plant portion of the diet and can complement the more common archaeologicalfaunal analyses, which are often privileged because bones have highersurvivorship rates in archaeological contexts (Crader 1990; McKee 1999; Scott2001; Singleton 1995). However, documents alone do not properly represent thepractices on the plantation nor fully describe how plants were used; as McKee(1999:225) notes, it is curious that in their obsession with productionmeasurement and cost recording, the planters did not keep a running tally ofthe flow of food to the quarter, signifying the need for archaeological researchon such topics.

The paleoethnobotanical analysis presented here explores the subsistence

strategies of the enslaved African American population at Thomas JeffersonsPoplar Forest during the mid 19th century. Specifically, I investigate threestrategies, provisioning, procurement and production, using botanical remainsrecovered from a sub-floor pit within a slave dwelling that was occupied fromthe 1840s through 1858, and possibly as late as the abolition of slavery in 1865.Provisioned goods are those supplied by the owner or manager while procuredgoods are gathered from surrounding habitats. Production refers to resourcesgrown in the slaves gardens, typically located near their homes. I then comparethe plant portion of the diet to that of the enslaved community of ThomasJefferson, who occupied the site several decades earlier. The various datasets are

used to access social relationships throughout the various occupations of the site,and to uncover attitudes towards slaves during the late 18th and early 19thcentury and those leading up to the Civil War.

Poplar Forest: Jefferson and Hutter Occupations

Martha Wayles Skelton Jefferson and her husband Thomas Jeffersoninherited the 5,000-acre Poplar Forest (Figure 1) along with 135 slaves in 1773,after the death of Marthas father (Heath 1999:9; Heath et al. 2004). At this time,Thomas Jeffersons public life was at his main home, Monticello, in Charlottes-ville, Virginia, and Poplar Forest served as his retreat. He was largely absent from

the plantation, managing from afar through letters to overseers as was commonfor plantations in the Piedmont (Heath 2004). Jefferson was not unusual, as somelandowners with well-established property in the more developed coastalregions also owned secondary plantations in the Piedmont. As such, many did

Spring/Summer 2011 JOURNAL OF ETHNOBIOLOGY 91


4/21

not continuously reside on their Piedmont properties, resulting in a slave owner-relationship based on distance (Morgan 1988). However, Jefferson became moreinvolved in Poplar Forest activities after starting construction on the octagonalmain house in 1806 (Heath et al. 2004; McDonald 2000). After Jeffersons death in1826, 1,100 acres of Poplar Forest and several enslaved individuals were left tohis grandson, Francis Eppes, who then sold the plantation to William Cobbs.Cobbs resided on the plantation with his family and in 1842 his daughter, Emma,and her husband, Edward S. Hutter, began managing the property, aresponsibility that extended well beyond the abolition of slavery in 1865 (Heath

et al. 2004).Edward and Emma Hutter lived at Poplar Forest with their children. They

raised livestock and grew wheat (Triticum sp.) and clover (Trifolium sp.). Hutteradded tobacco (Nicotiana sp.) to the crop rotation in an attempt to offset the costsof rebuilding the main house after a fire in 1845 (Hutter 1846). The Huttersmaintained a small number of slaves, between 10 and 30, and there was littlefamily growth among the slave population leading up to abolition (Heath et al.2004:5). Edward Hutter listed the birth and deaths of his slaves in his farmjournal in the same manner as he recorded his livestock, however familycorrespondence suggests a bond beyond merely chattel-owner. In a letter to

Edward dated September 30, 1846, his father writes about the Hutters blackfamily and comments on the recent death of a slave (Hutter 1846). The Huttersyoungest son reported that when Federal troops arrived in Bedford County in1864, they took all they could from Poplar Forest except 10 faithful negroes(Heath et al. 2004:5). It is possible that the slaves were viewed as family.

The enslaved African American community is a central part of the ongoingarchaeological research at Poplar Forest. Several excavated slave quarters andrelated features contribute to the understanding of African American life on theplantation (Heath et al. 2004, 2005; Raymer 1996, 2003). Prior macrobotanicalresearch at Poplar Forest from the North Hill Site and the Quarter Site sampledslave dwellings and related features dating to Jeffersons occupation (Raymer1996, 2003). The remains indicate that the enslaved African Americans wereforaging and exploiting the naturally occurring wild plants for fuel, food, andmedicine (Raymer 2003:72), which may have been obtained from the localenvironment or transplanted into the slaves gardens. These analyses provide

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



5/21

comparative data for the current project and allow for the exploration ofplantation management and social relationships at Poplar Forest from theThomas Jefferson and Edward Hutter periods.

Botanical Sampling and Analysis of the Hutter-Era Slave Cabin

For this analysis, I focus on the botanical materials recovered from a sub-floorpit associated with a mid-19th century slave cabin. Excavations at Site A(Figure 2) revealed a structure with a pit (Feature ER2352/4) and a stone filledfeature interpreted as a possible hearth (Heath et al. 2004). The sub-floor pitmeasured approximately 3 ft. by 3 ft., but an unknown portion of the pit wasmissing due to plowing in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Its stratigraphyconsisted of 11 lenses and layers, excluding intrusive elements like rodentburrows, planting holes and plow scars (Heath et al. 2004). Artifact analysis

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



6/21

suggests that the sub-floor pit was filled by discrete dumping episodes over a

short period of time (Heath et al. 2004:21).Subfloor pits are a common feature of slave dwellings. The size, shape andquantity of pits within a cabin varied, although many were located near a hearth.Samford (2007:8) postulates that sub-floor pits reflect the ethnic heritage andfood preference of the enslaved Igbos in Virginia since their first appearance islinked to the importation of labor from Africa. Sub-floor pits were multi-functional, which meant that slaves could store and conceal objects, such as food,personal items and stolen goods, from their overseers and owners. Edwards-Ingram (1999:158) states, root cellars may have participated in slaves search forautonomy, and possibly served as a form of resistance, which may account forplanters discouraging the use of such pits (Singleton 1995:124). Interior sub-floor

pits in Virginia were generally replaced with larger exterior pits by the firstquarter of the 19th century (Samford 2007:9). The sub-floor pit analyzed heredates from 1840, possibly through the abolition of slavery in 1865, and perhapsrepresents one of the last examples of an interior sub-floor pit from Virginia.

The discovery of charred peach pits (Prunus persica (L.) Batsch) in the screensduring excavations of Site A prompted the flotation of the entire pit matrix(Heath et al. 2004:21). The soil was first screened through J inch mesh and thenfloated in a Flote-tech flotation machine. Overall, 295.75 liters of soil were floatedto yield 123 light fractions. I examined approximately 50% of the light fractionflotation samples (61 light fractions from 150.60 liters of sediment) and all seeds

collected during screening. Only charred plant remains were analyzed since theytypically indicate intentional human activity and reflect cultural action (Miller1989; Mrozowski et al. 2008). The small numbers of uncharred seeds were notanalyzed because they usually are modern contaminants, the result of rodent(Miller 1989) or earthworm activity (Canti 2003). All charred seeds, related plantparts and tissues (2mm and larger) were removed for identification. FollowingAsch et al. (1972), I randomly selected and identified 25 pieces of charred woodlarger than 2mm from each flotation sample. Wood and seeds were identified asspecifically as possible, but because some remains were distorted from theoriginal charring, as well as poor preservation, they were classified as

unidentifiable. Due to their small sizes, nutshell fragments were rarely identified.Botanical materials were identified using printed references (Cappers et al. 2006;Hoadley 1990; Martin and Barkley 1973), the United States Department ofAgriculture plant database (http://plants.usda.gov) and the University ofMassachusetts Bostons extensive comparative collection. A more completedescription of the methods can be found in Bowes (2009).

This botanical material is not the in situ remains of plants stored in the pit,but is more likely refuse. Charred wood initially used for fuel may be recoveredarchaeologically in its original location, either the hearth or oven, or in asecondary deposit, such as a midden where the refuse was swept or tossed(Smart and Hoffman 1988). Deposits associated with fuel used for cooking may

also harbor seeds and other plant structures accidentally burned in the cookingprocess. Although the possible hearth was not analyzed for macrobotanicalmaterials, the presence of a hearth or chimney in the cabin may explain how thebotanical materials recovered from the sub-floor pit became charred.



7/21

Archival documents that relate to the plantations provisioning practices,

alongside the recovered botanical remains, delineate which foods were providedand demonstrate the slaves supplementation practices (McKee 1999). I consultedan income and expense journal kept by Edward Hutter from July of 1856 throughDecember of 1862, a farm journal that dates from January 1844 throughDecember 1854, and slave management literature. This literature, published inAmerican farm journals from the mid to late 19th century, was a forum wheresouthern planters could share ideas on how to achieve agricultural perfection,including the perfection of slavery. A large portion of the excerpts relating tofood deal with the importance of providing slaves with a large quantity andvariety of vegetables. Together these documents help frame how owners in theSouth perceived plant foods, and, to a lesser degree, indicate the plants Hutter

may have provisioned.

Results of the Macrobotanical Analysis

The sub-floor pit contained the remains of edible fruits, field and garden crops,other seeds, nuts and wood, which reflect a variety of activities including foodconsumption, medicinal practices, domestic uses of plants and fuel use (Table 1).Much of the botanical material relates to food. All the analyzed samples containedan amorphous material that was probably parenchymatous tissue. Although somepieces had a noticeable curve to them, nutmeat was ruled out based on micro-

morphological characteristics. I charred fresh and dried specimens of commonroot crops, including white potatoes, sweet potatoes, carrots, turnips and squash,and found a strong, but not definitive, similarity between the unknown tissue andthe charred potatoes. Thus the slave foodways appear to combine starchy cropssuch as millet, maize, and wheat, along with wild and cultivated fruits, andcultivated and gathered greens, vegetables, and nuts (Bowes 2009).

Some plants recovered contain parts that may have been utilized for boththeir dietary and their medicinal benefits. Assigning plants to rigid categories aseither food or medicine, however, detracts from these dual uses, but by analyzinghow the slaves came across such plants enables the archaeologist to acknowledgetheir role as possible medicine and to also understand the greater social relationsat work. In his journals, Hutter recorded which slaves were ill and the duration oftheir illness, and he recorded having purchased medicine on several occasions.However, these documents do not specifically state whether the slaves weregiven this medicine or if some other form of treatment was provided by Hutter.Some of the procured plants from the botanical assemblages may indicatemedicinal practices. Jimsonweed, a hallucinogenic plant found in samples fromRich Neck slave quarters, an 18th-century plantation near Williamsburg, Virginia,was interpreted as a possible pain reliever (Mrozowski et al. 2008).

Charred wood comprised the largest category of botanical remains. A total of1,525 pieces of wood was analyzed. Of the examined wood, 68% was hardwood,

2% was softwood and 30% was unidentifiable. Of the hardwood, 72% could onlybe identified to hardwood or a sub-type of hardwood (such as ring-porous anddiffuse porous), while the remaining 28% was identified either to genus orspecies. Hardwood was present in all layers with oak and chestnut (Castanea sp.)



8/21

as the most ubiquitous at almost 82%, followed by ash and yellow poplar atabout 55%. The only identifiable charred softwood was pine (Pinus sp.). Theseremains reflect the use of wood for heating and cooking.

Slave Subsistence Strategies

The charred seeds and fuel wood remains from this pit can be categorized by

plant type as it relates to slaves use, such as food, fuel and medicine, but whenplaced into the categories relating to subsistence strategies, provisioning,production and procurement, a fuller and more informative picture of enslavedlifeways develops.

Table 1. List of Identified Useful Taxa from Site A, Poplar Forest.

Common Name Scientific Name Subsistence StrategyGrains

Millet Panicum miliaceum L./ Setaria italica (L.)P.Veauv. ProducedSorghum Sorghum sp. ProducedWheat Triticum sp. ProvisionedCorn Zea mays L. Produced

Nuts

Hazelnut Corylus sp. ProcuredBlack Walnut Juglans nigra L. ProcuredAcorn Quercus sp. Procured

Fruits

Watermelon Citrullus lanatus (Thunb.) Matsum. & Nakai Provisioned

Cherry Prunus sp. ProcuredPeach Prunus persica (L.) Batsch ProvisionedRaspberry Rubus sp. ProcuredElderberry Sambucus sp. ProcuredBlueberry Vaccinium sp. ProcuredGrape Vitis sp. Procured

Other

Jimsonweed Datura stramonium L. ProcuredMint Mentha sp. Procured/ProducedSorrel Oxalis sp. ProcuredGround Cherry Physalis sp. ProcuredPlantain Plantago sp. ProcuredKnotweed Polygonum sp. Procured

Purslane Portulaca sp. ProcuredCinquefoil Potentilla sp. ProcuredNightshade Solanum sp. Procured

Wood

Maple Acer sp. ProcuredBirch Betula sp. ProcuredHickory Carya sp. ProcuredChestnut Castanea sp. ProcuredAsh Fraxinus sp. ProcuredBlack walnut Juglans nigra L. ProcuredTulip poplar Liriodendron tulipifera L. ProcuredRed mulberry Morus rubra L. ProcuredPine Pinus sp. Procured

Oak Quercus spp. ProcuredBlack locust Robinia pseudoacacia L. ProcuredElm Ulmus sp. Procured



9/21

Provisioned Plant Foods

Provisioned foods are those given to slaves by their owners, and documentsshow significant variation in the types and quantities supplied. A Virginiaplanter in 1837 suggested the need for vegetables as a staple in slave diets andreferred to slave owners who do not utilize the fertile Virginian soils to growthem for their slaves as poor providers (Breeden 1980:93). One former slavestated that masters understood that slaves worked best on a full stomach (Perdueet al. 1976:181), but according to formerly enslaved Armaci Adams of Hampton,Virginia, Dey never give you nough ter eat (Perdue et al. 1976:3). Leavingslaves hungry seems to have been counterproductive, as fewer rationsencouraged some slaves to steal (Perdue et al. 1976:266).

Some of the plant remains from Poplar Forest provide evidence ofprovisioned foods (Table 1). Edward Hutters farm journal records that heplanted sweet and Irish potatoes (Hutter Farm Journal, 18441854, hereafter HFJ),and if the amorphous charred botanical material in the samples is potato, it couldbe evidence of a provisioned food. One planter indicates the value of potatoes forslave children stating, No better diet can be provided for little negroes thansweet potatoes as the common adage runs, they are milk, bread and meat forthem (Breeden 1980:106). Watermelon could also be a provisioned food. It wascommonly cultivated in African American gardens, but documents show thatEdward Hutter was planting watermelon at the time of the cabins occupation(HFJ). So it is possible that the watermelon the slaves were consuming came from

Hutters own garden.Peaches were grown at Poplar Forest during Jeffersons ownership through

Hutters occupation (Hutter Income and Expense Journal, 18571862, hereafterHIEJ). A letter from Edward Hutters father conveys his fondness for theplantation and its orchards stating, we daily speak of those fine peaches whichyou feed your swine!! (Hutter 1844). Peaches consumed by the enslaved AfricanAmericans were perhaps provisioned by Hutter directly or taken without hisapproval. Levi Pollard, a former slave from Richmond, Virginia, recalled helpinghimself to peaches and apples from the plantation orchards; and although pearswere reserved for the owners family and off limits, he regularly pilfered them

(Perdue et al. 1976:227). Although the owner controlled access to the orchards,restrictions to these areas did not necessarily entirely deter stealing.

Hutter cultivated wheat at Poplar Forest (HFJ), and its presence in thearchaeobotanical assemblage of Site A probably indicates food that wasprovisioned. A wheat rachis fragment, a by-product of crop processing, wasuncovered in the pit and links the charred wheat grains from the assemblage totheir growth or processing on the immediate plantation. The crop food remainsrecovered from the sub-floor pit suggest a mix of staple grains with wheatprovisioned by Hutter and others probably grown by the slaves in their owngardens.

Produced Plant Foods

Gardening was often encouraged by plantation owners (Mrozowski et al.2008), and Edward Hutters slaves produced some of their food in their own



10/21

gardens. McColley (1964:60) notes the relationship between slave gardens and

owner provisioning writing, some [planters] observed the practice ofexcusing their slaves on Saturday afternoons so they might work their owngardens. Where this was done, the rations supplied by the planter would bereduced proportionally. Some slave owners recommended gardening to combatidleness, while others felt it encouraged theft when the gardens were not fruitful,or that slaves should rest for their next day of work (Breeden 1980).

Hutter wrote that his slaves had small gardens or patches, and frequentlynoted, Holiday-Negroes working patches in his farm journal (HFJ). Not onlydid he encourage gardening, but he also helped the slaves sell their crops. It wasfairly common in Virginia for slaves to sell surplus fruits and vegetables as wellas handmade goods in the markets. On November 25th, 1845 Hutter wrote,

hauld up Negroes corn & shucked it and on May 12th, 1847, Sent Negroescorn to market (HFJ). The archaeological maize remains possibly come fromplants grown by the slaves in their own gardens, rather than that grown byHutter, and suggests the slaves were providing themselves with at least onestaple food. Documents indicate they also cultivated oats, which were sold(HIEJ), although there is no evidence for this in the botanical materials from SiteA. Plants grown in the slaves gardens and then sold to owners or in markets(Stewart 2006) may have offered what Heath and Bennett (2000:42) refer to as aform of economic autonomy. Although a few planters endorsed giving slavesland and granting them complete control over it, the majority who allowed

gardening either restricted sale of the slaves surplus to themselves or managedthe sale of the goods in the market (Breeden 1980). It is unclear the extent towhich Hutter managed his slaves gardens, but his comment that he sent thecorn to the market suggests that he had some control over its sale and possiblythe profits.

The sorghum and millet uncovered from the sub-floor pit are also likelyremnants of the slaves gardening activities. Sorghum is an introduced speciesthat came from Africa to North America with the slave trade (Whit 2007). Bothsorghum and millet are historically linked to people in western Africa andenslaved Africans in North America, and were commonly used in animal feed

(Prance and Nesbitt 2005). Millet became a popular grain in 18th-century gardens(Leighton 1986), and both crops could have been grown in the slaves patchesto be consumed by the slaves or fed to their poultry.

Gardening relieved pressure from the plantation owner to provide adequateprovisions, but may have been encouraged to promote a slaves psychologicalattachment to the land and deter runaways (Pulsipher 1990). The corn, sorghumand millet from the Site A slave dwelling suggests that the inhabitants widelysupplemented the provisioned diet. Hutters comments in his journals suggest hesupported such practices by the slaves, therefore lifting his burden to provide forthem.

Procured Plant FoodsSlaves also supplemented their diet by gathering plants from the local

environment. They may have transplanted plants from the wild into theirgardens (Glave 2006) or simply encouraged the growth of useful plants in their



11/21

native setting. Slave foraging is rarely recorded in plantation primary

documents (McKee 1999) and this activity may be linked with poor plantationprovisioning (Mrozowski et al. 2008). However, supplementation may illustrateself-autonomy (Mrozowski et al. 2008:33) and be a way that slaves resisteduniformity (Edwards-Ingram 1999:156).

Procurement, or supplementation, at Poplar Forest included the gathering ofwild fruits, herbs, nuts and fuel wood. Although purslane, mint and knotweed,recovered at Site A, were commonplace in early American gardens (Sumner2004), these taxa, as well as plantain, could also reflect encouraged or toleratedweeds gathered from disturbed habitats, such as the areas around the cabins or ingardens and fields. Purslane and plantain are noted for their use in salads(Medve and Medve 1990), while mint was cultivated for oils, flavoring and

medicine (Cox 1985). Some species of knotweed were cultivated for their edibleleaves and young shoots (Coffey 1993).

Some of the fruits, such as grape and cherry, uncovered in the sub-floor pitmay represent gathered wild species rather than provisioned domesticates.However, distinguishing between wild and domestic varieties of cherries andgrapes can be difficult, especially as a variety of cherry trees grew at PoplarForest (Poplar Forest 2004). Wild grape also commonly grows around theplantation (Raymer 2003), indicating that these fruits were likely gathered. Theraspberry, blueberry and elderberry fruits from the pit were probably gatheredfrom the forest margins, or from abandoned or successional fields.

Fuel wood is a necessary subsistence item within the procured category.Many of the species of wood recovered in the Site A assemblage prefer moist,fertile, well-drained soils. Because of their burning and heating efficiency,hardwoods are typically valued over softwoods for fuel. The analysis of the sub-floor pit indicates that the slaves were generally able to obtain hardwood fuel.However, there is a wide variation in heat values within the hardwood category.Oak and hickory have the highest heat values, and their presence throughoutmost of the pit indicates that the slaves were consistently able to get excellent fuelwood (Figure 3). Nonetheless, the wood analysis suggests they burned a widevariety of fuels including those producing little heat, such as pine, tulip poplar

and chestnut. Pine is a very poor fuel source, with the poorest overall qualityrating, and softwood only comprises 2% of all the wood identified. Fuel wood isbriefly mentioned in the slave management literature by a few planters whosuggest that it is cruel to force slaves, at the end of a hard work day, to procuretheir own fuel wood (Breeden 1980:101, 120). Regardless, there is no indicationthat Hutter provided fuel. It is more than likely that the slaves foraged for easilyavailable wood such as fallen limbs or trimmings from the core of the plantationgrounds.

Comparison of Hutter-Era and Thomas Jefferson-Era Botanical Remains

Prior macrobotanical analysis at Poplar Forest provides an opportunity tocompare the subsistence strategies of enslaved African Americans at differenttimes and to better reconstruct the slaves daily life under Thomas Jefferson andEdward Hutter. This comparison illustrates the fluidity of power and social



12/21

relations under slavery and emphasizes the individual planters importance in

the relationship. Slaves, as a subordinate workforce, defined themselves not onlywithin an overarching framework of slavery, but also within the more intimatecontext of the slave-owner relationship. Slaves had to renegotiate thisrelationship as their masters changed, when they were sold to a new ownerand plantation or sold with a plantation, and when societal attitudes aboutslavery evolved. The similarities and differences in the botanical data related tothe earlier owner, Jefferson, and the later owner, Hutter, demonstrate how slavecommunities responded to whether the slave owner was in residence at PoplarForest. The plant remains also illustrate how changes in the local environmentimpacted subsistence and how continuity in subsistence strategies may be visible

in an enslaved community across multiple owners.The botanical remains from two slave quarters at Poplar Forest dating toThomas Jeffersons ownership, North Hill and Quarter Site, contribute to thediscussion of subsistence strategies at Poplar Forest (Raymer 1996, 2003).Although different recovery strategies were utilized, flotation for both Hutterand Jefferson era sites as well as water screening for some Jefferson era contexts(Heath and Lee 2008; Raymer 1996), the samples from both North Hill and theQuarter sites provide comparable data (Bowes and Trigg in press). This studyreanalyzes the botanical remains from the four features that are functionally mostsimilar to the Hutter period pit to eliminate discrepancies stemming fromdifferent activities. The North Hill Site had a sub-floor pit dating from 1777 to1785, and an exterior pit that dates from 1790 to 1810, and the Quarter Site had asub-floor pit and a structure that date 1790 to 1812 (Figure 2). The North Hill sub-floor pit represents a time referred to here as Early Jefferson, while the NorthHill exterior pit and the Quarter Site pit and structure are referred to as Later

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



13/21

Jefferson. These provide a partial botanical timeline for Thomas Jeffersons

ownership, however no slave quarters or deposits of plant remains dating to theend of Jeffersons occupation (18121826) have been recovered at Poplar Forest.The earliest botanical materials (early North Hill Site) date to a period whenJefferson was an absentee owner, while the later materials (Quarter Site, laterNorth Hill Site) reflect the use of plants during major changes in plantationactivities, such as the building of the main house (Heath 2004).

Some plants were present in all the eras, Early Jefferson, Later Jefferson andHutter, demonstrating some continuity in plantation activities and habitatsaccessed by slaves (Bowes and Trigg in press). For instance, corn was recoveredin all the features, while wheat, peach and grape were found in at least one

feature from each period, suggesting that corn and wheat were staple grains fromJeffersons through Hutters occupation. But, all the time periods examined(Early Jefferson, Later Jefferson and Hutter) have seeds unique to them: EarlyJefferson had rye (Secale sp.), oats (Avena sativa) and strawberry (Fragaria sp.);Later Jefferson had common beans (Phaseolus sp.), sunflower (Helianthus sp.),huckleberry (Gaylussacia sp.) and persimmon (Persimmon sp.); and Huttersperiod had watermelon, blueberry and mint. The uniqueness of these plant typesmay be the result of deposition and preservation, however they may also reflectchanges in habitats accessible to slaves as well as changes in the slavecommunities preferences. The Jefferson era contexts also provide evidence ofthe three subsistence strategies: provisioned, produced and procured. Jeffersonprovisioned plants such as corn and wheat, while sorghum and millet werepossibly produced, and huckleberry and persimmon were likely procured.

Examining diet breadth, the number of different foods in the diet, is one wayto investigate control of slaves food and their subsistence practices. In particularI use taxonomic richness to assess not only the need to broaden the diet but alsothe slaves ability to do so. I calculate richness by counting the number of taxacomprising each features assemblage. The richness for all five features wascalculated (Table 2). As the analysis shows, although some of the features yieldedlarge quantities of soil for analysis, high soil volume does not correlate withincreased taxonomic richness. Some of the larger features had fewer taxa overall

(Table 2). The richness of the feature associated with Jeffersons early absenteeownership (17771785) is similar to the sub-floor pit dating to Hutter. Thefeatures with the highest richness (1546 A-G, ER2352/4) are the earliest and latestdated features sampled for botanical analysis, with the highest from the sub-floor

Table 2. Taxonomic Richness from Hutter and Jefferson-Era Contexts.

Date Feature Site DescriptionTaxonomic

RichnessVolume of Soil

Analyzed

Thomas Jefferson

17771785 1546 A-G North Hill Sub-floor pit 31 136.5 L17901810 1476 B-D North Hill Exterior pit 7 70.5 L17901812 829 Quarter Site Sub-floor pit 7 6 L17901812 1206 Quarter Site Structure 10 527 L

Edward S. Hutter

18401858 ER2352/4 Site A Sub-floor pit 37 150.6 L



14/21

pit from Hutters occupation (at 37), and the next highest (at 31) from the earliestsub-floor dating to Thomas Jefferson, from the North Hill Site. In contrast, thelater Jefferson features (17901812) reflect a drastically reduced richness. Thesefindings may allude to similarities in plantation management between Hutterand an absentee Jefferson.

To better understand the subsistence strategies of Thomas Jeffersons slaves,the taxonomic richness was broken down by the three strategy categories:provisioned, produced and procured (Figure 4). The inclusion of certain plantremains in this analysis from the Jefferson-era features relies on Raymers (1996,

2003) initial interpretation of use. Some taxa included in the overall richnessassessment were excluded for this analysis. Although the wood primarily comesfrom fuel and is related to food preparation, I focus on plants used as foods andmedicine. Furthermore, plants identified to family were also excluded, as theymay represent a variety of plants which crosscut the subsistence strategies. Non-economic grasses, such as ryegrass (Lolium sp.), wheatgrass (Agropyron sp.) andgoosegrass (Eleusine sp.) and certain other weedy species including sorrel,nightshade (Solanum sp.), privet, ground cherry and fanpetals (Sida sp.),interpreted by Raymer (1996, 2003) to have been accidentally introduced intothe features, were excluded as their origin is probably unrelated to the slavessubsistence.

When the botanical data from Hutters slave cabin are analyzed in relation tothose from Thomas Jeffersons occupation, a timeline of Poplar Forest plantationsocial relationships emerges. The procured category provides the mostinformative data with the greatest number of taxa (Figure 4). The earliest feature

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



15/21

(1546 A-G) and the latest (ER2352/4) have a richness of 14 and 13, respectively.

The next highest richness (6) dates to Jeffersons later ownership, when he wasmore involved in plantation activities. Richness calculations illustrate that slavesunder an absentee Jefferson were supplementing their diet with gathered foodsmore than the slaves in Jeffersons later years. Specific taxa gathered whileJefferson was away include elderberry, sumac, vervain (Verbena sp.), carpetweed(Mollugo sp.), dock (Rumex sp.) and amaranth (Amaranthus sp.). These taxagenerally grow in forest margins and the mature forest, habitats that lay beyondthe plantation core grounds suggesting that the slaves were moving beyond theimmediate plantation fields when Jefferson was absent (Bowes and Trigg inpress). The initial taxa richness comparison demonstrates that there is a similaritybetween Hutters ownership and Jeffersons absentee occupation, but by

breaking the richness down by subsistence strategy (Figure 4), it becomes clearthat how the slaves supplemented their diet seems to be what is most directlyimpacted during Jeffersons later years. This may correlate with plantationactivities such as a change in overseers and differing access to habitats as landwas cleared for planting and landscaping (Bowes and Trigg in press). Jeffersoncontinually altered the landscape for ornamental reasons, and on his death, onlya portion of the original plantation grounds were left to his grandson. Plantationactivities, such as landscape modifications, would impact areas that slaves couldaccess for food.

McKee (1999:219) states that slaves were active agents in defining their food

supply, while slave mobility increased when plantation owners or masters wereaway (Morgan 1988). Jefferson seems to fit the mold of an early Piedmontplantation owner who was largely absentee, and his slaves exploited the wildenvironment to a greater degree during his absence. The similarity between theabsentee Jefferson assemblages and the assemblage from Hutters occupation istelling of slave management styles. Jeffersons Garden Book (Betts 1944) illustrateshis systematic and highly regulated approach to plantation management and thislegendary obsession for detail and control (McDonald 2000:177) affected howhe managed his slaves. This seems to be evident in the botanical assemblage fromPoplar Forest with a noticeable decrease in slaves active supplementation of

their diet after the construction of the main house began. Jefferson is likened toother scientific planters (Sanford 1994:126) who sought to maintain order onthe plantation and who worked to make it run in a perfunctory and standardizedmanner. Hutters practice of hiring out his slaves suggests he may have regulatedhis plantation less rigidly than Thomas Jefferson. It appears that while Jeffersonwas an absentee owner his slaves exploited the environment to supplement theirdiet, but when he increased his role in plantation affairs, these procurementpractices decreased, possibly reflecting Jeffersons more rigorous managementstyle. By the time Edward Hutter became the manager, Poplar Forests enslavedcommunity once again supplemented their diet more broadly.

Hutters management of Poplar Forest was typical of contemporaneous slave

owners. The slaves were divided based on work, either as field or house slaves,and were regularly hired out; by 1854 the majority of slaves were leased at PoplarForest, rather than working in the fields (Heath et al. 2004:5). Some southernersfelt that renting a slave did not encourage the same emotional bond as owning a



16/21

slave and that the master-slave relationship was threatened as slaves were no

longer directly benefiting from the rigid control of one owner; slaves werebecoming empowered by having a say in who their master was and by hiringthemselves out on their own time to earn money that could be used to buyfreedom (Faust 1991; Goldfield 1991). Regardless of these feelings of unease, onedocument notes that during the 1850s one-third of working slaves were hired out(Goldfield 1991). This practice may also have offered Hutters slaves access to avariety of habitats, perhaps enabling an increased ability to gather plants fartherfrom the plantation grounds (Bowes and Trigg in press).

Hutters slaves were procuring their own foods, supplementing their dietbeyond what was provisioned and what they grew themselves, which seems tohave been a common practice not only for the time but throughout American

slavery, especially at Poplar Forest. With regards to the slaves ability to procureplant foods from the environment, any personal endeavors within the powerladen slave-master relationship can attest to some form of autonomy, especiallywhen the slaves had choices. Lukes (1974:5455) discusses the agency in suchautonomy stating, one assumes that although the agents operate withinstructurally determined limits, they nonetheless have a certain relative autonomyand could have acted differently. Slaves use of plants for medicinal reasonsfurther reflects autonomy and illustrates their role as agents of their own well-being. Edwards-Ingram (2001:42) writes that plants were used to treat illness aswell as, to control risks including the potential misfortunes of daily life, and in

efforts to evoke and tap spiritual forces to work on their behalf. Although theslaves may have restrictions placed upon their movement, these restrictions maynot have fully prohibited procurement. Furthermore, the procured plants, thoseselected under the structurally determined limits, can serve as signifiers ofslave choice. Therefore, not only does the slaves supplementation of their dietallude to a level of freedom, the plants they chose to procure also reflects theirpersonal decisions.

Analysis of the plant remains also offers some perspective regarding thedissemination of knowledge about local plants useful for food and medicine.Perhaps the slaves at Poplar Forest chose certain plants merely because they were

convenient, and certainly their presence in the local environment enabled theirprocurement. However, the overlap in the plants chosen by Jeffersons andHutters slaves may illustrate continuity in the slave communities use of certainplants. Slaves under Jefferson and Hutter used plants such as knotweed,purslane, raspberry and grapes. Similarly, jimsonweed, a medicinal plant, wasrecovered in all three eras from Poplar Forest. This evokes questions regardingthe enslaved communitys medicinal practices and suggests the slaves tookaction to ensure their own well-being. Stewart (2006:10) writes, slavery shapedthe environmental attitudes and values of both masters and slaves and perhapsthe knowledge of the local landscape circulated within the enslaved communitiesand contributed to the reason Hutters slaves utilized the same wild plants in

1850 that slaves under Jefferson used in 1780. This continuity may reflectsustained practices among the enslaved populations. As Poplar Forest wasbought and sold, some enslaved individuals remained on the plantation andwere included in the transactions (Heath et al. 2004). Although Hutters slaves



17/21

did not necessarily once belong to Jefferson, a community presence was

established, which lasted throughout Poplar Forests multiple owners.

Conclusion

In order to enforce the status of slave, masters had to subjugate Africansand African Americans by entwining them in a power struggle in which ownersregularly reiterated their superiority. By maintaining the social order of masterand slave, plantation owners were able to exploit human beings for labor whileearning a profit (Aptheker 1993; Patterson 1982). If we examine how these socialand power relations manifested themselves in the slaves subsistence strategiesand mobility, we can glimpse their autonomy. Owners attempted to control the

movements and actions of their slaves, affecting how slave autonomy wasexpressed. Slave management strategies were influenced by broader trendsamong slaveholders but were also highly individual and were influenced by theplanters own opinions and views.

Slaves under an absentee Jefferson were somewhat mobile and supple-mented their diet with a variety of procured plants. Jefferson did not neglectthe management of Poplar Forest during this time but rather hired overseersand through letters he instructed them regarding plantation activities. Perhapsit was Jeffersons absence, or the attitudes of individual overseers, whichallowed for this broader exploitation of plants. During the later Jefferson era,

the variety of slaves procured plants decreased. Perhaps more frequent visits,a change in overseers, or changes to the landscape are the root of thisreduction. Regardless, all of these activities are the result of plantationmanagement by Jefferson.

When the plantation changed hands to Edward Hutter, the Poplar Forestenslaved community once again supplemented their diet more broadly. Theenslaved African Americans gathered food, fuel, and possibly medicines fromaround the plantation, while they received food from the plantation owner andcultivated some of their own vegetables and herbs. That slaves supplementedtheir diets with a range of resources seems to reflect Hutters management styleand his practice of hiring out slaves, rather than the result of inadequateprovisioning.

This research shows that by viewing the data in terms of subsistencestrategies such as provisioning, production and procurement, we can proposehow the plants were acquired and how both the activities and the plants fit intothe broader social context. Using this approach in the analysis of the Site A sub-floor pit macrobotanicals proved useful for understanding the occupants of aparticular cabin and their relationship within the plantation community. But thebroader implications of this framework helped us elucidate the power relationsbetween slaves and their owners and, in particular, what enslavement was likeunder Jefferson and Hutter. The use of land by plantation owners and managers

directly impacted the way slaves used the environment and affected theirinteraction with the landscape. Hutter managed a much smaller plantation thanJefferson with more finite resources, and his actions, such as clearing land foragricultural fields, would have also affected how the slaves experienced and



18/21

utilized the environment. Incorporating other archaeological evidence, such as

the faunal analysis on the Hutter-era sub-floor pit when completed, willinevitably further illuminate plantation subsistence strategies and socialrelations.

Few botanical studies address how subsistence strategies relate to socialrelations. However, as this research shows, such correlations can be made andcan elucidate aspects of power and control in a plantation setting. By bringingmacrobotanical data into discussions often relying on material culture, faunalremains, and primary documents archaeologists can support, or even challenge,existing interpretations. Furthermore, this model can be applied to other sitesrelating to slavery to access social relationships. Hold-Cavell (1996:19) writesthat, status and power relations play an important role in human life and by

understanding these relations archaeologists can better access the lifeways ofenslaved African Americans.

References Cited

Aptheker, Herbert

1993 American Negro Slave Revolts: 50th

Anniversary edition. International Publishers,New York.

Asch, Nancy, Richard I. Ford, and David Asch

1972 Paleoethnobotany of the Koster Site: TheArchaic Horizons. Reports of Investigations

No. 24. Illinois State Museum, Springfield.

Betts, Edwin Morris

1944 Thomas Jeffersons Garden Book 1766

1824. The American Philosophical Society,

Philadelphia.

Blassingame, John

1972 The Slave Community. Oxford Univer-sity Press, Oxford.

Bowes, Jessica D.2009 Provisioned, Produced, Procured: Slave

Subsistence Strategies as Indicators of Planta-tion Social Relations at Thomas Jeffersons

Poplar Forest. M.A. thesis (Anthropology).University of Massachusetts Boston, Boston.

Bowes, Jessica and Heather TriggIn press

Social Dimensions of 19th-Century Slaves

Uses of Plants at Poplar Forest. In TheLandscapes and Lives of Thomas JeffersonsPoplar Forest: The Historical Archaeology

of a Central Virginia Plantation, eds. Barbara

J. Heath and Jack Gary. University Press of

Florida, Gainesville.Breeden, James O., ed.

1980 Advice Among Masters The Ideal in

Slave Management in the Old South. Green-

wood Press, Connecticut.

Canti, M.G.

2003 Earthworm Activity and Archaeolog-

ical Stratigraphy: A Review of Products andProcesses. Journal of Archaeological Science 30:

135148.

Cappers, R.T.J., R.M. Bekker, and J.E.A. Jans2006 Digitale Zadenatlas Van Nederland: Dig-

ital Seeds Atlas of the Netherlands. Barkhuis

Publishing, Groningen.

Coffey, Timothy

1993 The History and Folklore of North Amer-

ican Wildflowers. Houghton Mifflin, New York.

Cox, Donald D.1985 CommonFloweringPlantsoftheNortheast.

State University of New York Press, Albany.

Crader, Diana C.

1990 Slave Diet at Monticello. American

Antiquity 55:690717.Deagan, Kathleen

1996 Environmental Archaeology and His-

torical Archaeology. In Case Studies in Envi-

ronmental Archaeology, eds. Elizabeth Reitz,Lee, A. Newsom and Sylvia, J. Scudder, pp.

559376. Plenum Press, New York.

Edwards-Ingram, Ywone

1999 The Recent Archaeology of EnslavedAfricans and African Americans. In Old and

New Worlds, eds. Geoff Egan and R.L.Michael, pp. 155164. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

2001 African American Medicine and theSocial Relations of Slavery. In Race and the

Archaeology of Identity, ed. Charles E. OrserJr., pp. 3453. University of Utah Press, Salt

Lake City.



19/21

Faust, Drew Gilpin

1991 Slavery in the American Experience.

In Before Freedom Came: African American Lifein the Antebellum South, eds. Edward D.C.

Campbell Jr. and Kym S. Rice, pp. 119. The

Museum of the Confederacy, Richmond andUniversity of Virginia Press, Charlottesville.

Franklin, Maria2001 The Archaeological and Symbolic Di-

mensions of Soul Food: Race, Culture, andAfro-Virginian Archaeology of Identity. In

Race and the Archaeology of Identity, ed.

Charles E. Orser Jr., pp. 88107. Universityof Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Gibbs, Patricia A.1999 Little Spots allowd them: Slave

Garden Plots and Poultry Yards. The Colo-

nial Williamsburg Interpreter 20(3):913.

Giddens, Anthony

1979 Central Problems in Social Theory: Action,

Structure and Contradiction in Social Analysis.

University of California Press, Berkeley.

Glave, Dianne D.

2006 Rural African American Women, Gar-dening, and Progressive Reform in the

South. In To Love the Wind and the Rain:

African Americans and Environmental History,eds. Dianne, D. Glave and Mark Stoll, pp.3750. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pitts-

burgh.

Goldfield, David R.

1991 Black life in Old South Cities. In

Before Freedom Came: African American

Life in the Antebellum South, eds. Edward,

D.C. Campbell Jr. and Kym S. Rice, pp. 123

153. The Museum of the Confederacy,Richmond and University of Virginia Press,

Charlottesville.

Groover, Mark D. and Timothy E. Baumann1996 They Worked Their Own Remedy:

African-American Herbal Medicine and the

Archaeological Record. South Carolina An-tiquities 28:2132.

Hally, David J.1981 Plant Preservation and the Content of

Paleobotanical Samples: A Case Study.

American Antiquity 46:723742.

Heath, Barbara J.1999 Hidden Lives: The Archaeology of Slave

Life at Thomas Jeffersons Poplar Forest. Uni-

versity Press of Virginia, Charlottesville.2004 Quarter Site: Background. The Digital

Archaeological Archive of ComparativeSlavery. Available at: http://www.daacs.

org/ (verified 2 February 2011).

Heath, Barbara J. and Amber Bennett

2000 The Little Spots Allowd Them: The

Archaeological Study of African-AmericanYards. Historical Archaeology 34(2):3855.

Heath, Barbara J. and Lori Lee

2008 Comparative Analyses of Three Sub-floor Pit Assemblages at Poplar Forest.

Paper presented at the Annual Meeting ofthe Society for Historical Archaeology Con-

ference on Historical and Underwater Ar-chaeology, Albuquerque.

Heath, Barbara J., Randy Lichtenberger, KeithAdams, Lori Lee, and Elizabeth Paull

2004 Poplar Forest Archaeology: Studies in

African American Life, Excavations andAnalysis of Site A, Southeast Terrace and

Site B, Southeast Curtilage June 2003

June 2004. Report to the Public WelfareFoundation.

2005 Poplar Forest Archaeology: Studies inPlantation Life and Landscape, Excavations

and Analysis of Site B, Southeast CurtilageJune 2004August 2005. Report to the Public

Welfare Foundation.

Hoadley, R. Bruce

1990 Identifying Wood: Accurate Results with

Simple Tools. The Taunton Press, Newtown.Hold-Cavell, Barbara

1996 The Ethological Bases of Status Hier-archies. In Food and the Status Quest: Inter-disciplinary Perspective, eds. Polly Wiessner

and Wulf Schiefenhovel, pp. 1932. Berghan

Books, Providence.

Hutter, Christian Jacob

1844 Letter to Edward S. Hutter, Aug. 29th,Hutter Family Letters. Private collection,

Poplar Forest, Virginia.

1846 Letter to Edward S. Hutter, Sept. 30,

Hutter Family Letters. Private collection,Poplar Forest, Virginia.

Hutter, Farm Journal

18441854Private collection, Poplar Forest, Virginia.

Hutter, Income and Expense, Journal18571862

Private collection, Poplar Forest, Virginia.

Lange, Frederick W. and Jerome S. Handler

1985 The Ethnohistorical Approach to Slav-ery. In The Archaeology of Slavery and

Plantation Life, ed. Theresa A. Singleton,

pp. 1532. Academic Press, Orlando.Leighton, Ann

1986 American Gardens in the Eighteenth

Century: For Use or for Delight. HoughtonMifflin Company, Boston.



20/21

Martin, Alexander C. and William D. Barkley

1973 Seed Identification Manual. University

of California Press, Berkeley.McColley, Robert

1964 Slavery and Jeffersonian Virginia. Uni-versity of Illinois Press, Urbana.

McDonald Jr., Travis C.2000 Constructing Optimism: Thomas Jef-

fersons Poplar Forest. Perspectives in Ver-

nacular Architecture 8:176200.

McKee, Larry W.

1999 Food Supply and Plantation SocialOrder. In I, Too, Am America, ed. Theresa

A. Singleton, pp. 218239. University of

Virginia Press, Charlottesville.Medve, Richard J. and Mary Lee Medve

1990 Edible Wild Plants of Pennsylvania and

Neighboring States. The Pennsylvania State

University Press, University Park.

Miller, Naomi F.

1989 What Mean These Sees: A Compara-tive Approach to Archaeological Seed

Analysis. Historical Archaeology 23(2):

5059.

Minnis, Paul E.

1981 Seeds in Archaeological Sites: Sources

and Some Interpretive Problems. AmericanAntiquity 46:143152.

Morgan, Philip D.1988 Slave Life in Piedmont Virginia, 1720

1800. In Colonial Chesapeake Society, eds. Lois

Green Carr, Philip D. Morgan and Jean B.Russo, pp. 433484. The University of North

Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.

Mrozowski, Stephen A., Maria Franklin, and

Leslie Hunt2008 Archaeobotanical Analysis and Inter-

pretations of Enslaved Virginian Plant Use

at Rich Neck Plantation. American Antiquity73:699728.

Natural Resources Conservation Service.2011 United States Department of Agricul-

ture Plant Database. Available at: http://

plants.usda.gov/ (verified 2 February 2011).

Patterson, Orlando

1982 Slavery and Social Death: A Comparative

Study. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

Perdue Jr., Charles L., Thomas E. Barden andRobert K. Phillips, editors

1976 Weevils in the Wheat: Interviews with

Virginia Ex-Slaves. University Press of Vir-ginia, Charlottesville.

Poplar, Forest

2004 Documented Plants at Poplar Forest,Revised 2004. Unpublished Report, On File

with The Corporation for Jefferson Poplar

Forest, Poplar Forest, VA.

Prance, Sir Ghillean and Mark Nesbitt2005 The Cultural History of Plants. Rout-

ledge, New York.

Pulsipher, Lydia Mihelic1990 They Have Saturdays and Sundays to

Feed Themselves: Slave Gardens in theCaribbean. Expedition 32(3):2433.

Raymer, Leslie E.1996 Macroplant Remains from the Jeffer-

sons Poplar Forest Slave Quarter: A Studyin African American Subsistence Practices.

New South Associates Technical Report

#402. Stone Mountain, Georgia.2003 Archaeobotanical Analysis from Data

Recovery Excavations at the North Hill and

Quarter Sites, Jeffersons Poplar Forest: A

Study of Enslaved African-American Sub-sistence Patterns. Report Submitted to Cor-

poration for Jeffersons Poplar Forest. New

South Associates Technical Report #781,Stone Mountain, Georgia.

Samford, Patricia M.2007 Subfloor Pits and the Archaeology of

Slavery in Colonial Virginia. University of

Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.Sanford, Doug

1994 The Archaeology of Plantation Slavery

in Piedmont Virginia: Context and Process.In Historical Archaeology of the Chesapeake,

eds. Paul A. Shackel and Barbara J. Little,pp. 115130. Smithsonian Institution Press,

Washington DC.

Scott, Elizabeth M.

2001 Food and Social Relations at Nina

Plantation. American Anthropologist 103:671691.

Singleton, Theresa A.1995 The Archaeology of Slavery in North

America. Annual Review of Anthropology 24:

119140.

Smart, Tristine Lee and Ellen S. Hoffman

1988 Environmental Interpretation of Ar-chaeological Charcoal. In Current Paleoethno-botany, eds. Christine A. Hastorf and Vir-ginia S. Popper, pp. 167205. University of

Chicago Press, Chicago.

Stewart, Mart A.

2006 Slavery and the Origins of African

American Environmentalism. In To Love theWind and the Rain: African Americans andEnvironmental History, eds. Dianne D. Glave

and Mark Stoll, pp. 920. University of

Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh.



21/21

Sumner, Judith2004 American Household Botany. Timber

Press, Portland.Westmacott, Richard

1992 African-American Gardens and Yards inthe Rural South. The University of TennesseePress, Knoxville.

Whit, William C.2007 Soul Food as Cultural Creation. In

African American Foodways, ed. Anne L.Bower, pp. 4558. University of Illinois

Press, Urbana and Chicago.Wiessner, Polly

1996 Introduction: Food, Status, Culture,and Nature. In Food and the Status Quest:Interdisciplinary Perspective, eds. Polly Wiess-ner and Wulf Schiefenhovel, pp. 118.Berghan Books, Providence.
