You are on page 1of 33

International Journal of Historical Archaeology, Vol. I, No.

1, 1997
Risk Management Strategies Among
African-American Slaves at Locust Grove
Plantation
Amy L. Young1
African Americans faced a variety of risks under the institution of slavery. The
theory of risk management is used as a context for understanding the lives of
slaves at Locust Grove Plantation in Kentucky and for deconstructing the
common myth that slavery was unusually mild there. African Americans used
a diversity of means at Locust Grove to cope with risk, including generalized
reciprocity, food storage, religion, and strong kinship/community bonds.
KEY WORDS: risk; African-American slavery; southeastern United States.
INTRODUCTION
From 1987 through 1989, the University of Louisville Department of
Anthropology conducted archaeological and historical investigations at Lo-
cust Grove Plantation. Located approximately 5 mi east of Louisville, Ken-
tucky, on the Ohio River, Locust Grove during the nineteenth century was
home to Major William Croghan, his wife Lucy Clark Croghan, their nine
children, and Lucy's famous brother General George Rogers Clark. The
Croghans and their relatives are all well documented in hundreds of letters,
and in deeds, wills, tax lists, censuses, estate inventories, and other surviving
primary records. In addition to the Croghan family, a number of enslaved
African Americans also lived and worked at Locust Grove. Except for being
enumerated in censuses and tax lists, virtually nothing was known about
these individuals, except that they were made to raise corn, wheat, hogs,
'Department of Anthropology and Sociology, Box 5074, University of Southern Mississippi,
Hattiesburg, Mississippi 39406-5074, USA.
5
1092-7697/97/03<XM)005$12.30/0 C 1997 Plenum Publishing Corporation
6 Young
sheep, and cattle and to take care of the Croghans. Archaeological inves-
tigations were conducted to discover the remains of their houses and re-
cover some of their material culture.
The work at Locust Grove was the first major archaeological project
that focused on an African-American slave site at a plantation in Kentucky.
Little was known concerning material conditions or daily life of plantation
slaves in this region. Most archaeological work on slavery has centered on
large, wealthy plantations in Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, and the
Chesapeake region of Virginia (Adams, 1987; Adams and Boling, 1989;
Deetz, 1988; Emerson, 1994; Joseph, 1987, 1989; Kelso, 1984; Klingelhofer,
1987; Lewis, 1985; McKee, 1988, 1992; Singleton, 1995; Wheaton and Gar-
row, 1985). Some sites in the western cotton belt have also been intensively
investigated (Brown and Cooper, 1990; Wilkie, 1995). Because the regions
and temporal periods are so different, it was believed that direct compari-
sons of archaeological remains between the areas would yield little addi-
tional information. Furthermore, once archaeological research showed that
the slaves had access to substantial amounts of material goods, especially
compared to sites dating to the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, it
was believed that inappropriate comparisons would only support the pre-
vailing myth that slavery in Kentucky was unusually mild (Coleman, 1940).
Particularly, differences caused by increasingly available mass-produced in-
dustrial goods throughout the nineteenth century and changes in methods
of construction in housing may have been attributed to the "mild" slavery
in Kentucky rather than to modernization and, thus, obscure the harsh re-
alities suffered by African Americans at Locust Grove. In other words, the
fact that the slave houses at Locust Grove had glazed windows, but those
at Yaughan and Curriboo plantations in South Carolina did not, was more
likely caused by the easy availability of window glass in the nineteenth cen-
tury compared to the eighteenth century. Before meaningful comparisons
can be made, a unifying framework must be developed for conceptualizing
African-American slave lifeways in different regions and time periods.
An economic theory of risk minimization has been successfully em-
ployed in anthropological studies of hunter-gatherer, horticultural, pastoral,
and agricultural societies (Baksh and Johnson, 1990; Cashdan, 1985, 1990;
Wiessner, 1982a, b; Winterhalder, 1990). According to this theory, all peo-
ple face the risk or chance that an unpredictable loss will occur (Cashdan,
1985). How people cope with risk depends on the dangers in the environ-
ment (social and physical) and on the particular society affected by such
loss (Baksh and Johnson, 1990; Hegmon, 1989; Wiessner, 1982b). As
pointed out by Baksh and Johnson (1990), most studies of risk are highly
quantitative and focus on subsistence and environmental factors such as
rainfall (Hawkes, 1990; Kaplan et al, 1990; Winterhalder, 1990). However,
Risk Management Among Slaves 7
some studies are more qualitative and descriptive (Baksh and Johnson,
1990) but go beyond calories and subsistence and focus on social relations
and other aspects of culture. This study of Locust Grove is an initial and
qualitative examination of the risk-reducing strategies employed by the
slaves there. The risks faced by slaves at Locust Grove were largely imposed
by slave owners (i.e., beatings and being sold "down the river") rather than
environmental conditions such as drought. The methods utilized to cope
with risk may be viewed as mechanisms of resisting oppressive Southern
society. Only those risks and the risk-reducing strategies employed by Lo-
cust Grove slaves are treated in detail in this study. Risks faced by Afri-
can-American slaves in other regions and time periods may have been
different, but the methods to minimize risk may have been fairly constant
throughout the slavery times in the South.
The theory of risk minimization, when employed in archaeological and
anthropological studies of African-American slaves and slavery, may pro-
vide a unifying framework for understanding the variety of conditions ex-
perienced throughout the colonial and antebellum periods by focusing on
how slaves coped with risk rather than simply describing particular material
conditions or dangers. Slaves faced a diversity of risks, but risks on eight-
eenth-century South Carolina coastal plantations were not exactly the same
as those faced by slaves on late antebellum farms and plantations in Ken-
tucky. This difference stems from numerous factors concerning how slaves
coped with risk. These factors include age (child, young adult, elderly), po-
sition or occupation on the plantation (field hand, domestic, highly skilled
worker), wealth of the planter, age of the plantation (new frontier planta-
tion versus old established plantation), personality of owners, overseers, and
African-American slaves, national and international economic conditions,
labor requirements of the crops produced, demography, individual talents,
climate and environmental conditions, proximity of urban centers, and a
host of other phenomena and circumstances.
In this study, the theory of risk management is used as a context for
understanding some of the special problems and circumstances of African-
American slaves at Locust Grove, and the ways in which they may have
mitigated some of these risks. Such a theoretical framework does not focus
on slave treatment but, rather, emphasizes the ways in which they coped
with risks. It is not necessary to assume that Southern slavery was uniform
from colonial times until Emancipation in the United States as is sometimes
necessary with interregional comparisons (Orser, 1989, p. 28). Nor is it nec-
essary to assume that cultural uniformity existed in African-derived popu-
lations. Rather, risk minimization allows for an understanding of the
variability of African-American experiences under the brutal slave regime
through time and space: on plantations, farms, and in cities. Only when
8 Young
we understand the tremendous variety of roles played by African Ameri-
cans both during and after slavery times can we begin to appreciate the
diverse and important contributions they made to Southern and American
culture. With this understanding, we can more effectively investigate the
nature, formation, and maintenance of pan-African-American culture (Sin-
gleton, 1995, p. 134).
This study presents and analyzes the results of archaeological investi-
gations at three Locust Grove slave house sites. A detailed analysis of over
25,000 artifacts recovered in excavations, coupled with a consideration of
archaeological features and surviving documents, provides the basis for con-
cluding that while the shelter, furnishing, clothing, diet, and health of the
African-American slaves at Locust Grove may have been capable of sus-
taining life (based on archaeological data and nineteenth-century stand-
ards), this was likely the result of the efforts of the African Americans
themselves rather than the paternalism of the owners or the "mildness" of
the institution in Kentucky. More importantly, this study shows that the
slaves at Locust Grove actively worked to minimize some of the risks they
faced by forming strong family and community ties reinforced by general-
ized reciprocity, by producing surplus through raising their own livestock
and gardens, and through religious practice. Slavery was not mild in Ken-
tucky (Lucas, 1992, p. 43), but the methods employed by the African-
American slaves were effective in mitigating some of the risks it incurred.
LOCUST GROVE
Locust Grove is located on the Ohio River in Kentucky, on the north-
ernmost fringes of the former slave states (Fig. 1). The plantation was
owned by the Croghan family and established circa 1790 (Young, 1995).
The slave population at Locust Grove rose from just 6 people in 1790 to
41 in 1820, and in 1849, it declined to 21 (Young, 1995). The property was
rented to tenants between 1850 and 1860 and was eventually sold by the
Croghan family. The history of the slaves after 1850 remains a mystery.
Locust Grove is located in a region of the South not normally associated
with plantations, and indeed, Locust Grove itself does not fit the traditional
definition of a plantation (Adams and Boling, 1989; Hedrick, 1927; Phillips,
1929; Weaver, 1945) containing 1000 or more acres and 50 or more slaves.
The Croghan's slaves did not raise cotton, rice, sugar, or tobacco like their
contemporaries on more typical Southern plantations. The African-Ameri-
can slaves at Locust Grove lived in an area dominated numerically and cul-
turally by European Americans. At its height, Locust Grove consisted of
only 695.5 acres worked by 41 slaves. After 1936, the slave population ranged
Risk Management Among Slaves 9
Fig. 1. Location of Locust Grove Plantation.
between 18 and 30 individuals. In terms of the number of slaves, acreage,
and the type of crops, Locust Grove cannot be considered a typical Southern
plantation. However, compared with other agricultural entities in the vicin-
ity, Locust Grove was larger than average, but typical of other large Ken-
tucky slaveholdings (Young, 1995). Further, the attitudes of the Croghans,
revealed in numerous surviving letters and other documents (Thomas, 1969),
show that they considered themselves part of the Southern gentry or planter
class (Young, 1995; Young et al., 1995).
Beginning in 1987, the Department of Anthropology, University of
Louisville, undertook archaeological investigations aimed at recovering ma-
terial remains owned and used by slaves at Locust Grove. Sites of three
slave houses were extensively excavated in the summers of 1987, 1988, and
1989, resulting in the discovery of numerous features and the recovery of
thousands of artifacts.
In 1987, intensive archaeological excavations began in an area where
nineteenth-century ceramics were found eroding onto the surface earlier
that spring. The area is located approximately 200 m east of the main
house, across an intermittent stream (Fig. 2). A total of 53 1 x 1-m units
was excavated in the area. Given the very dry weather of the summer of
1987, stratigraphic soil color and texture changes were not readily apparent
10 Young
Fig. 2. Plantation layout, Locust Grove, circa 1830.
and excavations proceeded in 10-cm arbitrary levels. Soils were dry-
screened through quarter-inch hardware mesh. No soil samples were saved
for flotation, accounting for the scarcity of small artifacts such as eggshell,
beads, and straight pins.
Excavations revealed that a single pen structure, measuring approxi-
mately 5 x 6 m, had been built on a continuous limestone foundation (Fig.
3). A limestone chimney pad and hearth were placed on the north wall.
The hearth was constructed of roughly dressed limestone, like the wall
foundation, and filled with soil. An unlined pit cellar measuring approxi-
mately 1.5 m was placed directly in front of the hearth. Very little area
Risk Management Among Slaves 11
Fig. 3. Plan view of the south slave house.
outside the walls of the house was excavated, so almost nothing is known
of the surrounding house yard. The assemblage consists of 9709 artifacts
and 646 pieces of bone. Analysis of the ceramics and window glass indicates
that the structure was probably built around 1790 and abandoned after the
Civil War. The nails recovered in the excavations suggest that the house
was probably a log structure with a wood shake roof and a wood plank
floor, and probably clapboarded in the midnineteenth century (Young,
1994, 1995). Most of the artifacts date to the antebellum period, although
a scattering of later material suggests that the house may have been inter-
mittently occupied until the 1870s (Young, 1995).
12 Young
In the spring of 1988, an area north of the 1987 slave house excavation
was tested with a soil resistivity meter. Anomalous readings suggested the
presence of subsurface features, so excavations were scheduled for later
that spring and summer to test the area. During the summer field school,
a total of 78 m2 was excavated. The field methods were the same as in the
previous year. Unfortunately, the drought of 1987 extended into 1988 and
dry conditions prevented the easy detection of soil color and texture
changes, thus making stratigraphic definition difficult.
Two notable features were uncovered during the fieldwork. One is a
macadamized farm road, very rare for private property of the nineteenth
century. The second feature, just north of the road, is a small brick-lined
pit cellar. The cellar was aligned with the house and cellar excavated in
1987. In fact, the dimensions of the second pit cellar were quite similar to
the first. Because of the difficulty in detecting soil color changes, the fea-
ture was excavated by piece-plotting the artifacts.
Unfortunately wall foundations were not revealed during the excava-
tions. Evidently the foundation was removed once the house was abandoned
and razed. The limestone was probably robbed and reused when the road
was macadamized. In places, a feature that was probably a robbed-out rem-
nant of the foundation was detected in the excavations. This possible robbed
builder's trench, the copious domestic debris, and the presence of the cellar
all indicate that a structure stood over the cellar. The possible robber's
trench suggest that the house was the same size as the one located in 1987.
The assemblage recovered from this second or central slave house was
quite similar to that recovered in 1987, except the artifacts were generally
more fragmented, and nails were less common and in poor condition. A
total of 9308 artifacts and 728 pieces of bone was recovered. Ceramics and
window glass suggest that the house was constructed around 1800 and razed
around 1870. Unfortunately the nails were so rusted and fragmented that
it was impossible to assess the method of construction.
The third and northernmost slave house was excavated in 1989 during
the summer field school. The roughly dressed limestone foundation and
chimney pad along the north and west walls had remained visible above
the surface before excavations. Like the southern slave house, this structure
measured approximately 5 x 6 m. It, too, contained a pit cellar in front of
the hearth, but it was wood-lined. Dimensions of the third cellar were simi-
lar to the cellar in the south house.
Excavation methods were similar to those of the previous 2 years. A
total of 42 m2 was excavated in and around the foundation, using arbitrary
levels. Soil was dry-screened through quarter-inch mesh.
While the size of the artifact assemblage for this slave house was ex-
tremely similar to that of the assemblages from the other two houses (9653
Risk Management Among Slaves 13
artifacts and 1232 pieces of bone), the nature of the assemblage was sig-
nificantly different. The nails, ceramics, and some other artifacts show
clearly that this house was standing and occupied into the twentieth century
(Young, 1995). Coins, bottle glass, and ceramics from the twentieth century
were all recovered in considerable quantities. The Waters family, who
owned Locust Grove from the 1880s until the 1960s, reported that an old
former slave named John lived in the house until the 1920s when he died
(Young, 1995). There was, though, a significant antebellum component to
this assemblage, with many ceramic, glass, and other artifacts dating to the
early nineteenth century (Young, 1995).
Nails were quite numerous. Many were wire nails manufactured after
1890 (Loveday, 1988; Young, 1994). The presence of wire nails suggests
that heavy renovation of the house occurred in the late nineteenth or early
twentieth centuries. The cut nails, many of which were manufactured after
1830 (see Loveday, 1988), suggest that the house was built between 1830
and 1840. Ceramic data support this construction date range. Analysis of
the sizes of the nails indicates that the structure was a frame building with
a wood floor and shake roof, with a tin roof added in the twentieth century.
RISK AND RISK MANAGEMENT
Slaves in all areas of the South faced many risks. Some were common
to all African-American slaves from the earliest times until after the Civil
War; however, some risks were more peculiar to specific regions.
Rather than attempt to evaluate the actual risks faced by slaves at
different times and in different regions, this research considers perceived
risks of slaves in Kentucky. To accomplish this goal, two documentary
sources are used. One source is WPA former slave narratives, assembled
by writers during the Depression. The WPA writers recorded the memories
of former slaves and their children regarding the slavery era (Rawick, 1977).
The other source is fugitive slave narratives published by abolitionists (e.g.,
Osofsky, 1969). These two sources complemented each other quite well, in
that the WPA interviews covered the end of the antebellum period in the
form of remembrances of elderly African Americans who had lived as slaves
prior to Emancipation. The fugitive accounts tell of conditions earlier in
the nineteenth century. All analyzed documents focused on fugitive and
former slaves who lived in Kentucky (Young, 1995).
Naturally, a number of important problems occur with these data (see
Starling, 1988). Fugitive accounts published by abolitionists focus on the
horrors of slavery, while the published interviews in the WPA former slave
accounts are rife with biases caused by racism and economic deprivations.
14 Young
However, the major trends of what was important to African-American
slaves living in Kentucky are apparent when reading these accounts. And,
of course, only very limited amounts of data are available about daily slave
life in this area.
Using narratives and interviews of slaves and former slaves who had
lived in Kentucky and Tennessee, a list of perceived risks was compiled.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
being beaten, whipped, or otherwise physically abused;
being sold or otherwise separated from family and friends;
being sold "down the river" (with or without family);
starvation or malnutrition;
disease/death of self or family member;
injury/death by accident (self or family member); and
other (inadequate shelter, clothing, and education, harassment,
rape).
The first three risks, being physically abused, being separated from fam-
ily, and, especially, being sold "down the river," are related in that they
were all used as a form of punishment by slave owners. Reading the former
slave narratives and the fugitive accounts, it was sometimes difficult to sepa-
rate the three, as they were sometimes referred to together. It is obvious,
though, that these three were particularly difficult situations African-Ameri-
can slaves felt that they might face, or had actually faced. The dangers of
beatings and being sold away were described in ways that suggest that these
risks were considered to be very real and, in many cases, imminent. Blass-
ingame (1979, pp. 295-298) listed the risks of physical abuse from masters
and of being sold away from family as the greatest fears of all slaves. The
risk of starvation or malnutrition was usually referred to differently than the
first three risks. References to lack of food were less common than beatings
or being sold away, and were often made in abstract terms, rather than in
real and immediate terms. For instance, the documents reveal that risks of
food shortfalls were perceived as a form of injustice where slaves raised an
abundance of foodstuff for the master but were denied access to the prod-
ucts of their labor. This injustice was used, in the words of the former and
fugitive slaves, as justification for "theft." The term "theft" was used but it
was apparent that they did not truly feel this was stealing. Owens (1976,
1970) believed that some of the greatest impacts on slave life were disease
and malnutrition.
The dangers of injury or disease actually had few references in the
narratives and accounts, and often people referred to fears that their chil-
dren, grandchildren, or other children in the community would become ill
or be injured. While these risks were perceived as real, in most accounts,
Risk Management Among Slaves 15
there were no apparent perceived differences between African-American
slaves and their owners.
Other perceived risks were mentioned in fugitive and former slave ac-
counts. These include inadequate housing, being overworked, being har-
assed by owners and patrollers, losing material possessions, among others.
These kinds of risks were rather rare in the accounts, however. It may be
that inadequate shelter and overwork are more prominent for slaves who
lived in the coastal plantations of South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida
and on cotton plantations in Alabama and Mississippi.
Slaves undoubtedly faced a number of important and potentially dev-
astating risks in Kentucky. But how did African-American slaves cope with
these risks?
Where risk is defined as the chance that a loss will occur, Wiessner
(1982a, pp. 172-173) outlined four primary strategies for reducing risk:
(1) prevention of loss,
(2) transfer of risk or loss,
(3) storage, and
(4) pooling of risk or sharing.
Preventing a potential loss can be accomplished through a variety of means
(Wiessner, 1982a). These include using rituals to ward off misfortune and
maintaining some control over a resource that one may potentially lose,
such as defending territory from being exploited by outsiders. Winterhalder
(1990) described how during the Middle Ages, farmers of the Midlands of
England used an open field system where plots were dispersed across a
large territory to assure that some plots controlled by a family were pro-
ductive. In this case, farmers prevented potential losses by controlling re-
sources (land) dispersed over a large enough area so that there was less
chance that drought or another catastrophe would entirely destroy a fam-
ily's crops. Baksh and Johnson (1990) describe how the Machiguenga in
South America prevented loss by using rituals to ward off supernatural
threats that were thought to cause common illnesses and diseases.
The second strategy that Wiessner (1982a, p. 173) outlined is trans-
ferring risk or loss to another party. The transfer of risk was practiced by
the Kwakiutl (Wiessner, 1982a, p. 173), where surplus accumulated by a
wealthy group was given or transferred to poorer groups. A common or
negative form of this strategy is stealing, where one party forces another
to incur a loss.
The third strategy described by Wiessner (1982a, p. 173) is storage,
where surplus resources are stored for use later when they would not nor-
mally be available. This practice for avoiding the risk of food shortages has
been documented archaeologically for many prehistoric societies (DeBoer,
16 Young
1988; Testart, 1982) and for historic-period societies as well (Faulkner, 1986;
Kehoe, 1978).
The fourth and final strategy for reducing risk is pooling risk or sharing
(Cashdan, 1985; Wiessner, 1982a, p. 173, 1982b). This method of coping
with variability in resources involves "substituting small losses" for poten-
tially large, dangerous ones (Wiessner, 1982a, p. 173). The IKung San,
hunter-gatherers of the Kalahari, practice this form of risk minimization
by giving gifts, thereby incurring social obligations to have a similar gift
returned at a later time. This activity represents generalized reciprocity ac-
crued as a form of insurance. This means that an individual or family, when
experiencing resource shortages, may rely on others who are not, because
these others owe a gift. In other words, "In times of hardship, a person's
losses can be absorbed by others in the population, if risk is well distrib-
uted" (Wiessner, 1982b, p. 65). Among the IKung, the system of delayed
reciprocity is called hxaro (Wiessner, 1982b). Generalized reciprocity is also
a means by which the Basarwa, who live in northern Botswana and practice
cultivation and animal husbandry, also cope with resource shortages (Cash-
dan, 1985). A Western industrialized version of generalized reciprocity as
insurance against potential future shortfalls is described by Stack (1974,
pp. 32-44) for impoverished African Americans in an urban setting in the
United States. Stack noted that few African-American families living on
welfare were able to meet their basic needs without the help of kin and
friends. Among the numerous instances of reciprocity recorded by Stack
(1974), one example is illustrative. One woman visited another who had
small children. She brought milk and diapers and, in return, took home
corn bread and greens. The visitor noted that "I know I need help every
day. You can't get help just by sitting at home, laying around, house-nasty
and everything. You got to get up and go out and meet people, because
the very day you go out, that first person you meet may be the person that
can help you get the things you want" (Stack, 1974, p. 32). In the ghetto
community studied by Stack (1974), reciprocal exchanges were sometimes
immediate and sometimes delayed.
COPING WITH RISK AT LOCUST GROVE
As hunter-gatherer, horticulturalist, and agriculturalist societies (Cash-
dan, 1985; Wiessner, 1982a; Winterhalder, 1990) typically utilize combina-
tions of the risk-reducing strategies just outlined, it is likely that
African-American slaves in the American South also utilized a variety of
ways to avoid risk. Documentary evidence indicates that slaves attempted
to minimize risk by preventing loss through control over their own re-
Risk Management Among Slaves 17
sources. Berlin and Morgan (1993, pp. 29-31) and Singleton (1995, pp. 129-
130) have pointed out that some African-American slaves negotiated with
their masters to have their own gardens to raise corn, turnips, cabbages,
potatoes, and yams, and many even kept a variety of small livestock and
fowl. Often, gardens and animal pens were regarded as rights to be jeal-
ously defended whenever the master might try to prevent slaves from work-
ing toward their own livelihood (Berlin and Morgan, 1993, pp. 24-25).
Rather than relying solely on rations from the master for their subsistence,
some African-American slaves managed to control their own gardens and
livestock, and even sold surplus in nearby towns or to their owners. There
is no direct archaeological or documentary evidence at Locust Grove for
slave gardens, yet there is some indication that the slaves controlled (per-
haps owned) small livestock, especially chickens and perhaps hogs (Lev-Tov
and Young, 1995), and found other ways to control their food supply.
Animal bones were recovered from each of the three slave houses at
Locust Grove (Lev-Tov and Young, 1995; Young, 1995). Table I lists the
number of specimens for each species identified. As can be seen, domestic
pigs, chickens, cattle, and sheep make up the largest portion of the iden-
tified species, ranging from 69 to 83% of the identified bones. However,
part of each assemblage is also composed of wild birds, turtle, fish, and
other potential wild foods. This evidence, coupled with fish hooks, bullets,
gunflints, and even part of a gun from the north house suggest that African
Americans at Locust Grove had some opportunities to hunt or trap and
fish to supplement their diets. In other words, their entire diet was not
totally controlled by their owner.
While samples are too small to evaluate statistically, analysis of chicken
bones suggests that the slaves may have kept their own fowl. The presence
of immature and adult chickens in the assemblages indicates regular access
to a flock (Lev-Tov and Young, 1995).
The age profiles for hogs at Locust Grove show that slaves may have
had access to an entire herd rather than animals selected by the planter
(Fig. 4). What is especially interesting is that the frequency of newborn,
probably suckling pigs is so high at Locust Grove. Killing of piglets is not
economically sound, as such practice may compromise the production po-
tential of the herd. Two explanations are possible. First, the suckling or
newborn pigs could be the natural mortalities within the herds that be-
longed to the slaves. Second, these bones may represent piglets stolen (or
better, "reappropriated") from the master's herd. The theft of piglets was
evidently fairly common on antebellum plantations in the American South
(Genovese, 1976, pp. 599-601; McKee, 1988, pp. 80-81). Watt Jordan, who
was raised a slave in central Kentucky, related that his grandmother was
sold "down south somewheres" because she would steal food from the own-
18 Young
Table I. Identification and NISP for Each of the Slave House Faunal
Assemblages
Species (common name) Number of bones
South slave house
Scalopus aquaticus (eastern mole)
Rattus norvegicus (rat)
Rattus sp. (Old World rat)
Sciurus carolinesis (gray squirrel)
Sciurus sp. (gray or fox squirrel)
Sylvilagus floridanus (eastern cottontail)
Didelphis marsupialis (opossum)
Procyon lotor (raccoon)
Canis familiaris (domestic dog)
Sus scrofa (domestic pig)
Ovis aries (domestic sheep)
Ovis/Capra (sheep/goat)
Bos taurus (domestic cattle)
Gallus (domestic chicken)
Anas platytynchos (mallard duck)
Branta canadensis (Canada goose)
Columbia livia (rock dove)
Zenaida macroura (mourning dove)
Melanerpes sp. (woodpecker)
Colaptes auratus (common flicker)
Applodinotus grunniens (freshwater drum)
Acipenser fulvescens (sturgeon)
Ictalurus punctatus (channel catfish)
Chelydra serpentina (snapping turtle)
Unidentified
Total
5
73
10
2
2
13
11
8
2
184
3
6
8
110
1
1
1
1
1
1
17
15
1
4
751
1232
Central slave house
Scalopus aquaticus (eastern mole)
Rattus norvegicus (rat)
Sciurus carolinensis (gray squirrel)
Marmota monax (woodchuck)
Sylvilagus floridanus (eastern cottontail)
Didelphis virginianus (opossum)
Procyon lotor (raccoon)
Sus scrofa (domestic pig)
Ovis aries (domestic sheep)
Ovis/Capra (sheep/goat)
Bos taunts (domestic cattle)
Gallus (chicken)
Meleagris gallopavo (turkey)
Anas sp. (dabbling duck)
Branta canadensis (Canada goose)
Corvus brachyrynchos (crow)
Columbia livia (rock dove)
Chelydra serpentina (snapping turtle)
Applodinotus grunniens (freshwater drum)
Unidentified
Total
1
24
2
4
6
5
8
161
1
11
13
36
1
2
1
1
1
1
6
443
728
Risk Management Among Slaves 19
Table I. Continued
Species (common name) Number of bones
North slave house
Rattus norvegicus (rat)
Sciurus carolinensis (gray squirrel)
Marmota monax (woodchuck)
Sylvilagus floridanus (eastern cottontail)
Didelphis virginianus (opossum)
Procyon lotor (raccoon)
Canis familiaris (domestic dog)
Sus scrofa (domestic pig)
Ovis aries (domestic sheep)
Ovis/Capra (sheep/goat)
Bos taunts (domestic cattle)
Gallus (domestic chicken)
Meleagris gallopavo (turkey)
Falco sparverius (kestrel)
Applodinotus grunniens (freshwater drum)
Micropterus salmoides (largemouth bass)
Chefydra serpentine (snapping turtle)
Unidentified
Total
10
1
2
13
3
2
1
181
2
2
18
38
8
1
7
1
1
355
646
ers to feed slave children (Rawick, 1977, p. 395). While not conclusive,
both explanations are plausible for the Locust Grove assemblages. The pos-
sibility of theft, of course, suggests that Wiessner's (1982a, p. 173) second
strategy for reducing risk, transferring loss, may have been practiced by the
African-American slaves at Locust Grove.
Fig. 4. Hog mortality profile.
20 Young
Finally, analysis of the pig bones from Locust Grove shows that slaves
had access to entire pig carcasses. This indicates that they were not com-
pletely dependent on rationed cuts (Lev-Tov and Young, 1995) and, there-
fore, may have had some degree of control over their own diets.
In addition to managing greater control of resources, risk can also be
reduced through the use of ritual to ward off misfortune. Documentary
and archaeological evidence suggests that African-American slaves used
charms and amulets to do this. Crystals, blue beads, drilled coins, and other
objects were sometimes used to ward off witches, prevent illness, avoid
beatings, and prevent their sale (Stine et al., 1996; Ferguson, 1992; Lucas,
1992, pp. 130-131; Raboteau, 1978; Singleton, 1991, pp. 157-162, 1995, pp.
130-131; Young, 1995). For example, a former slave living in Wayne County,
Kentucky, and interviewed by a WPA worker explained, "Every one of my
children wears a silver dime on a string around their leg to keep off the
witches [sic] spell. One time, before my daughter Delia got to wearing it,
she was going down the road, not far from our house, when all at once
her leg gave way and she could not walk. Of course I knowed [sic] what
it was. So I went after Linda Woods, the witch doctor" (Rawick, 1977, p.
35). The witch doctor bathed Delia's leg in "life everlasting," an herb, and
told Delia to stay off that road for 9 days. Her mother made Delia wear
a silver dime around her leg. Evidently, Delia, once she wore the charm
and followed the doctor's advice, never suffered from the witch's spell again
(Rawick, 1977, pp. 35-36). Henry Bibb (1849; cited by Osofsky, 1969, p.
73), in his fugitive account, describes using these kinds of charms to attract
love interests. These kinds of objects, including drilled coins, have been
recovered in numerous archaeological excavations of slave quarters (Stine
et al., 1996; Orser, 1994; Singleton, 1991, pp. 157-162, 1995; Young, 1995).
At Locust Grove, excavations at each of the three slave houses yielded
objects that may have been used as charms or amulets. From the southern
house, a Chinese coin, a faceted blue glass bead, and a notched 20 U.S.
coin were found (Fig. 5). The date of the Chinese coin has not been de-
termined, but several Chinese coins were recovered during the excavations
of slave pens, where slaves were held awaiting sale, in Alexandria, Virginia.
The Chinese coins, because they were manufactured with square holes,
could have been used like the coin Delia wore (Rawick, 1977, p. 35). The
date of the 20 coin is illegible, but these coins were minted only from 1864
through 1873, with the greatest numbers being minted in 1864 and 1865.
The four notches on this coin are placed so that if twine were wound
around the coin through the notches, an "x" or cross of string would show
on the faces of the coin. In this way, the coin could have been worn as a
pendant. From the central house, several chandelier prisms (crystals) and
a modified silver dime were recovered (Fig. 6). The dime dates to 1827.
Risk Management Among Slaves 21
22 Young
However it is extremely worn. What is most remarkable about this coin is
that a cross or "x" has been scratched on the reverse face. From the north
house a silver tea spoon, a kaolin clay marble, a Chinese coin, and several
chandelier prisms were recovered (Fig. 7). The teaspoon has a cross or "x"
scratched on the handle. The clay marble has a cross or "x" incised in it.
The motifs of "x's" or crosses, with circles and squares (Chinese coins),
are remarkably similar to marks Ferguson (1992) found on the bases of
some colonoware bowls recovered in South Carolina. The bowls were likely
manufactured and used by slaves, and Ferguson believes that the marks
resemble Bakongo cosmograms used for "medicine" and rituals. The ob-
jects from Locust Grove could have served this function as well.
Data show that the African Americans at Locust Grove also practiced
Wiessner's (1982a, p. 173) third strategy for reducing risk: storage. At Lo-
cust Grove, the storage facilities were pit cellars found within each of the
three slave house sites.
Cellars for storing food were commonly used in the eighteenth, nine-
teenth, and twentieth centuries in many parts of the United States. Kelso
(1984, p. 201) recognized these facilities as a "long-standing English tradi-
tion" brought to the New World (see also Kimmel, 1993). Faulkner (1986)
described three types of cellars often found on sites dating to the eighteenth
and nineteenth centuries in the southern Appalachians: the structural or
foundational cellar, the banked earth cellar, and the pit cellar. It is the
third type of most concern here since each of the three slave houses at
Locust Grove contained this type of storage facility.
A pit cellar, according to Faulkner (1986), is always found beneath
buildings. Sometimes pit cellars were quite large, though never as large as
the room or building above. Entrance to large pit cellars was sometimes
gained through an outside entryway. More often, however, these features
were small square or rectangular pits, and entered through a trap door in
the floor of the room above. Sometimes, too, the cellars were lined with
wood planks, stone, or brick (Faulkner, 1986, p. 54). According to inter-
views conducted by Faulkner (1986), the cellars were customarily used to
store apples, cabbages, turnips, pumpkins, meat, milk, and especially root
crops such as potatoes and yams.
Small pit cellars have been identified on many African-American slave
sites, especially those found in the Virginia Piedmont or other regions of
the Upland South (Andrews, 1992; Kelso, 1984, 1986; McKee, 1991, 1993;
McKelway, 1992, 1994; Singleton, 1995, p. 124), including Locust Grove.
Their function is clearly illustrated by Mrs. Mary Emily Eaton late, a for-
mer slave who lived on a plantation near Knoxville, Tennessee. Mrs. Tate
described such a pit cellar in a WPA interview: "Every day, spies were mak-
ing their rounds and often soldiers, both Yankee and Rebel, visited our
Risk Management Among Slaves 23
24 Young
Risk Management Among Slaves 25
cabin taking what they could find. . . . The cellar, a hole dug out under
some boards in our cabin, contained our supplies" (Rawick, 1977, pp. 212-
219). The soldiers quickly found the Eaton family cellar and took every-
thing. References to these kinds of features are rather rare in former slave
narratives. This does not necessarily imply that they were secret. The ease
with which the soldiers found the Eaton's cellar may indicate that these
features were quite common.
The three cellars associated with the slave houses at Locust Grove
are, in many ways, remarkably similar in size and shape. All three measure
approximately 1.5 x 1 m and were placed in front of the hearths. They
were, however, backfilled at different times (Young, 1995). The cellars in
the south and north houses were filled while the houses above were still
occupied. The cellar in the central house was filled when the house above
was torn down (Young, 1995). Also, the cellar in the south house was not
lined, while the central cellar was brick-lined. The cellar in the north house
was wood-lined.
Interestingly, it appears that the African-American slave households
conformed to the expectation Wiessner (1982a, p. 173) presents concerning
site structure and the utilization of this particular strategy. She expected
that groups who use storage as an important means of reducing risk would
construct sites that were spatially arranged in a particular way. Storage,
and especially surplus foodstuffs that need storage, would lead to "widely
spaced household units or closed-in eating and storage areas, in order to
avoid the jealousy and conflict which might arise from one household visibly
having more than another" (Wiessner, 1982a, p. 173). The storage facilities,
the pit cellars, at Locust Grove were not easily visible and were placed
within the house rather than outside. Such placement of the cellars inside
the houses, and the fact that each was slightly different, suggests that the
African-American slaves may have viewed the cellars and their contents as
private, household property. This does not necessarily mean that sharing
of foodstuff did not occur or that jealousy and competition were common.
Rather, nonfamily members may not have had immediate and easy access
to the food stored in the cellar without asking. Cellars may also have func-
tioned to keep goods out of sight of the master.
Like the generalized reciprocity of the IKung San (Wiessner, 1982b)
and the Basarwa (Cashdan, 1985), reciprocity, family, kinship networks, and
community solidarity based on kinship ties were also likely used to minimize
risks faced by the slaves at Locust Grove, and appear to have a long history
among African Americans before and after freedom. The role and organi-
zation of the African-American family have been debated by social scien-
tists for many years. Frazier (1939), Moynihan (1965), and others believed
that the apparent deterioration of the African-American family resulted
26 Young
largely from the terrible conditions of slavery, and African Americans sim-
ply reacted to the institution of slavery, racism, and poverty. Other re-
searchers, including DuBois (1939), Herskovits (1958), and Gutman (1976)
suggested that the African-American family was quite stable (and not nor-
mally matrifocal) because of the adaptive significance of African consan-
guinal networks used and modified by African Americans both under
slavery and after freedom.
A number of studies of African-American family structure point to the
use of kin and community for coping with risk. Webber (1978, p. 158) il-
lustrated how the family and slave community became synonymous in so-
cializing children and meeting the basic needs of the community's members.
Blood relatives in slave communities did not take sole responsibility for
caring for the sick, providing food, and educating children. According to
Webber (1978, pp. 66-68), relationships between nonkin were established
by reciprocal obligations. These "quasi-familial" relationships were de-
scribed as extending off the plantation to slave communities on neighboring
plantations (Webber, 1978, pp. 66-68). The same relationships and recip-
rocal obligations were described by Stack (1974). Her study showed how
African Americans in a twentieth-century urban ghetto used reciprocity in
the form of swapping to relieve resource shortages and meet basic material
needs. Aschenbrenner's (1973) analysis of African Americans in Chicago
showed that the extended family was the primary social unit and socializing
agent rather than the conjugal family thought to be common among white
Americans. Her work also demonstrated that in extended family situations,
borrowing and baby-sitting were the norm, information about employment
opportunities was shared, and economic aid was provided in the form of
loans. Shimkin et al. (1978), Martin and Martin (1985), Bushman (1981),
Lewis (1987), and Hunter (1993) all demonstrated that bonds of kinship
were used to mitigate the hardships encountered as rural southern Afri-
can-American families moved to northern urban areas during the First
Great Migration (1900-1920). Ford et al. (1993) suggest that the extended
African-American family today contributes a great deal of support such as
advice, money, help with household tasks and child care, and emotional
support in the face of poverty, racism, and discrimination. Many of these
helping characteristics are viewed as African in origin (Foster, 1983;
McDaniel, 1990; Sudarkasa, 1980, 1982).
I argue here that the African-American community at Locust Grove
and other plantations in the region was composed of related families. At
Locust Grove and other sites in the Upland South, the community extended
beyond particular plantations because Upland South slaveholdings were
usually too small to be self-contained. One way to extend the family off
the plantation was through "broad marriages" (marrying off the plantation).
Risk Management Among Slaves 27
This occurred fairly frequently in Kentucky, although it could create com-
plications in slave family life (Lucas, 1992, pp. 17-18). Further, I suggest
that the family functioned in the antebellum and early postbellum periods
in the Upland South much as it did during the twentieth century, to manage
many kinds of risks. Family and community solidarity were the slaves' best
defense against racial and economic oppression, because only by standing
together could African-Americans during the antebellum period resist pres-
sures from the dominant white society (Blassingame, 1979, pp. 315-317).
Unfortunately, no documentary record exists that describes the family
structure and social organization of the African-American slave community
at Locust Grove. Also, it is unfortunate that qualities such as kinship, shar-
ing, gifting, and community are not easily visible and recognizable in the
archaeological record. However, how goods were distributed across a plan-
tation may provide clues about sharing and, perhaps, kinship and commu-
nity as well.
Evidence suggests that the slaves at Locust Grove lived in (at least)
three households; that is, each slave house contained a family. The family
may have been conjugal or extended. Further, each of these families sought
to create bonds with one another on the plantation, and with slave and
free black families on surrounding farms and plantations and in the town
of Louisville. The strongest bonds are those of kinship and fictive kin also
helped extend and strengthen family ties. Because no documentary sources
are available concerning slave communities on plantations and farms sur-
rounding Locust Grove, and because no archaeological collections from
slave house sites on surrounding farms and plantations exist, the remainder
of this discussion is confined to household interaction at Locust Grove.
Items such as ceramics, especially tablewares, decorated glassware in-
cluding wine glasses, tumblers, and cup plates, and other artifacts (i.e., but-
tons) were often obtained and used in matching sets. For instance, a tea
set often consisted of a number of cups and saucers (often six or eight
each), all decorated in the same manner. Likewise, matching buttons were
acquired for a single garment. It is possible to identify matched buttons,
glassware, and ceramics, or sets, from complete artifacts and from sherds
recovered from the archaeological record (Young et al., 1995). This kind
of analysis was completed for the decorated ceramics, fancy glass tableware,
and buttons from the three slave houses at Locust Grove. The goal was to
identify and quantify the matches between houses because these matches
may indicate gifting and sharing between slave families and, thus, recon-
struct how gifting may have distributed goods on the plantation at Locust
Grove.
There are, however, several possible ways that matched ceramics, glass-
ware, and buttons could be deposited at different slave house sites.
28 Young
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
items were exchanged between slave households, and were
eventually broken and discarded around the house;
pieces from a set from the main house were distributed as
hand-me-downs among several slave families;
broken items from one house were discarded (dumped) at another
abandoned house; and
several households could randomly acquire the same sets.
The latter method is considered the least probable and is not given further
consideration here. However, the other three possibilities are examined.
Decorated ceramics, glassware, and buttons recovered archaeologically
from the three slave house sites were used to define patterning and recon-
struct exchange networks. A ceramic type collection was constructed, using
the attributes of ware type, decoration, and color. Ware types included
creamware, pearlware, whiteware, ironstone, porcelain, refined redware,
and stoneware. Decorated types consisted of the following specific patterns:
blue transfer print, blue hand-painted, blue shell edge, polychrome hand-
painted, annular, mocha, brown transfer print, red transfer print, purple
transfer print, green transfer print, black transfer print, spatter, flow blue,
overglaze enameled, luster, embossed, Canton, red shell edge, green shell
edge, gilt, and rusticated. The south slave house ceramics were analyzed
first. A total of 199 ceramic types was identified. The central slave house
assemblage was analyzed next, and 123 types were recorded, in addition
to types that were previously identified in the south slave house ceramic
assemblage. The north slave house decorated ceramic assemblage consisted
of only 40 additional types. The main house assemblage consisted of 130
types, 14 of which were matched in the three slave house assemblages.
To determine if ceramics and glassware were hand-me-downs from the
main house, decorated ceramics from the main house were compared to
decorated ceramics from the three slave houses. Previous analysis (Young
et al., 1995) indicated that from the south and central slave houses, nearly
13% of the decorated ceramics came from the main house, probably as
hand-me-downs, and from the north slave house, nearly 8% were also likely
hand-me-downs. A total of 14 types of decorated ceramics from the main
house also appeared in the slave house assemblages. These are shown in
Table II. Rather than indicating gifting and sharing between slave house-
holds, these ceramics likely reflect the practice of giving chipped or out-
of-fashion ceramics as hand me-downs to slaves and were, therefore,
eliminated from further analysis.
To discover if discard practices resulted in matches between houses,
attempts were made to refit or mend every match. Only in a single case,
a pearlware saucer, did sherds from a single vessel come from two different
Risk Management Among Slaves 29
houses. The remainder of the matches did not appear to mend or refit.
This, as well as the distance between the three slave houses (see Fig. 2),
indicates that discard or dumping does not account for a significant portion
of matched ceramics among the three slave houses.
Table III shows the remaining types and frequencies of matches of
decorated ceramics among the south, central, and north slave houses. As
can be seen, 32 different ceramic types were shared among the slave fami-
lies at Locust Grove. The south and central households shared 20 ceramic
types, while the south and north households shared 7, and the central and
north shared 5 kinds of ceramic types.
Analysis of glass tableware, including wine glasses, decanters, tumblers,
cup plates, celery vases, compotes, and serving dishes, did not reveal any
patterns of sharing among the slave households. However, the frequencies
of these items were quite low, and except for wine glasses, cup plates, and
tumblers, these items were not always acquired in matched sets.
Button analysis, however, did reveal matches between slave houses.
Three identical blue transfer-printed (calico) milk glass buttons were re-
covered in excavations, one in each of the three slave houses. Also, a
stamped-design, yellow metal, four-hole button from the south slave house
matched one found in the central slave house.
The data presented here suggest that some amount of sharing of non-
food items may have transpired between slave families at Locust Grove.
Table II. Ceramic Types and Frequencies from the Main House
that Matched Those from the Three Slaves Houses0
Type*
1920
2309
283
340
3772
4691
5896
801
7063.88
2984.88
7385.88
1257.89
2219.89
2314.89
Ware
pw
pw
pore
pw
pore
pw
ww
pw
pore
rr
cw
pw
ww
pore
Decoration
Blue tp
Blue tp
Canton
Blue tp
Overglaze
Blue tp
Blue tp
Blue tp
Overglaze
Luster
Mocha
Blue tp
Green tp
Overglaze
South
1
1
28
1
4
7
2
13
Central
29
3
1
1
5
1
North
19
2
1
1
4
1
4
"Notation: pw, pearlware; cw, creamware; ww, whiteware; rr, refined
redware; pore, porcelain; tp, transfer-printed.
'"Type numbers refer to catalog numbers in the Locust Grove col-
lection.
30 Young
Table III. Ceramic Matches and Frequencies from the South,
Central, and North Slave House Assemblages"
Type"
1788
1970
1971
2144
2315
2498"
2554
2654
2853
3078
32
3203
347
3578
3996
4005
4040
4242
4550
4605
4704
4792
4920
55534
654
85
979
1537.88
1732.88
4575.88
4686.88
6692.88
Ware
pw
ww
pw
pore
ww
iron
ww
ww
pw
ww
ww
ww
ww
rr
ww
pw
ww
ww
ww
pw
ww
ww
ww?
pw
ww
pw
ww
ww
ww
pw
ww
ww
Decoration
Annular
Blue tp
Blue tp
Overglaze
Blue tp
Flow blue
Blue tp
Blue tp
Blue tp
Red shell
Purple tp
Poly hp
Poly hp
Rusticated
Blue tp
Blue tp
Red tp
Red tp
Red tp
Blue tp
Blue tp
Blue tp
Blue tp
Poly hp
Green tp
Poly hp
Blue tp
Black tp
Blue edge
Blue tp
Brown tp
Blue tp
South
1
2
3
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
10
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
28
6
Central
1
7
1
20
1
2
1
1
1
5
1
3
1
1
3
2
2
1
4
2
1
1
1
8
1
North
1
1
9
1
3
3
3
1
4
1
1
1
Total 78 72 29
"Notations: pw, pearlware; ww, whiteware; pore, porcelain; iron,
ironstone; rr, refined redware; poly hp, polychrome hand-painted;
shell, shell-edged; tp; transfer-printed.
*Type numbers refer to catalog numbers in the Locust Grove col-
lection.
That the items matched between the slave households were often luxury
items (such as decorated tea and dinner ceramics and buttons) is also rele-
vant. Often these kinds of artifacts are used to illustrate status in archae-
ological studies of slave sites (see especially Adams and Boling, 1989).
However, the sharing of these goods suggests that such "luxury" items may
have had different meanings for African-American slaves (Singleton, 1995,
Risk Management Among Slaves 31
p. 128). This can be illustrated through an example derived from the work
of Wiessner (1982b). Gifts for hxaro among the IKung San are often sym-
bolic, like beads (Wiessner, 1982b, pp. 70-72), and manufactured in a social
context. The meaning of hxaro gifts likewise becomes associated with the
social context. For the African Americans at Locust Grove, the gifts of tea
cups and saucers, rather than being viewed by the slaves as high-status
items, could have been seen as items used and appreciated in friendly social
contexts in the quarters, symbolic of the reciprocal bonds between families
and households.
The extension of bonds of kinship outside the immediate household
would have been particularly important to slaves at Locust Grove and other
plantations and farms in the area because of the apparent high risk of being
sold away (particularly being sold "down the river"). In the event that a
parent (either mother or father) was sold, and the child or children kept
behind, strong bonds of kinship would help to ensure the future of the
dependent offspring robbed of biological parents. Further, when faced with
being overworked, driven too hard, or beaten, a reaction from the entire
slave community would have been difficult for the owner to withstand with
impunity. Finally, emotional support from within the community during life
crises of birth, illness, and death would have been particularly important
to a group of people often denied access to comforts of a formal church
and professional medical care.
CONCLUSIONS
Unfortunately a static image of plantations and enslaved African
Americans in the antebellum South has influenced, to some degree, histo-
rians' and archaeologists' perceptions and investigations of plantation life.
By focusing on material conditions and slave mistreatment, archaeologists
and other scholars often worked under the assumption that slavery, as an
institution, was largely uniform through time and across space, and there-
fore, African-American slaves, as passive victims, were virtually the same
everywhere. The static image and assumptions concerning uniformity, of
course, are not real (Orser, 1989). The assumptions ignore the importance
of the dynamic and varied roles African Americans played, in many dif-
ferent times, places, and situations (Singleton and Bograd, 1995, pp. 22-23).
African-American slaves actively coped with the problems in their lives by
the use of diverse and effective tools in their cultural repertoire.
The theory of risk management has been used to illustrate the variety
of risks African Americans faced at Locust Grove and, more importantly,
to investigate the ways they managed to minimize these risks. The more
32 Young
significant risks included the chance of physical abuse from the master
(beatings, whippings) and the chance of being sold away, especially down
the river, from hearth and home. Also important were the risks of subsis-
tence shortages, especially significant for slaves, who were forced to depend
more on rations than on their own efforts of securing food for themselves
and their families.
Slaves at Locust Grove utilized a variety of methods for coping with
risks. These included the use of religion and ritual to ward off misfortune
(such as illness or being sold away), perhaps stealing, or appropriating, food
(especially piglets), storing surplus food in cellars under the floors of their
houses, perhaps raising chickens or pigs and garden produce for their own
consumption or for sale, and through pooling risk by sharing. Sharing was
probably the most effective way to strengthen bonds of kinship and com-
munity. This kind of behavior, that is, reciprocity for mitigating the risks
posed by the environment (social and physical), and for coping with social
conflict and cultural loss, was probably universal throughout the entire an-
tebellum period for African Americans all over the South. Shared behavior
of this nature does not imply that African-American culture throughout
the South was uniform. Nor does it necessarily imply that this behavior is
African in origin, although there is ample evidence to support this connec-
tion (Foster, 1983; McDaniel, 1990; Sudarkasa, 1980, 1982; Zollar, 1985).
Rather, some kinds of risks were common to African Americans from the
beginning of the colonial era until the present day. Some kinds of risks,
however, were peculiar to a specific region and temporal period. The kinds
of risks slaves in the Upland South faced during the antebellum period
have been illustrated here, as well as some of the responses to those risks
made by African Americans who lived and labored at Locust Grove. The
perspective of risk minimization allows for a deeper understanding of the
lives of slaves in Kentucky and helps to deconstruct the rather prevalent
myth that slavery in Kentucky was unusually mild (Lucas, 1992, pp. 42-43).
The ideological implications of this myth discredit contemporary arguments
about the cumulative history of discrimination and current social/political
responsibilities to redress them through policies (Harrison, 1995, pp. 50-
52).
African Americans in the South faced a diversity of risks that varied
according to demography, climate, and a host of other social and environ-
mental factors. Slaves on sugar plantations were frequently overworked,
especially during the cane-processing season, work that was also quite dan-
gerous (Berlin and Morgan, 1993, pp. 4, 21). Free blacks in cities before
Emancipation faced dangers and life problems such as poor, unsanitary
housing, harassment, curfews, and being stolen or kidnapped into slavery
(Lucas, 1992, pp. 101-117). At Locust Grove, the most significant threats
Risk Management Among Slaves 33
to African-American slaves were being beaten and sold, especially "down
the river." It may have been that similar coping strategies were employed
in many different situations (like the use of ritual to ward off evil and
misfortune), even though the actual risks show great variability. This study
suggests that the most pressing risks were those imposed by slave owners
and other white members of Southern society and that risk-reducing strate-
gies were largely employed as a means of resistance. It would be interesting
to know whether African Americans did, in fact, use basically the same
ways to reduce many different risks. If so, this would help to explain a
pan-African-American society spread over a wide geographic area, success-
ful for long periods of time. This study of Locust Grove is only the first
and exploratory step in this direction.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank Robert Kelly, Director of the Archaeology Pro-
gram at the University of Louisville, for arranging the loan of the Locust
Grove collections for this analysis. I would like to express my gratitude to
the Kentucky Heritage Council for funding the zooarchaeological analysis
of the Locust Grove faunal remains. I am grateful to Justin Lev-Tbv for
conducting such thorough zooarchaeological analyses and to Walter Klippel
for use of the excellent zooarchaeological comparative collections at the De-
partment of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Joseph
Granger was PI during the three field seasons at Locust Grove, and provided
encouragement during analyses and write-up. Thanks, too, go to Charles
Faulkner, Lydia Pulsipher, Walter Klippel, and Faye Harrison for advice and
encouragement during this research and for serving on my dissertation com-
mittee. Comments on the manuscript by Melanie Cabak, Philip Carr, Eliza-
beth Cashdan, Mark Grover, Faye Harrison, Larry McKee, Charles Orser,
Bruce Roberts, and Theresa Singleton substantially improved the final ver-
sion. I am especially grateful to Larry McKee, Charles Orser, and Theresa
Singleton for their help and support with Locust Grove research. I acknow-
ledge Locust Grove Historic Home for the use of their collections, curated
at the University of Louisville Program of Archaeology.
REFERENCES CITED
Adams, W. H. (ed.) (1987). Historical Archaeology of Plantations at Kings Bay, Camden County,
Georgia, Reports of Investigations 5, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida,
Gainesville.
34 Young
Adams, W. H., and Boling, S. J. (1989). Status and ceramics for planters and slaves on three
Georgia coastal plantations. Historical Archaeology 23(4): 69-96.
Andrews, S. (1992). Spatial Analysis of an East Tennessee Plantation Houselot, Unpublished
master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
Andrews, S., and Young, A. L. (1992). Plantations on the periphery: Modeling a new approach
for the upper South. Tennessee Anthropologist 17(1): 1-12.
Aschenbrenner, J. (1973). Extended families among Black Americans. Journal of Comparative
Family Studies 4: 257-268.
Baksh, M., and Johnson, A. (1990). Insurance policies among the Machiguenga: An
ethnographic analysis of risk management in a non-Western society. In Cashdan, E. (ed.),
Risk and Uncertainty in Tribal and Peasant Economies, Westover Press, Boulder, pp.
193-227.
Berlin, I., and Morgan, P (1993). Introduction. In Berlin, I., and Morgan, P. (eds.), Cultivation
and Culture: Labor and the Shaping of Slave Life in the Americas, University Press of
Virginia, Charlottesville, pp. 1-48.
Blassingame, J. W. (1979). The Slave Community: Plantation Life in the Antebellum South, rev.
ed., Oxford University Press, New York.
Brown, K., and Cooper, D. C. (1990). Structural continuity in an African-American slave and
tenant community. Historical Archaeology 24(4): 7-19.
Bushman, R. L. (1981). Family security in the transition from farm to city, 1750-1850. Journal
of Family History 6(3): 238-256.
Cashdan, E. (1985). Coping with risk: Reciprocity among the Basarwa of northern Botswana.
Man (N.S.) 20: 454^*74.
Cashdan, E. (1990). Introduction. In Cashdan, E. (ed.), Risk and Uncertainty in Tribal and
Peasant Economies, Westover Press, Boulder, pp. 1-16.
Coleman, J. W. (1940). Slavery Times in Kentucky, University of North Carolina Press, Chapel
Hill.
DeBoer, W. R. (1988). Subterranean storage and the organization of surplus: The view from
eastern North America. Southeastern Archaeology 7(1): 1-20.
Deetz, J. (1988). American historical archaeology: Methods and results. Science 239: 362-367.
DuBois, W E. B. (1939). Black Folk, Then and Now, Holt, New York.
Emerson, M. C. (1994). Decorated clay tobacco pipes from the Chesapeake: An African
American connection. In Shackel, P., and Little, B. J. (eds.), Historical Archaeology of the
Chesapeake, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, pp. 35-49.
Faulkner, C. H. (1986). The pit cellar: A nineteenth century storage facility. Ohio Valley Urban
and Historic Archaeology 4: 54-65.
Ferguson, L. (1992). Uncommon Ground: Archaeology and Early African America, 1650-1800,
Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.
Ford, D. Y., Harris, J. J., Ill, and Turner, W. T (1993). The extended African American family:
A pragmatic strategy that blunts the blade of injustice. The Urban League Review 14(2):
71-82.
Foster, H. J. (1983). African patterns in the Afro-American family. Journal of Black Studies
14(2): 201-232.
Frazier, E. F. (1939). The Negro Family in the United States, University of Chicago Press,
Chicago.
Genovese, E. D. (1976). Roll Jordan Roll: The World the Slaves Made, Random House, New
York.
Gutman, H. G. (1976). The Black Family in Slavery and Freedom, 1750-1925, Vintage Books,
New York.
Harrison, F. V (1995). The persistent power of "race" in the cultural and political economy
of racism. Annual Review of Anthropology 24: 47-74.
Hedrick, C. E. (1927). Social and Economic Aspects of Slavery in the Transmontane Prior to
1850, George Peabody College for Teachers, Nashville.
Hegmon, M. (1989). Risk reduction and variation in agricultural economies: A computer
simulation of Hopi agriculture. Research in Economic Anthropology 11: 89-121.
Herskovits, M. (1958). The Myth of the Negro Past, Beacon Press, Boston.
Risk Management Among Slaves 35
Hill, R. B. (1971). The Strengths of Black Families, Emerson Hall, New York.
Hunter, A. G. (1993). Making a way: Strategies of southern urban African American families,
1900-1936. Journal of Family History 18(3): 231-248.
Joseph, J. W. (1987). Highway 17 revisited: The archaeology of task labor. South Carolina
Antiquities 19(1/2): 29-34.
Joseph, J. W. (1989). Pattern and process in the plantation archaeology of the low country of
Georgia and South Carolina. Historical Archaeology 23(1): 55-68.
Kaplan, H., Hill, K., and Hurtado, A. M. (1990). Risk, foraging and food sharing among the
Ache. In Cashdan, E. (ed.), Risk and Uncertainty in Tribal and Peasant Economies,
Westover Press, Boulder, pp. 107-144.
Kehoe, A. (1978). Francois' house: An early fur trade post on the Saskatchewan River. Pastlog
No. 2, Saskatchewan Culture and Youth, Regina.
Kelso, W (1984). Kingsmill Plantations, 1619-1800: Archaeology of Country Life in Colonial
Virginia, Academic Press, Orlando, FL.
Kelso, W. (1986). The archaeology of slave life at Thomas Jefferson's Monticello: "A wolf by
the ears." Journal of New World Archaeology 5(4): 5-20.
Kimmel, R. (1993). Notes on the cultural origins and functions of sub-floor pits. Historical
Archaeology 27(3): 102-113.
Klingelhofer, E. (1987). Aspects of early Afro-American material culture: Artifacts from the
slave quarters at Garrison Plantation, Maryland. Historical Archaeology 21(2): 112-119.
Lev-Tov, J., and Young, A. L. (1995). Diet and risk at Locust Grove Plantation. Paper
presented at the 1995 Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Knoxville, TN.
Lewis, E. (1987). Afro-American adaptive strategies: The visiting habits of kith and kin among
black norfolkians during the first great migration. Journal of Family History 12(4): 407-420.
Lewis, K. E. (1985). Plantation layout and function in the South Carolina Lowcountry. In
Singleton, T. A. (ed.), The Archaeology of Slavery and Plantation Life, Academic Press,
Orlando, FL, pp. 35-66.
Loveday, A. J. (1983). The Rise and Decline of the American Cut Nail Industry, Greenwood
Press, Westport, CT
Lucas, M. B. (1992). A History of Blacks in Kentucky: From Slavery to Segregation, 1760-1891,
Kentucky Historical Society, Frankfort.
Martin, J. M., and Martin, E. P. (1985). The Helping Tradition in the Black Family and
Community, National Association of Social Workers, Silver Spring, MD.
McDaniel, A. (1990). The power of culture: A review of the idea of Africa's influence on
family structure in antebellum America. Journal of Family History 15(2): 225-238.
McKee, L. (1988). Plantation Food Supply in Nineteenth-Century Tidewater Virginia,
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California,
Berkeley.
McKee, L. (1991). Summary report of the 1990 Hermitage field quarter excavation. Tennessee
Anthropological Association Newsletter 16(1): 1-17.
McKee, L. (1993). Summary report on the 1991 field quarter excavation, Hermitage
Archaeology, Oct. 1992. Ms on file, Department of Anthropology, University of
Tennessee, Knoxville.
McKelway, H. S. (1992). Slave and master in the Upland South of East Tennessee. Paper
presented at the 57th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology.
McKelway, H. S. (1994). Slaves and Master in the Upland South: Archaeological Investigations
at the Mabry Site, Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology,
University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
Moynihan, D. P (1965). The Negro Family: The Case for National Action, Government Printing
Office, Washington, DC.
Orser, C. E., Jr. (1989). On plantations and patterns. Historical Archaeology 23(2): 28-40.
Orser, C. E., Jr. (1994). The archaeology of African-American slave religion in the antebellum
South. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 4(1): 33-45.
Osofsky, G. (1969). Puttin' on Ole Massa: The Slave Narratives of Henry Bibb, William Wells
Brown, and Solomon Northup, Harper Torchbooks, New York.
36 Young
Owens, L. H. (1976). This Species of Property: Slave Life and Culture in the Old South, Oxford
University Press, New York.
Phillips, U. B. (1929). Life and Labor in the Old South, Little, Brown, Boston.
Raboteau, A. J. (1978). Slave Religion: The "Invisible Institution" in the Antebellum South,
Oxford University Press, New York.
Rawick, G. P. (ed.) (1977). The American Slave: A Composite Autobiography, Suppl. Ser. 2,
Vol. 16. Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Ohio, Virginia, and Tennessee Narratives.
Contributions to Afro-American and African Studies No. 35, Greenwood Press, Westport,
CT
Shimkin, D. B., Shimkin, E. M., and Frate, D. A. (eds.) (1978). The Extended Family in Black
Societies, Mouton, Paris.
Singleton, T A. (1991). The archaeology of slave life. In Campbell, E. D. C, and Rice, K. S.
(eds.), Before Freedom Came: African American Life in the Antebellum South, Museum of
the Confederacy, Richmond, and University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville, pp.
155-175.
Singleton, T A. (1995). The archaeology of slavery in North America. Annual Review of
Anthropology 24: 119-140.
Singleton, T A., and Bograd, M. (1995). The Archaeology of the African Diaspora in the
Americas. Guide to the Archaeological Literature of the Immigrant Experience in America,
No. 2, Society for Historical Archaeology, Tucson.
Stack, C. (1974). All Our Kin: Strategies for Survival in a Black Community, Harper and Row,
New York.
Starling, M. W (1988). The Slave Narrative: Its Place in American History, 2nd ed., Howard
University Press, Washington, DC.
Stine, L. F., Cabak, M. A., and Groover, M. D. (1996). Blue beads as African-American
cultural symbols. Historical Archaeology 30(3): 49-75.
Sudarkasa, N. (1980). African and Afro-American family structure: A comparison. Black
Scholar 11(8): 37-60.
Sudarkasa, N. (1982). Interpreting the African heritage in Afro-American family organization.
In McAdoo, H. P. (ed.), Black Families, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA, pp. 37-53.
Testart, A. (1982). The significance of food storage among hunter-gatherers: Residence
patterns, population densities, and social inequalities. Current Anthropology 23(5):
523-537.
Thomas, S. (ed.) (1967). Croghan family letters, Unpaginated manuscript on file, Filson Club,
Louisville, KY.
Weaver, H. (1945). Mississippi Farmers, 1850-1860, Peter Smith, Gloucester, MA.
Webber, T. L. (1978). Deep Like the Rivers: Education in the Stave Quarter Community,
1831-1865, W. W. Norton, New York.
Wheaton, T. R., and Garrow, P. (1985). Acculturation and the archaeological record in the
Carolina Lowcountry. In Singleton, T. A. (ed.), The Archaeology of Slavery and Plantation
Life, Academic Press, Orlando, pp. 239-254.
Wiessner, P. (1982a). Beyond willow smoke and dogs' tails: A comment on binford's analysis
of hunter-gatherer settlement systems. American Antiquity 47(1): 171-178.
Wiessner, P. (1982b). Risk, reciprocity, and social influences on IKung San economics. In
Leacock, E., and Lee, R. (eds.), Politics and History in Band Societies, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, pp. 61-84.
Wilkie, L. A. (1995). Magic and empowerment on the plantation: An archaeological
consideration of African-American world view. Southeastern Archaeology 14(2): 136-157.
Winterhalder, B. (1990). Open field, common pot: Harvest variability and risk avoidance in
agricultural and forager societies. In Cashdan, E. (ed.), Risk and Uncertainty in Tribal and
Peasant Economies, Westover Press, Boulder, pp. 67-88.
Young, A. L. (1994). Nailing down the pattern. Tennessee Anthropologist 19(1): 1-21.
Young, A. L. (1995). Risk and Material Conditions of African American Slaves at Locust Grove:
An Archaeological Perspective, Unpubl i shed Ph.D. dissertation, Depart ment of
Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
Risk Management Among Slaves 37
Young, A. L., Andrews, S. A., and Carr, P. J. (1995). Ceramics and slave lifeways at Locust
Grove Plantation. In McBride, K., McBride, S., and Pollack, D. (eds.), Historical
Archaeology in Kentucky, Kentucky Heritage Council, Frankfort, pp. 253-264.
Zollar, A. C. (1985). A Member of the Family: Strategies for Black Family Continuity,
Nelson-Hall, Chicago.

You might also like