Historic Aboriginal Pottery at Stono Plantation: A Descriptive Summary

By Ronald W. Anthony SECHSA 2012

First, let me thank Carl Steen for inviting me to be a part of this symposium. Its nice to see several faces that I havent seen in a while. The SECHSA webpage, first brought to my attention by an email from Natalie Adams Pope, states that it is hoped that this conference will develop into one similar to the The Conference on Historic Sites Archaeology which began in the 60s, however it is noted that This is not intended to be a conference in memory of Stan Souths many great accomplishments, but in honor of him. To this end, I am particularly pleased to participate in this inaugural meeting in that my first published paper was published by Stan in The Conference on Historic Sites Archaeology Papers concerning the Colono Ware from the Spiers Landing Site (Anthony 1979; Drucker and Anthony 1979). This was the site that I helped work in the late 1970s which basically motivated my primary research interests to switch from aboriginal occupations to colonial and early ante bellum plantations and today, here I am again planning to speak about aboriginal occupation(s) although this time, I dont consider it a shift in research interests as before, not an about face, but on the contrary, I consider it an expansion of interests Ive been fortunate to have had for decades concerning Lowcountry Plantations during the early colonial period specifically the nature and effects of multiple cultural encounters and interactions characteristic of this era and in this setting. I feel sure that those who are focusing on this subject would now readily agree that it was a much more complex scene at these early colonial plantations than some of us naively thought and talked about years ago. Early Colonial Lowcountry Plantations werent just simply Black and White, pun intended, but some of us were likely simply lost in a sea of excitement regarding something new for us African American archaeology other plantation occupants were somewhere in the background. Although research relative to early historic period Indians has been the subject of archaeological and historical study for some time in other areas of the Southeast, its only been in the last decade, that sustained interest in early historic period aboriginals of the South Carolina Lowcountry has increased beyond the interest of a few individuals. This new interest, I believe is infectious, because when dealing with the subject of different cultures in contact, one is, in a sense, automatically on the path to do anthropology, to addressing the why question(s) that many, if not most of us, were tasked to do in Grad School to remember that, as Willey and Phillips (1958:2) stated that archaeology is anthropology or it is nothing. In the Southeast, the 17th and 18th centuries were a time of rapid, dynamic, and

widespread cultural change for aboriginal groups in direct and indirect contact with old world populations. In the first half of the 17th century, due to military losses during the Spanish Entradas into the Southeast and especially the introduction of Old World disease, aboriginal socio-political systems changed dramatically from chiefdoms to a more egalitarian system where councils of men ruled through consensus and influence (Smith 1987; Bowne 2005). There was a notable decrease in the number of Native American polities and a marked decrease in social stratification within aboriginal societies (Bowne 2005). During the second half of the 17th century, the economy of remnant Southeastern chiefdoms, particularly those interfacing with the English, changed to a commercial hunting economy in which, warfare, hunting, and trading became more important than a focus on agricultural subsistence and attendant settlement patterning (Bowne 2005). Former sedentary societies became more mobile adjusting politically and economically to a capitalistic world economic system operating in eastern North America which was manifest most strikingly in commercial hunting and slaving. Peter Wood (1996:39) speaks of a terrible transformation, the enslavement of people solely on the basis of race, during the second half of the 17th century. Several aboriginal groups such as the Westo, likely part of a fragmented population of Erie forced out of New York and Pennsylvania about 1656, were much feared due to their success as Indian Slavers in the Southeast generally, and the Lowcountry specifically. By the mid 1660s, the Westo, a name first used by early South Carolina colonists, had relocated to the Savannah River Valley (Bourne 2005). The Westo, along with subsequent groups such as the Yamasse and Chickasaw, were central in human trafficing as well as the lucrative trade in deer skins, the first profitable enterprises characterizing early English South Carolina. Yet, despite, or perhaps, because of the dynamic cultural activity of the late 17th and early 18th century in the Lowcountry, as the expression goes, as I speak, no one today can identify Westo pottery. There are probable examples of Erie pottery, from New York, but whether Westo pottery will prove to be similar is unknown (Engelbrecht 1984) (Figure 1). This is a representative example of, perhaps a bit strong, generally where we are regarding the archaeology of historic period aboriginals of the South Carolina Lowcountry.
Figure 1. Erie Pottery From the Kleis Site.

Eric Bowne (2005) states that during this period native groups in the Southeast pursued several political strategies. One was a predatory strategy, one used by the Westo for example, while another was a defensive aggregation of several of several native polities, against predatory groups, and still another strategy involved Native Americans joining with European colonies as menial laborers for defensive and

economic purposes (Bowne2005). Bowne (2005:18) states that Lowcountry Carolinians referred to the Indian groups who followed this strategy as Settlement Indians . He notes (Bowne 2005:18) that These small native groups were intimately associated with the English and French colonial settlements, living among the settlers and performing menial tasks. Waddell (1980) has identified over 15 distinct Lowcountry native groups during the 17th century from the mouth of the Savannah River to the Santee River alone (cf. Marcoux et al. 2011). Marcoux, Lansdell, and Poplin (2011:3) note that several Lowcountry politically and socially autonomous native groups, including the Coosaw, Kiawah, Etiwan, and Sewee occupied the Charleston region. Evidently, the Kiawah residing along the lower Ashley River and desiring political alliance gave Albemarle Point to the first English settlers of Charles Towne (Marcoux et al. 2011). It is not difficult to imagine the vast array, the variety of, the sheer frequency of cultural encounters/interactions, both short term and long term, between these different populations Old World and New World - during the colonial period. Nyman (2011:1) notes that Between the founding of Charles Towne in 1670 and the first year of the Yamassee War in 1715, the Coastal Indians lived among the colonists as one part of an increasingly polyethnic landscape peopled by Europeans, Indian and African slaves, and immigrant Indian tribes . These Lowcountry coastal groups, often lumped together as the Cusabo and referred to as Neighbor Indians in various documents, have been, in a sense overshadowed in the historical record by larger groups such as the Creek, Yamasee, and Catawba (Nyman 2011). This has been the case with the archaeology of these populations as well. The 17th and 18th century pottery of these largely unknown autonomous South Carolina coastal groups is referred to as the Ashley Series (South 2002). This series was defined by South (1973) from the study of pottery recovered from 3 contact period midden filled features here at Charles Towne Landing. The series is dominated by pottery with complicated paddle stamped motifs which, relative to Earlier Mississippian period pottery, are boldly and sloppily applied with very wide lands and grooves (South 1973; Marcoux et al. 2011). This pottery is also characterized by vessels with appliqu rim strips with seemingly carelessly executed notching, pinching, and punctuation. Four types were delineated by South (1973) within the series: Ashley Complicated Stamped, Ashley Simple Stamped, Ashley Burnished, and Ashley Corncob Impressed. South (2002:249) stated that the paste of Ashley Series pottery contained varying quantities of water-worn sand. Today, however, we are still not able to accurately distinguish between Etiwan or Coosaw pottery for example, or Sewee and Etiwan. What are the similarities and differences? How did they change diachronically? Marcoux, Lansdell, and Poplin (2011:18) have recently provided the first analysis of Ashley-series pottery in over three decades. Their recent article presents the study of over 1,100 Ashley-series sherds recovered from a contact period site on Daniel Island, 38BK1633, located immediately northeast of the Charleston peninsula (Marcoux et al. 2011). This site yielded fascinating settlement and dietary information from over 400 features regarding what they are calling an Ashley Phase Household as well (Marcoux et al. 2011). Within their essay, having noted the variety of native pottery recently recovered from several contact period site

contexts in this area, such as the Lord Ashley site, Drayton Hall, and several sites on Rosom Hill, between the Edisto and Ashley Rivers, they (Marcoux et al.2011:7) present, utilize, and convincingly advocate the use of a hierarchical classification system for the analysis of carved paddle stamped pottery, one that strives for the greatest specificity while at the same time acknowledges the fragmentary nature of potsherd samples. These researchers (Marcoux et al. 2011:7) believe that, carved paddle stamped pottery to be a powerful component in constructing ceramic chronologies. Their work offers preliminary data regarding Ashley series pottery chronology (Marcoux et al. 2011). To provide much needed comparative data and to facilitate the construction of and then refinement of ceramic chronologies relative to contact period sites in the Charleston area, I am using the ceramic classification system promoted by Marcoux, Lansdell, and Poplin (2011) in the on-going analysis of Ashley series pottery from (38CH851) Stono Plantation and have used it in a re-analysis of Ashley series pottery from (38BK202) Lesesne Plantation (cf. Zierden et al. 1986). These two sites, located near Charleston, provide comparative data derived from the analysis of about 660 Ashley series sherds recovered from both plow zone and feature contexts (Figure 2). Figure 2. Lesesne and Stono Plantations. Stono Plantation, is one of at least 15 archaeological sites located on the Dill Sanctuary (Hacker and Zierden 1986; Anthony 2012). The Dill Sanctuary is a wildlife refuge located on James Island about six miles south of the Charleston Peninsula. The Charleston Museum has owned and operated the Sanctuary since 1985. Sustained archaeological research at Stono Plantation (38CH851) has been carried out since the 1990s focusing on the colonial and early ante bellum components present (Figure 3). As part of this effort, evidence of contact period aboriginal occupation was observed initially as testing followed by block excavation ensued in the sites formally cultivated northern sector. To date, 284 examples of Ashley series pottery have been identified at Stono. Unfortunately, over 90% of the number was recovered from plow zone contexts. Most of the Ashley pottery, not recovered from plow zone deposits, was contained within two rather large oval shaped features, #s 113 and 250, which conform to descriptions of subfloor pits observed on plantations in Virginia and the Carolinas (Neiman 1997; Samford 1999; Anthony 2012) (Figure 4). The functions of Features 113 and 250 are unclear at present. They appear to have been filled in a single episode or two, rather than being left open and gradually filled.

Other than size (about 9 x 6) the most striking visual characteristic of these two features, only 5 feet apart, was the intentional placement of an early, nearly whole, dark olive green spirits bottle, onion shaped, near the centers of the features. These bottles likely date to the first decade of the 18th century. Datable ceramics such as, olive jar, mottled ware, and polychrome Puebla majolica, within the fill of these features, support an early 18th century date as well.
Figure 3. Dill Sanctuary Plantation Sites.

Ashley series pottery at Stono Plantation conforms well to the decriptions of Ashley pottery from other area sites (South 1973, Marcoux et al. 2011; Nyman 2011). All of the surface decorations, method of application, and vessel forms identified at Stono have been observed at Charles Towne Landing and at Daniel Island sites (Figure 5). The paste of the Ashley pottery from Stono is just as distinctive as the bold and crudely applied stamped motifs and the well smoothed, at times, floated interiors. One can readily identify small Ashley sherds because of their recognizable paste. Its a coarse granular paste, with varying amounts and sizes of coarse sand. It contrasts dramatically with plantation colono wares and can be readily identified from earlier Woodland ceramics (Figure 6). As shown in Table 1, most Ashley Series pottery from Stono Plantation ranges in thickness from 8 to 9mm. Most of these measurements were from body sherds, as, unfortunately, a low number of rim sherds were recovered from Stono. No rims with appliqu strips were observed at Stono, although, one sherd with an angular punctuated lip was noted. Presently, no accurate MNIV is available for Stonos Ashley ceramic assemblage, although most vessels are likely jars with everted rims. The low frequency of rim sherds in this
Figure 4. Feature #250 at Stono Plantation.

Table 1.

assemblage, suggesting a low number of Ashley vessels at Stono, may be reflective of a small number of occupants, perhaps small aboriginal household(s) at Stono. As is the case for other Ashley Series assemblages, most of the decorated Ashley pottery recovered from Stono Plantation is complicated stamped. No simple stamping was observed, although decoration via the incision of concentric ovals was noted on a couple of examples (Figure 7). Burnishing was also a minority decorative technique, while cob marking was not observed. Unlike other Ashley Phase occupations, at Stono Plantation curvilinear complicated stamped Ashley pottery frequency was about the same as rectilinear complicated stamped concentric circle stamped and line block stamped appeared most frequently among the identifiable complicated motifs

(Table 2). Twenty Five per cent (25%) (N = 284) of the currently Ashley Series ceramic assemblage from Stono Plantation is undecorated.
Figure 5. Ashley Ceramics From Stono Plantation.

In 1983, several hundred Ashley Series ceramics (N = 380) were recovered from a single feature, #115, at Lesesne Plantation (38CH202) located on Daniel Island where the Mark Clark Expressway crosses the Wando River where the Family Circle Tennis Tournament is held (Figure 8). Feature #115, the remains of a 4.9 by 6.6 meter structure, was interpreted as the remnants of an early 18th century trading post (Zierden et al. 1986). Four primary zones were recorded in this deposit of about a meter in depth (Figure 9). Zone 1, containing the highest frequency of material culture of the feature, represents midden soils deposited after the mid 18th century destruction of the structure the result of refuse disposal. Zone 1 contained (n =327) 86% of the Ashley Series pottery recovered from Feature #115, including three discs sherds ground into round shaped disc-like objects. Two of these discs were complicated stamped. Table 2. Based on datable European ceramics, zones 2- 4 were deposited between 1690 and 1735 (Zierden et al. 1986). A (TL) Thermoluminescence date of A. D. 1750 +/- 28 years (Alpha 2320, 200 +/- 14% B. P.) was derived from a Feature #115 Ashley series sherd from contexts otherwise ceramically datable to 1729 -1733 (Zierden et al. 1986). Artifacts from the earliest zones of Feature #115 are believed to have been the result of discard, and possibly loss/abandonment behavior and are likely associated with the use of the structure (Zierden et al. 1986). Of the 55 Ashley series sherds recovered from zones 2 4, about half (n = 27) were contained within the

very lowest deposit (zone 4) which contained cultural materials deposited possibly via loss through extant floor boards (Zierden et al. 1986).
Figure 6. Ashley (lower) and Lesesne Colono Ware Pastes.

As is the case at Stono Plantation and other sites with Ashley Phase occupation, complicated stamped sherds a concentric circle motif being the most frequent clearly dominate the current Ashley series assemblage at Lesesne Plantation (Zierden et al. 1986; Marcoux et al. 2011) (Table 3). However, unlike the Ashley assemblage from Stono Plantation, curvilinear complicated stamped pottery substantially outnumbers rectilinear stamped sherds at Lesesne and at another Daniels Island site, 38CH1633 (Marcoux et al. 2011) (Tables 2 & 3). Facilitated through the use of multivariate statistics, Marcoux, Lansdell, and Poplin (2011) provide several temporal patterns regarding Ashley series pottery. One of these trends is that (Marcoux et al. 2011:12) there is a decrease in the relative frequency of curvilinear complicated stamping through time also that there is an increase in simple stamping through time. Based on contexts dated primarily via European ceramics these trends were not supported by the data from Stono and Lesesne Plantations, although reliable sample sizes at these two plantations are small. Only one simple stamped sherd was observed in the Lesesne Ashley series assemblage. Other minority surface decorations noted in the Lesesne Ashley Series assemblage were evidenced by two incised sherds, a single burnished sherd, and a single cob marked sherd. As was the case at Stono Plantation, very few Ashley rim sherds were recovered from Lesesne Plantation. Two everted rims were angularly punctuated. No appliqu rim strips were observed. Paste characteristics of Lesesne Plantations Ashley series pottery is very similar to the Ashley pottery at Stono. In fact, it would be very difficult to describe the physical difference(s) thus it goes without saying that the Ashley Series assemblages from these sites are internally homogenous. This may be indicating that any physical differences in Ashley Series pottery due to temporal trends or ethnic affiliation or both may indeed be evident in the realms of surface decoration and/or vessel form rather than discernible differences in paste and/or temper.
Figure 7. Incised Ashley Series Rim.

Figure 8. Lesesne Plantation (38BK202) Feature #115.

Figure 9. Lesesne Plantation Feature #115 Profile.

Table 3.

In conclusion, my first goal with this brief paper was simply to expediently provide additional comparative data regarding Ashley Series pottery since such a limited amount of this pottery has been analyzed. The data herein was recovered from two Lowcountry Plantations - both were operative at least during the first quarter of the 18th century. One important question, among several, still remains to be answered - perhaps in a case by case basis. The question is are historic Indian cultural materials at sites such as Stono and Lesesne Plantations reflective of aboriginal slaves residing on these plantations or free neighbor Indian settlement on or in close proximity to plantation operations? Obviously, further

10

refinement of ceramic chronology is needed to more accurately establish contemporaneous occupation among various colonial plantation occupants. Secondly, I wanted to, since I have sort of a captive audience, reiterate how little we know archaeologically about contact period aboriginal life ways in the Lowcountry and the myriad of interactions that occurred among Native Americans, African Americans, and European settlers. It goes without saying that we need to know of and understand the many kinds of dynamic cultural interactions among the various colonial period players if our goals include documenting as well as providing explanation. Given the status of our knowledge in this area, it is hoped that virtually any site containing data pertaining to these types of occupations be seriously considered significant.

Ronald W. Anthony (The Charleston Museum) Presented at SECHSA August 24, 2012 Charleston, South Carolina

11

References
Anthony, Ronald W. 1979 Descriptive Analysis and Replication of Historic Earthenware: Colono Wares From the Spiers Landing Site, Berkeley County, South Carolina. In The Conference on Historic Sites Archaeology Papers, Vol. 13, pp. 253-268. Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, Columbia, South Carolina. 2012 Dill Sanctuary Archaeology: A Descriptive Summary. Archaeological Contributions 46, The Charleston Museum, Charleston, SC. Bowne, Eric E. 2005 The Westo Indians: Slave Traders of the Early Colonial South. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Drucker, Lesley M. and Ronald W. Anthony 1979 The Spiers Landing Site: Archaeological Investigations in Berkeley County, South Carolina. Carolina Archaeological Services, Resource Studies Series 10, Columbia. Engelbrecht, William E. 1984 The Kleis Site Ceramics: An Interpretive Approach. In Extending the Rafters: Interdisciplinary Approaches to Iroquoian Studies, edited by Michael K. Foster, Jack Campisi, and Marianne Mithun, pp. 325-339. State University of New York Press, Albany. Hacker, Debi and Martha Zierden 1986 Initial Archaeological Survey of the Dill Wildlife Refuge. Archaeological Contributions 13, The Charleston Museum, Charleston, SC. Marcoux, Jon Bernard, Brent Landsdell, and Eric C. Poplin 2011 Revisiting the Ashley Series: A Quantitative Analysis of a Contact-period Household Ceramic Assemblage. South Carolina Antiquities 43:3-20. Journal of the Archaeological Society of South Carolina, Inc. Columbia. Neiman, Fraser 1997 Sub-Floor Pits and Slavery in Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth Century Virginia. Paper Presented at the 30th Annual Meeting of the Society for Historical Archaeology, Corpus Christi, Texas. Nyman, James A. 2011 The Ashley Series as Native American Persistence: Lowcountry Indians in the Period of European Expansion. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia.

12

Samford, Patricia M. 1999 Strong is the Bond of Kinship: West African-Style Ancestor Shrines and Subfloor Pits on African-American Quarters. In Historical Archaeology, Identity Formations, and the Interpretation of Ethnicity, edited by Maria Franklin and Garrett Fesler, pp. 71-91. Colonial Williamsburg Research Publications, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, Virginia. South, Stanley A. 1973 The Indian Pottery Taxonomy for the South Carolina Coast. Notebook 5:54-55. The University of South Carolina Institute of Archaeology of Archaeology and Anthropology, Columbia. 2002 Archaeological Pathways to Historic Site Development. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York. Waddell, Eugene 1980 Indians of the South Carolina Low Country, 1562-1751. The Reprint Company, Spartanburg, South Carolina. Willey, Gordon R. and Philip Phillips 1958 Method and Theory in American Archaeology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Wood, Peter H. 1996 Strange New Land: African Americans 1617-1776. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Zierden, Martha A., Lesley M. Drucker, and Jeanne Calhoun 1986 Home Upriver: Rural Life on Daniels Island, Berkeley County, South Carolina. Carolina Archaeological Services/Charleston Museum. Submitted to the South Carolina Department of Highways and Public Transportation, Columbia.

13