HOW TW AS DONE: JOSEPH KERSHAW , THE RISE OF A COM M ERCIAL ECONOM Y IN SOUTH CAROLINAS BACKCOUNTRY, AND ITS IM PLICATIONS

FOR ARCHAEOLOGY Kenneth E. Lewis M ichigan State University About forty years ago, in a conversation with a professor of mine, a prehistorian, he raised a simple question that I have often thought about regarding the nature of historical archaeology and the manner in which we carry out our investigations. It was, simply, how can the results of your work tell us something we dont already know from other sources? This question is still pertinent because so often it is tempting to use the archaeological record as a secondary source of information to identify objects, or people, or verify events that we are aware of, often in great detail, through documents. W e know that the historical record is not without its faults and biases, and that the archaeological record, for all of its shortcomings, has the potential to yield information unavailable elsewhere and tell us much more than who, what, when, and where. The written word and the material record represent very different processes of transmission and the interface between them is complicated. I would like to explore the links between the two sources of data by employing both to investigate the role of individual agents in the success of frontier colonization in South Carolina . Although this process can be viewed at the broader scale of states and societies, observing change and understanding how it actually occurred requires that we examine how individuals developed strategies capable of organizing production and creating the stability necessary to build commercial trade and integrate the Backcountry in the larger Atlantic economy. *** In the third quarter of the eighteenth century the South Carolina Backcountry underwent a rapid change. Initially a relatively isolated region of dispersed settlement and low capital assets that lacked an infrastructure to produce and transport exportable commodities, its largely inward-directed economy was based on a household mode of production. W ithin this context indigenous institutions developed that served as the basis for organizing the region and overseeing its transformation and incorporation into the larger milieu. The process occurred in the absence of higher authority and centered around the interactions of key individuals whose activities defined and maintained societys organization, and whose roles made them agents of change. Their behavior occurred within societys structured contexts that exerted pressures and set limits upon activity, and the unity of structure and agency

makes it possible to observe how individuals shaped processes of change. The role of individuals in creating frontier institutions made this process inherently political and dynamic. This was especially so for Europeans who came from societies characterized by inequality and a hierarchical organization, and whose capitalist orientation promoted flexibility and encouraged competition to achieve success. Such individuals variously pursued wealth, status, or power within the wider norms of society by modifying existing institutions and developing innovative solutions to fit the changing conditions they encountered. In the absence of an effective higher authority, institution-creation in the Backcountry depended on political strategies similar to those that arise in societies lacking centralized control. In such self-organizing systems, individual actions result in the emergence of predictable patterning at the level of the society in which they occur. In the South Carolina Backcountry, the emergence of institutions was a result of the actions of individuals whose behavior followed a logic that produced a recognizable structure that reflected strategies promoting the expansion of production and trade. How did these strategies emerge? Social cooperation lies at the core of institution-building, and the success of settlement in the South Carolina Backcountry depended on the ability of individual agents to develop strategies of cooperation to avoid the mutually destructive outcome inherent in their competitive quest for economic gain. Such strategies grew out of the actions of individuals who sought wealth and prestige through establishing commercial agricultural production in the Backcountry and developing regular export trade with coastal mercantile interests. To accomplish this, they attempted to corner key resources in this frontier region, and the nature of their strategies had implications for the South Carolina Backcountry. Developing a strategy to create a viable economy on the Backcountry frontier was political in that it increased social complexity by combining sources of social power. Because economic strength was the medium through which the course to power lay, such a strategy sought to control access to the most valuable economic resources. In a sparsely populated region of abundant but undeveloped natural resources, labor was the most valuable commodity, and political success depended heavily on linking people and connecting them to productive resources. Network strategies that establish relationships through marriage, trade partnerships, and alliances, resulted in broad systems of exchanges binding leaders and followers in networks of mutual support and competition.

These relationships were personal, but highly fluid in nature, and were characteristic of emerging heterarchical political organizations in non-state societies that lack formal structures. Network strategies have been particularly useful to many societies attempting to construct complex political institutions in the absence of existing central structures and were well suited to conditions encountered on the frontier. *** Joseph Kershaws use of a network strategy was crucial to the rise of social complexity in the South Carolina Backcountry because it allowed him to form a cooperative system that transformed the regional pioneer economy. Following his arrival at Pine Tree Hill (at the present site of Camden) in 1758, he established networks linking key components in the region in order to coordinate production, collection, processing, and transportation in the region. Possessing a knowledge of the technical and organizational aspects of production and trade, Kershaw understood the nature of a frontier economy and the elements central to its operation and developed the means of manipulating them to his ends. W hen Joseph Kershaw arrived in the W ateree Valley, he possessed a background well suited to bring about change in the existing regional economy. Born in Yorkshire in 1728, he apprenticed himself early to a London merchant and worked his passage to Charleston, where in 1748 he entered business and subsequently established contacts with several important merchants and politically prominent individuals, including Henry Laurens, who formed the core of his nascent economic network. His connections led him to the mercantile partnership of W illiam Ancrum, Lambert Lance, and Aaron Loocock to hire him as their agent to operate a Backcountry store in 1757 on land owned by Ancrum at Pine Tree Hill. At the time of his arrival in the Backcountry, Kershaw established a network of contacts in the region, including Samuel W yly, the leader of the Quaker community at Pine Tree Hill whose mercantile activities and ties to the resident Catawba Indians proved a useful entre to regional trade. Ancrum, Lance & Loocock provided Kershaw the wherewithal for creating a network of trade and production. They supplied the capital to not only establish a store, but also erect mills at Pine Tree Hill, which were producing flour in exportable quantities to Charleston as early as 1760. The new market encouraged the specialized production of wheat as a staple, and its rapid growth fostered an expansion of farming. Kershaw also increased the mercantile infrastructure at Pine Tree Hill by erecting a brewhouse, a large store, and other structures. By 1763 the

firm at Pine Tree Hill had taken the name of Joseph Kershaw & Co. and the following year Kershaw formed a formal partnership for ten years and four months with Ancrum , Loocock, and two others to operate a large company with assets throughout the province. Through the structure of this company Kershaw transformed the economy of the Backcountry. Joseph Kershaw & Co extended his network beyond the investors in Charleston who backed it and the contacts at Pine Tree Hill to include additional trustworthy agents who could promote the companys business within and beyond the W ateree Valley. Although he undoubtedly chose these individuals on the basis of ability, Kershaws ties to each of them went beyond a strictly business relationship. Constructing a network relied partly on the legal instruments of association on which corporate entities rested; however, in territory largely outside the reach of official institutions, loyalty required stronger links, such as those provided by kinship and faith. An important consideration on the Backcountry frontier was the need to accommodate the diverse human elements residing there. By the mid-eighteenth century the availability of land in South Carolinas interior drew a variety of ethnic groups and religious denominations that formed a salad bowl of distinct communities. To successfully operate a business here, Kershaws network had to overcome existing social barriers. *** For his principal agents, Kershaw chose his younger brother Ely and his clerk John Chesnut as partners. Chesnut provided a valuable link to the Scots-Irish community that occupied the W ateree/Catawba Valley and the W axhaws as far as North Carolina. His parents and siblings were landowners and his marriage to Sarah Cantey linked Chesnut to a large Anglican Lowcountry family whose members owned extensive property in the area. Ely Kershaw married Sarahs sister Mary Cantey, further linking the members of these families. As Anglicans, the Kershaw brothers were in a minority on the upper W ateree. Joseph took care that his affiliation with the Church of England did not jeopardize his links to the Presbyterian residents on whom his business depended. Although he supported their missionary, he steadfastly refused to build an Anglican church at Pine Tree Hill, choosing instead to support building a chapel in the distant High Hills of Santee. A different situation prevailed farther east on the Pee Dee, where brother Elys affiliation provided a good fit with the Anglican community at Cheraw Hill. Joseph Kershaws early affiliation with W yly tied him to the resident Quaker community, a relationship further cemented by

his marriage in 1763 to Sarah Mathis, the daughter of early settlers who managed a tavern at Pine Tree Hill. The ties of faith and kin incorporated in the Kershaw network provided the basis for the geographical expansion of his mercantile empire. In addition to his store at Pine Tree Hill, Kershaw & Co placed new establishments in areas likely to generate substantial new trade. Aware of the potential for sales in the growing settlement s in the W axhaws, the partners acquired a number of tracts, but finally settled on a 250 acre parcel on Cedar Creek at Rocky M ount, purchased by John Chesnut and Ely Kershaw in 1765. Operated as Chesnut & Kershaw, the Rocky Mount store gave Kershaw & Co access not only to the Scots Irish immigrant communities, but to the Catawba settlements as well. As suppliers of deerskins and pottery, the Catawbas were an integral part of the frontier economy and, upon W ylys untimely death in 1768, Joseph Kershaw assumed the important role of liaison to these Native people. In this fast-growing region, the W axhaws store soon took on the role as supplier to numerous smaller retailers who lacked the resources of the larger firm. Farther eastward, the partners focused their activity at Cheraw Hill. Situated at the head of navigation on the Pee Dee, the location in the W elsh Tract had begun to attract substantial immigration in the 1760s. It was linked by roads to settlements in South Carolina as well as to the growing center of Cross Creek in North Carolina and had already accommodated several traders. The partners gravitated to Cheraw Hill in hopes of capturing this trade and acquired at least 1,300 acres on Juniper Creek and Huckleberry Branch. Occupying the high bluff overlooking the river, the property gave them access to overland routes and Lides Ferry across the Pee Dee. Ownership of a central location in the transportation system of the upper Pee Dee Valley offered the firm, called Ely Kershaw & Co, an ideal location for its regional operation and they opened their store at a site they called Chatham. The success of the Chatham store supported a number of smaller merchants here also, and Ely Kershaws growing civic role in the Anglican community further established the partners political presence in the region. The network of alliances stretched into western North Carolina to the Moravian communities of Bethabara and Salem. Together with Charleston merchant Henry Laurens, Joseph Kershaw established personal and economic ties with the leaders of this religious frontier enclave of W achovia whose link to the port of Charleston passed through Pine Tree Hill. Moravian manufactures, especially ceramics, became an important element of exchange in the frontier economy of South Carolinas Backcountry and, although Kershaw & Co did not control the sale of

Moravian products, the store played an important role in their distribution. Although Kershaw & Co initially concentrated their efforts northward and eastward of the W ateree Valley, they could not ignore the opportunity presented by the growing settlement in the Congarees following the Cherokee W ar. Originating from the German settlements in Saxe Gotha Township, the region became a magnet for English and Scots-Irish immigrants, and in 1760s settlement spread up the Dutch Fork between the Broad and Saluda rivers. Belatedly the partners acquired several tracts along these rivers near areas undergoing settlement in the central and northwestern interior. These and John Chesnuts purchase of properties in the vicinity of Fridigs Ferry on the Congaree gave the firm a strong presence in the overland network serving these areas as well as linking it with the W ateree drainage. As John Chesnut & Co, the partners opened a new store at a site called Granby to serve the western Backcountry. Although competition from established merchants at Augusta, Georgia limited the geographical extent of its business, the Granby store proved success and, as elsewhere, created a base for regional trade incorporating smaller merchants into the partners network. In the decade prior to the American Revolution, Kershaw & Co, through its subsidiary stores, provided for production, processing, and transportation services for the population of a broad portion of South Carolinas Backcountry. The companys presence brought an organization that promoted economic integration in the absence of provincial administrative institutions, and its founders reliance on a strategy based on networks of affiliation rather than formal incorporation was emulated by other Backcountry movements, like the Regulation, to supply needed political structure and stability in this frontier region. Surely such a strategy should provoke anthropological interest and archaeological inquiry. *** An understanding of Kershaw & Cos trading organization and the strategy employed to create and maintain it has implications that go beyond historical explanation, implications that bear directly on the archaeological record it created. To examine these, we must go beyond merely identifying objects and their origins and placing them in time. These are, of course, important steps in organizing the assemblages we collect, but their significance can only be realized if we apply them to contexts that relate to the behavior that produced those assemblages. This is why it is significant, I think, to consider the connection between the organization of a network strategy and the nature of the

sites it produced. Any strategy intended to manage regional trade is, by necessity, spatially extensive. Consequently, it must be examined on a scale broad enough to encompass all of its components. Archaeology examines sites, but sites are a very small part of much larger landscapes. W hen Joseph Kershaw and those in his network set about choosing the locations for their stores, they considered access as a key factor to maintain communications and move goods. Acquiring tracts with these characteristics required the collective capital accessible to only a group of established merchants and the knowledge possessed by people familiar with the region and those who inhabited it. Individually or collectively they took possession of substantial parcels that potentially met these criteria and from them chose those the locations for their stores. In this sense, their sites became a product of a strategy that was adapted to the circumstances of the frontier. On the more restricted scale of individual sites, size, layout, and content should be useful in examining questions related to their place, and perhaps function, within the organization of the network of trade. Although none of the subsidiary stores has yet been examined, it is still possible to predict the kinds of differences that might characterize the settlements in such a network. First, its hierarchical structure of is likely to be reflected architecturally in the size and complexity of buildings. The large 3-bay, 54 x 28-foot structure at Pine Tree Hill, which served as the firms central storehouse, would have been larger than the stores at other sites. And Kershaws mansion there dwarfed residences at the other settlements. The number and variety of buildings, including the collection of mills, breweries, shops, and other industrial structures found there were also associated with the focal nature of this settlement. Lacking the diversity of activities concentrated at Pine Tree Hill, other stores would not share the number of activity areas found there. If, as we suppose, functional complexity is related to position in the network of stores, then a hierarchy should be discernible at the settlement level. Although the scope of trade facilitates its investigation through variation observed on the scales of the region and settlement, functional differences may be discernible within components of the settlements as well. Here artifacts associated with households that comprised a settlement may provide important clues about the entity of which they were once a part. To approach this question, we must look beyond simply identifying nails, ceramics, buttons, and other items universally associated with trade and examine those artifacts that may be tied to the structure of trade. For example, the concentration of activities at or near the site of the principal store would affect the spatial

distribution of certain artifacts associated with them at sites in the network. Presumably the occurrence of brick building materials manufactured by Kershaws brickyard at Pine Tree Hill would vary with distance from that source. Likewise, artifacts associated with the barreling of flour might be found in greater evidence at the central store directly associates with the Pine Tree Hill mills than at those stores that shipped unmilled grain there. *** Returning to the question of what archaeology can tell us that we would not otherwise know, I believe that the answer lies not in seeking a correlation between an artifact or an assemblage and a behavioral phenomenon such as trade, but rather in associating material patterning with the processes underlying such a phenomenon. In the case of trade in South Carolinas Backcountry, the structure of this endeavor was influenced by the organization of the process through which it was developed. In the absence of state institutions, mercantile expansion could occur only through the use of a strategy that brought together the capital and human resources through an organization based on ties of kinship and affinity and focused on an individual possessing the motivation and capability to bring it about. The network of people furnished the linkages and expertise to situate stores in strategic locations and the capital to acquire the land and build the infrastructure to collect and process the produce of Backcountry farms. This organization created a market that supported the growth of specialized production and an expansion of retail trade. The structure of this trade was influenced by a process focused on its founder whose position in the network was reflected by the concentration of associated activities and material wealth at its central settlement and their attenuated presence at the subsidiary settlements. Thus, the material record at these various settlements may be seen to be a product of something more than the simple existence of the trade itself. It is the result of a process of social and economic integration, and the ability of the archaeological record to reveal this process, and others like it, can indeed tell us something we might not otherwise be aware of.