DISCUSSION OF WARES NOT INCLUDED IN MCD

In this section I discuss wares that were present at each site, but could not be included in abundance indices because they are not included in MCD calculations. These wares are not mass-produced and/or imported en masse as the European wares are. As such, they do not appear in contexts of conspicuous consumption, which reflect the desire

to appear refined. Rather, they are part of the local production and/or regional trade networks that align with ideas of subsistence and production-based autonomy.

Colonoware

One ware present on each of the five sites that is not used in determining MCD is colonoware (DAACS 2015d). I have charted the presence of colonoware in Figure 5.7 as a cross-sites comparative using sherd count to assemblage ratios in order to demonstrate its prevalence. The variation in sherd numbers across sites (colonoware comprises the following rounded percentages of each assemblage: Yaughan I, 90%; Yaughan II, 63%; Curriboo, 89%; Middleburg, 73% and Silver Bluff, 31%) surely reflects functional and/or choice related differences in consumption, again indicating the disparities among the five sites.

As noted above, enslaved people typically relied primarily upon colonoware for their own dining needs (although it may also have been used to serve the big house [Ferguson 1992].) The small amount of colonoware compared to other ware types at Silver Bluff relative to the other sites may be related to the assemblage's lack of slave habitation component. (It is likely that Silver Bluff did have habitations for the enslaved; however, these have not been investigated). The difference in site types is quite clear when colonoware prevalence is taken into account; but this difference that was identified early in the study and assemblage differences related to that disparity come as no

surprise.

In addition, because they lived on trading post/plantation site, Silver Bluff's

Figure 5.7. Plot highlighting prevalence of colonoware at each of the five sites contrasted with all other ware types. (Note the ratio between colonoware and other wares at Silver Bluff is the inverse of those at the other sites.)

of the Yaughan, Curriboo, and Middleburg. Hence, they would have had less cause to make or acquire colonoware than would residents of the other sites. Moreover, there is evidence that colonoware was produced at Yaughan and Curriboo (Wheaton and Garrow 1985), while no such evidence has been found for Silver Bluff. This fact alone

couldaccount for the disparity in ware type ratios. Still, the constancy of colonoware across sites reflects the inclusion of local production in both Backcountry and Lowcountry life.

0  

5000  

10000  

15000  

20000  

25000  

30000  

She

rd  C

ount  

Site  Name  

Colonoware  

All  Others  

Unidentified Coarse Earthenwares

Another ware type found on each site is unidentified coarse earthenware. These wares do not have tightly defined dates of manufacture, so are not included in MCD and, hence, were not included in abundance indices. Importantly, these wares can be of local, regional or trans-Atlantic (primarily English) production (Adams 2000:30-32, Bloch 2015, Elliott and Elliott 1991). Thus, at present this ware type cannot tell us much about production and exchange at Silver Bluff (or in the Carolina colony) aside from the fact that it is complex. Chemical analyses may be able to better identify the clay sources for these wares and from that we could extrapolate their place of manufacture and, perhaps, trace their journeys to the site.

For example, it is documented that pottery was produced in Bethany (located near New Ebenezer and the mouth of the Savannah River) in the 1760s (Adams 2000). A potter named Andrew Duche supplied New Ebenezer with earthenwares in the 1730s and wares that may be attributed to him have been found in Saxe Gotha (near present day Columbia, SC) (Adams 2000). While John Landrum's renowned Edgefield pottery was not established until 1810 (believed to be the first stoneware pottery in the district) (Castille et al. 1988), it is not outside the realm of possibility that a Backcountry earthenware potter existed in the prior century.

At present, however, I am satisfied with the idea that these could be of local (although no kilns have been found on the site to date and I know of none in the region during the relevant time period), regional and long-distance production, suggesting, again, that exchange occurred in both the Backcountry and Lowcountry, as well as

throughout the colonies and across the Atlantic. Because of this production identification quagmire, unidentified coarse earthenwares are not included in MCD.

The ware types that are included in MCD are primarily of European manufacture. Each site contained these types of wares. However, the particular types of wares varied through time, as well as site-specific utility. Silver Bluff stands out by being the only site with highest discard of porcelain, Staffordshire slipware, and white salt glazed stoneware, indicating prevalence of tea and tablewares at a level of ware type diversity not seen in the other sites. This, alongside the presence of the local and regional ware types, indicates diversified consumption at Silver Bluff that is unique among the South Carolina

plantation sites in this study.

The inhabitants of Silver Bluff engaged in local production of ceramic ware as expressed by the presence of colonoware, regional exchange as suggested by the presence of unidentified coarse earthenwares (likely of regional and or trans-Atlantic production, although possibly of local production), and long-distance trade as reflected in imported wares of European and Chinese manufacture. Further, the variety of ware types suggests teawares, tablewares, and utilitarian wares were used in daily Backcountry life. This diversity in consumed ceramic wares suggests that Backcountry inhabitants had access to a range of goods and, thus, the opportunity for making choices, both economic and social.