In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Historical archaeologists have spent at least forty years studying the relationship between ethnicity and material culture, and these years of experience have shown time and again the complexity of that relationship . When historical archaeologists ¤rst began to examine ethnicity, it seemed that ¤nding material evidence of ethnic identity, or “ethnic markers ,” would be relatively simple. After all, our basic training as archaeologists tells us that different cultures produce different physical remains, and a good part of that training consists of learning the pottery types, architectural styles, and other objects that allow us to recognize and interpret those differences. However, ethnic markers have proved elusive. Even when one is identi¤ed, that identi¤cation tends to raise more questions than it answers . This chapter examines the relationship between ethnicity and material culture. It looks at a class of material remains that have been identi¤ed as signs of ethnic identity and takes the interpretation of those remains to the next level by acknowledging the complex factors that in®uence the choices that people make and the options that are open to them. Post-in-trench structures, the material remains examined here, have been found on a small number of sites in the South Carolina Lowcountry. The best known of these sites are Yaughan and Curriboo plantations (Wheaton and Garrow 1985; see Wheaton this volume). Wheaton and Garrow identi¤ed the postin -trench structures at Yaughan and Curriboo as slave quarters and interpreted the unusual building style as an example of an indigenous African construction technique transplanted to the plantations of South Carolina. Their contribution to Singleton’s (1985) The Archaeology of Slavery and Plantation Life, as well as Leland Ferguson’s (1992) subsequent discussion of post-in-trench architecture in his book Uncommon Ground, introduced 9 Frenchmen and Africans in South Carolina: Cultural Interaction on the Eighteenth-Century Frontier Ellen Shlasko South Carolina post-in-trench architecture and this interpretation to a wide audience of historical archaeologists. As suggested above, the identi¤cation of post-in-trench architecture as a type of ethnic marker, or “Africanism,” immediately raises a number of questions. Why do we ¤nd these structures almost exclusively on Lowcountry plantations? What African tradition do these buildings represent? What factors allowed Lowcountry slaves to build post-in-trench structures ? Since the initial discovery of South Carolina post-in-trench architecture almost twenty years ago, additional examples have been identi¤ed at the sites of Daniel’s Island (Zierden et al. 1986), Lethe Farm (Steen 1999; Steen et al. 1996), and a site discussed below, Waterhorn plantation (Shlasko 1997). The gradually accumulating evidence allows us to take another look at post-in-trench architecture and identify the other variables in the complex equation that links material culture and ethnicity. Post-in-Trench Architecture The archaeological remains identi¤ed as post-in-trench structures consist of a set of similar subsurface features, although there are differences among the remains found at different sites. In each case, the builders dug a continuous trench (of various widths and depths) tracing the outline of the structure. Upright posts were set in the trench at regular intervals, and the trench was back¤lled (Figure 9.1). The archaeological remains, therefore, consist of trenches containing rows of postmolds. The superstructure of these buildings remains a matter of conjecture, with many researchers hypothesizing that the buildings were of some sort of earthen construction, either packed earth or wattle and daub (Ferguson 1992:64). However, there is nothing in the subsurface remains that absolutely precludes the use of plank siding or other wood construction on the trench-set posts. The post-in-trench buildings vary in size, from approximately thirtynine by thirteen feet at Curriboo (Ferguson 1992:65), to approximately twenty-¤ve by sixteen feet at Daniel’s Island (Zierden et al. 1986), to approximately twenty-six by sixteen feet at Waterhorn. The depth and width of the trenches also varies. At Daniel’s Island the trench was forty to ¤fty centimeters wide and thirty-¤ve to ¤fty-one centimeters deep (Zierden et al. 1986). At Yaughan and Curriboo, the trenches ranged from 0.8 to 1.5 feet (24 to 46 centimeters) wide and from 1.5 to 2.5 feet (46 to 76 centimeters ) deep (Wheaton and Garrow 1985:244). The structures at Waterhorn had trenches that were ¤fty to ninety centimeters wide and seventy to eighty centimeters deep. In pro¤le, these trenches are straight-sided with®at bottoms (Figure 9.2). South Carolina post...

Share