Great to find the flurry of discussion on colono ware, especially in the
midst of the summer doldrums (and especially since the first few posts came
from friends old and new). Earlier this spring I tried to summarize the
debate for a "general audience" publication on slave archaeology, and I'd
like to present a bare-bones outline of this as a way to continue the thread
and get some feedback. Here goes:
-The initial interp, "Indians made it to sell to colonists", came out of
Noel Hume's work in the 1960's. Thus, colono-Indian ware.
-In the late 1970's, researchers like Richard Polhemus and Leland
Ferguson argued that enslaved African Americans had a hand in making this
ceramic type. Through the 1980's this gained more and more acceptance, and
Native Americans largely dropped out of the scenario. Colono ware became a
centerpiece in the effort to see African cultural continuities in the
archaeological record.
-In the late 1980's a number of researchers began to argue against this
neat and tidy
explanation, and put forward new arguments and evidence for Native American
involvement in the production and marketing of colono ware. An article in
Singleton's forthcoming volume on African-American archaeology, by Dan Mouer
and a whole string of other authors will serve as the essential reference on
this point. The recent references posted to Hist-Arch also go to this point
as well.
-AT THE SAME TIME, Ferguson continued his search for African
connections, presenting strong evidence from both sides of the Atlantic.
Especially convincing has been his evidence on continuities on bowl size,
markings on pots apparently intentionally thrown into South Carolina rivers,
and the relation of certain pot forms to traditional medicines rather than
strictly to foodways.
-The emerging synthesis: Like Mouer said in his second or third post
this week, "it's
complicated," and we're too quick to categorize any plainware as colono ware
and leave it at that. The complications should remind us that colono ware
was produced and used in settings where black, white, and red were not always
or usually neatly circumscribed social categories. A large percentage of
slaves in early eighteenth-century South Carolina were Native American,
providing lots of opportunity for technological traditions to meld. Despite
Jefferson's low counts of Virginia Indians (wishful thinking?) in the late
1700's such groups persisted and still persist to this day.
We shouldn't just leave it at "well, some of it is Indian, some of it is
African, some of it is influenced by European forms." It is undeniably tough
going to try and reconstruct who was where when. In some situations I
think these little scraps of "plainware" will serve as a strong bridge to
understanding more about social setting.
One question for the list: Will a more traditional archaeological
approach based on rigorous analysis of the minute particulars of paste,
temper, surface treatment, firing technology, etc. provide some "internal"
data to match the interesting documentary references that have been surfacing
recently? Has enough of this been tried, or is the size and scope of such a
project too discouraging to be pursued? (Maybe it's too inter-regional?).
I think time is also a question that needs more consideration. I've
never excavated a piece of colono ware - my work in Virginia was on a late
antebellum period slave dwelling, my work in Tennessee is on a plantation
site from the same period (which introduces a regional component, of course).
Others tell me that colono ware can be quite abundant on nineteenth-century
Virginia sites, but maybe it is because these are near Indian communities...
What do others have to say about this?
As you can see, I have a lot of time on my hands this week, but now I
must get back in the pool for another rousing game of "Marco Polo." Sorry
this has gone on so long, but it is a fascinating topic (right up there with
gizzard shards.)
Best,
Larry McKee
|
