I've also wondered about the articulation of sub-floor pits
with architecture. My assumption is that the planter who
referred to digging 'below the floor' for clay to mortar
"negro houses" was talking about building log "cabins" or
log huts.
[As an aside, the distinction between "log cabins" and "log
houses" is another one of those log cabin myths that still
persists, and one that I once subscribed to. According to
journalists writing as early as 1805 the 'log cabin' (or log
hut as I call it to avoid confusion with all the other symbolism
association with 'log cabin') was: built with round logs, often
with the bark on; had a dirt floor; had few to no windows, and
these were unglazed shuttered openings; had a log purlin & shake roof; and a stick-and-mud chimney. The "log house" was built with hewn logs, had a wood floor (puncheons maybe), a
masonry chimney, glazed windows, and a framed roof with rafters
and shingles. In reality these distinctions were not so clear
cut. Many of the early log houses (huts) had smoke-holes and
no chimney at all. I've seen photos of hewn log houses with
stick-and-mud chimneys and I've visited a hewn log house that
had the remains of log purlin roof.]
If I recall correctly, one of the things that the reform-minded
planters of the early 19th century were arguing against was
the persistence of log *huts*. In their place, they called for
better constructed hewn log houses. I wondered why would one
dig a hole for clay in the middle of the hut you're building?
Perhaps there was more concern about people and livestock
stumbling into old clay pits left open in the fields. Plus, you
could use the pit for storage, presumably after covering it
with a few planks battened together. Many of the historic
slave houses that I've seen in photographs and drawings were
built with logs, whether round or hewn, and most had no visible
foundations. So they probably had dirt floors. Has anyone ever
heard of simply laying down planks on a dirt floor? It seems
to ring a distant bell... All of the slave quarters that I've
actually seen (i.e., were still standing in the 1970s or later)
had floors. Naturally, the ones that survived were better built
and, you could probably say, were fancier.
No doubt the planters, overseers, and 'paddyrollers' knew about
these pits and the 'trap in the floor before the door' but were loath to go rummaging through trash for evidence of thievery
that was quite a bit murkier than finding the live article.
Other ex-slave narratives suggest that much of the illicit
consumption went on away from the quarters, in nearby woods
or marshes, FWIW.
The sub-floor pits that I found mentioned were associated
with slave housing, but just as significantly they seem to
have been associated with log huts or houses that used clay
for chinking or chimneys. It would be interesting to see how
many of these pits are associated with some sort of log house.
Likewise, you could also rule out pits dug for clay on sites
where there is no clayey soil (obvious, but it had to be said).
Now, I'm wondering how much clay it took (if they used real
clay) to daub that reconstructed slave cabin at Carter's Grove.
And, how far did they haul it? More questions than answers...
Marty Perdue
[log in to unmask]
________________________________________________________________
Sent via the WebMail system at mail.nexet.net
|