Geochemical analysis of colonoware and brick artifacts from Brook Green Plantation using portable X-ray fluorescence spectrometry

Abstract

This study used data collected using a portable X-ray fluorescence spectrometer to examine ceramic artifacts found during the excavation of historic Brook Green Plantation, in Georgetown County, South Carolina. Excavations at this site yielded culturally significant artifacts associated with African and African American people held in bondage during the 19th century. The geochemical composition of Colonoware and brick artifacts was compared to clay samples that were taken from six locations on the grounds of Brookgreen Gardens. Some Colonoware sherds were found to be consistent with a clay source close to the excavation site. This research is part of a larger goal to demonstrate the applicability of portable X-ray fluorescence spectrometry in the analysis and interpretation of archaeological ceramics.

Keywords

South Carolina historical archaeology ceramics geochemistry

Introduction

In 2018, two of the authors published a study that employed portable X-ray fluorescence (pXRF) spectrometry to test whether the historical interpretation of brick production conveyed in public tours at Brookgreen Gardens, Georgetown County, South Carolina, was correct (Palmer and Dillian, 2018). This investigation demonstrated that the pond long-touted by Brookgreen’s docents as the source of brick clay for the construction of the homes of the African and African American people held in slavery was not consistent with the chemical composition of brick artifacts from archaeological investigations. The previously published study was a relatively small one, with a clearly delimited research question. The study outlined in this paper expands that previous work and applies pXRF spectrometry to the examination of Colonoware ceramics to better address the range of chemical variability, and therefore, presumably, the range of clay sources, used by people who lived and worked at Brook Green Plantation. It is our goal that this research can serve as a model for the application of pXRF spectrometry in historical archaeology provenance studies and can answer questions about the lives and livelihoods of African and African American people held in bondage on plantations across the American South.

History of Brook Green Plantation

The remains of the Brook Green rice plantation are within the publicly accessible areas of Brookgreen Gardens, a non-profit sculpture garden, zoo, and cultural center located in Georgetown County, South Carolina (Figure 1). The Brookgreen Gardens property also includes the remains of three other former rice plantations: The Oaks, Springfield, and Laurel Hill. Brookgreen Gardens’ primary mission is the display and conservation of American figural sculpture for the public, but it is also dedicated to stewardship of the natural and cultural resources of the Lowcountry, and to educating the public about these resources.

Figure 1.

Locator map of Brookgreen Gardens, Georgetown County, South Carolina.

The property which became Brook Green Plantation was first occupied by the ancestors of the Waccamaw Indian People, before coming into English possession during the 18th century. William Allston built a house on the property in 1763, after inheriting it from his father (Salmon, 2006: 9). In 1800, Joshua Ward purchased the land from the Allston-Flagg heirs and left it to his son Joshua John Ward upon his death (Salmon, 2006: 9). Joshua John Ward expanded rice cultivation at Brook Green Plantation during the 1840s to make it one of the largest rice plantations in the United States (Salmon, 1981: 123, 2006: 9). At the time of his death in 1853, Joshua John Ward held more than 1100 African and African American people in bondage on Brook Green and his other plantations (Joyner, 2009: 19, 34; Salmon, 1981: 123). The remains of the homes of some of these enslaved people were mapped on a 1911 soil survey (Figure 2), which in part influenced the location of archaeological excavations described in this paper. The Colonoware presumably made by the residents of these homes is the primary subject of this study.

Figure 2.

1911 Soil Survey of Georgetown County, South Carolina (McLendon, et al., 1911) showing the remains of the homes of enslaved African and African American people at Brook Green Plantation (encircled by ellipsis).

Brook Green and adjacent Springfield plantations then passed from Joshua John Ward to his oldest son, Joshua Ward, after the senior Ward's death (Salmon, 1981: 123). Joshua Ward owned the properties until his death in 1867 (Salmon, 2006: 123). While rice production continued for a few years after the Civil War at Brook Green, it was not economically viable without the labor of people who were enslaved. Large-scale commercial rice production in the South Carolina Lowcountry did not survive long after the end of slavery.

Dr Lewis Cruger Hasell leased, and later purchased, the property from Joshua Ward's estate (Salmon, 1981: 123–124). Brook Green and the three neighboring rice plantation properties (Springfield, The Oaks, and Laurel Hill) were then purchased in 1920 by Dr J. A. Mood of Sumter, South Carolina, a sponsor of the Waccamaw Hunting Club (Salmon, 1981: 125). In 1926, the Waccamaw Hunting Club became the Brookgreen Club, owned by W. S. Griffin of Greenville, South Carolina (Salmon, 1981: 125; Tarbox, 1981: 97). Griffin lost the property during the depression to the F. M. Credit Corporation, who marketed it for sale as “colonial estates on the Waccamaw” (Salmon, 1981: 125; Tarbox, 1981: 97). Archer Milton Huntington purchased the former plantations in 1930 to be a winter retreat for him and his wife, Anna Hyatt Huntington (Salmon, 1981: 125; Tarbox, 1981: 97). Anna Huntington was a sculptor and patron of sculpture, and she and Archer Huntington established Brookgreen Gardens in 1931 as a non-profit to exhibit American figural sculpture outdoors amid native flora and fauna, opening it to the public in 1932 (Salmon, 2006: 45). Its initial mission did not include the history and culture associated with the property. It is only in recent decades that the history and cultural significance of the plantations and their enslaved and free residents were added to the mission of Brookgreen Gardens.

Archaeological research of the Brook Green Rice Plantation

Archaeological research at Brookgreen Gardens included a 1980 cultural resources survey, which recorded sites associated with The Oaks and Laurel Hill (Drucker, 1980), and later efforts, namely Weeks’ (1993) survey of The Oaks, and Michie's more extensive investigations of The Oaks during the mid-1990s (Michie 1994, 1995a, 1995b, 1996; Weeks, 1993). Investigations of the remains of the Brook Green rice plantation began with Weeks’ 1997–1998 project which located and excavated the remains of a smokehouse and kitchen associated with the plantation overseer's residence (Vivian, 1998; Weeks, 1999). Later, Agha’s (2003) survey determined the approximate boundaries of the enslaved peoples’ village through analysis of the spatial distribution of domestic and architectural artifacts and historic map research. McMillan investigated the southern portion of the village through a survey from 2012 to 2015, recovering many antebellum and later domestic artifacts, and locating what may have been a trash-burning feature (Daise, 2012; McMillan, 2012, 2015). Other than the possible trash-burning pit, no features were found by Agha’s or McMillan’s investigations.

Colonoware has been found at other sites within the boundaries of Brookgreen Gardens during previous investigations of Brook Green and adjacent plantations (Drucker, 1980; Michie, 1993, 1994, 1995b; Weeks, 1999, 2002). Excavations at The Oaks Plantation yielded both Colonoware and European ceramics, but Colonoware vastly outnumbered the manufactured ceramics. The area where these ceramics were found (38GE202 and 38GE443) represents a kitchen and the homes of the enslaved people who lived and worked on the plantation (Drucker, 1980; Michie, 1993, 1994, 1995b). Excavations at the overseer's house (38GE551) and kitchen complex (38GE543) for Brook Green Plantation also yielded Colonoware ceramics (Weeks, 1999, 2002). The Colonware ceramics from previous excavations were not analyzed as part of this study, but it is important to note Colonoware’s presence on nearby areas of Brook Green Plantation at the overseer's house and kitchen complex and at adjacent plantations, including The Oaks Plantation, owned by the Allston family.

As part of a Memorandum of Understanding between Brookgreen Gardens and Coastal Carolina University, Palmer conducted archaeological research on the Brook Green rice plantation in 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2020 (Palmer, 2018, 2019). |The 2016, 2018, and 2020 projects were archaeological field schools, and the 2017 investigation was a week-long volunteer project. The goal of these seasons was to better define the extent of the Brook Green enslaved peoples’ village, to recover information about the lives of these enslaved individuals, and to train students and volunteers in archaeological field methods. The area of Palmer's excavations, marking the general provenience of artifacts analyzed in this study, is shown by an ellipsis in Figure 3.

Figure 3.

Topographic map of Brookgreen, Georgetown County, South Carolina. Numbers represent the clay source sample locations referenced in the text. The black ellipsis highlights the area of archaeological excavations in the location of the homes of enslaved African and African American people at Brookgreen Plantation.

Working with a colleague and pXRF expert Dillian, the 2016 team also began an investigation into the sources of clay used to make the bricks recovered from the sites. This was done in part to improve the public interpretation of the historic property with relevant data, but also (and of broader significance) to begin to answer questions about the production of brick at Brook Green rice plantation; namely, if enslaved people there were producing brick on site, or if the brick was produced elsewhere in the Lowcountry. The 2016 project team collected clay samples from six different loci on the Brookgreen Gardens property (Figure 3) for chemical comparison against brick recovered in excavations (Palmer and Dillian, 2018). These loci were chosen because interpretive tours of the property point to Jessamine Pond (loci 1–3) as the primary source for clay used to make brick. Loci 4–6 were selected due to their proximity to the rice fields where enslaved people would have been working, and were assumed to be an alternate source for clay used by people living and working at Brook Green. Key findings from 2016 were antebellum domestic artifacts, two postmolds, and a compacted surface in the area marked in Figure 3. The artifacts recovered also included the Colonoware that is the object of this present study.

The 2017 project uncovered more of the buried and compacted past surface layer, which is a swept yard feature associated with the pre-emancipation African American church, and the 1885–1915 Waccamaw Mission Church, which offered Episcopal services and a medical clinic for the remaining African American community (Salmon, 1981: 124; Tarbox, 1981: 100).

In 2018, the project team exposed seven more postmold features in the vicinity of those found in 2016, and recovered more antebellum domestic artifacts, including Colonoware. The Colonoware sherds recovered from 2016 to 2018 are small, which complicates identification as to their vessel type and function.

Colonoware and brick at Brook Green

This study used pXRF to test Colonoware sherds that were found at Brookgreen Gardens during excavations by the Coastal Carolina University field school (Figure 4). Colonoware ceramics are handmade, low-fired and unglazed earthenware produced from the mid-16th through the 19th century. Colonoware as a category covers a broad geographic and decorative range. The name does not describe an archaeological “type” but instead designates handmade ceramics stylistically influenced by Native American and African manufacturing processes.

Figure 4.

Colonoware artifacts analyzed as part of this study (brick not pictured). Photo by Alexis Widdifield.

Ceramics were made on the southeast coast prior to European contact, but colonization forced changes in manufacture, form, and clay sources, resulting in what archaeologists today term Colonoware. The majority of European colonists in this era used imported ceramic vessels and the manufacture of Colonoware was more often done in South Carolina by free and enslaved Native Americans, African Americans, and Africans. Archaeological evidence of kilns that produced this low-fired earthenware is scarce due to the efficiency of the manufacturing process. Colonoware ceramics were often fired in hearths, such as cooking hearths, at low temperatures. This kind of ceramic manufacturing could have occurred in many areas of historic Brook Green and the surrounding region (Ferguson, 1992).

Current debates question who may have made and used Colonoware, since it is found in contexts suggesting African, African American, and Native American production and use (Agha and Isenbarger, 2011; Barnes and Steen, 2012; Cobb and DePratter, 2012; Isenbarger and Agha, 2015; Joseph, 2016). This ware type, particularly in the South Carolina Lowcountry, exhibits elements that are different from earlier African and Native American traditions, effectively combining features of both in unique ways, likely in response to differences in market, materials, fashion, and production methods (Sattes et al., 2020).

Originally, archaeological interpretations of Colonoware, specifically from Virginia, suggested that these wares were made by Native American people who sold or traded them to early colonists and their African and African American labor force (Noël Hume, 1962). In South Carolina, many Native American people were enslaved alongside African and African American people, so a shared pottery tradition could easily have grown from these communities. However, archaeological investigations in South Carolina have found Colonoware in high frequencies at sites associated specifically with African and African American people (Ferguson, 1980), and it has been argued that similarities in markings on Colonoware with the BaKongo cosmogram, a West African symbol, suggest African ritual may have been an important component of Colonoware production (Agha and Isenbarger, 2011; Ferguson, 1992).

Archaeological research on Colonoware also has a focus on the style, function, and use of this pottery, which includes questions about production and trade (Agha and Isenbarger, 2011; Barnes and Steen, 2012; Cobb and DePratter, 2012; Isenbarger and Agha, 2015; Sattes et al., 2020). These earthenwares often exhibit a porous fabric that is typical of low-temperature firing that never achieves the vitrification exhibited by kiln-fired wares. In fact, Colonoware may have been made, and fired, on a household level in fireplaces or yard areas, using clay and tempering materials found locally.

In addition to Colonoware, brick may have also been made locally (Wayne, 1992, 1997), a question explored in our earlier work at Brook Green Plantation (Dillian and Palmer, 2018). There is no documentary evidence of a skilled brickmaker among Joshua John Ward's workers at Brook Green and nearby plantations, just as there is no documentary evidence of a potter in the community, but many enslaved people in South Carolina had experience making brick, and potentially had experience making Colonoware ceramics at the household level. This study will empirically test the question of whether Colonoware was made using locally available clays at Brook Green Plantation and incorporates data from previous brick analyses (Dillian and Palmer, 2018) for comparison.

X-ray fluorescence spectrometry

In archaeology, the use of X-ray fluorescence (XRF) spectrometry is common for the chemical characterization of a wide range of materials, but particularly for the analysis and provenance of stone and ceramic artifacts (Dillian, 2016; Frahm, 2013a, 2013b; Glascock et al., 2007; Shackley, 2011). pXRF technology is becoming an increasingly popular option for these archaeometric studies, due to the ability to analyze artifacts and geologic sources in situ in the field or in museum collections. Artifacts are typically analyzed whole, without the need for destructive sample preparation, though cleaning to remove any surface contamination is often necessary. An additional advantage to portable XRF instruments is the ability to re-analyze and re-test specimens in the field as needed.

XRF works by irradiating a material, in this case, ceramic, brick, and clay, with a beam of X-rays. The X-rays bump electrons from the inner orbitals of atoms, which create voids filled by electrons from outer orbitals. When these electrons move between orbitals, they release energy in the form of an X-ray photon. The energy signature, or fluorescence, is unique for each element and can be detected by the instrument, allowing the calculation of parts-per-million concentrations of elements within a sample.

Artifacts and clay samples in this study were analyzed using an Olympus Vanta portable XRF spectrometer housed and operated in the anthropology and geography laboratory at Coastal Carolina University. This spectrometer has multiple possible calibrations. In this case, samples were analyzed in both Geochem and Geochem rare earth elements mode, each for 60 s. Each sample was run three times, on three different surfaces, and the results were averaged to account for the heterogeneity of ceramic and brick samples. Results were downloaded as parts-per-million concentrations into Excel, and then into PAST for statistical manipulation. Each time the instrument was turned on, the operator analyzed a geologic standard, NIST 278, to ensure accuracy and consistency with expected results.

The chemical composition of clay is the result of the unique combination of parent rock, sediment mixing, weathering, and other geological and environmental processes. When objects are made, they are typically the product of a combination of single or multiple clay sources, tempering materials, and other compounds that may be intentionally or unintentionally introduced into the mixture. As a result, pXRF analyses are detecting the clay recipe, or the mixture of clay and other materials, that was used to make ceramics or bricks. When clay is fired, organic materials are often burned away, but the chemical signature of the parent materials, particularly for elements such as strontium, yttrium, zirconium, niobium, and barium remains the same, which is why these elements were analyzed for this study. These are elements that have been demonstrated to be useful in distinguishing Southeastern U.S. rhyolites (Steponaitis et al., 2006), which may be the parent rock for mineral clays in the South Carolina Lowcountry. We then compare the parts-per-million concentrations of these elements across artifacts to determine whether they represent the same, or different, compositions. If they are consistent with each other, we may conclude that they were likely made in the same location, perhaps even by the same person or group of people. If they are vastly different, they may come from different places, perhaps bought or traded, or represent different clay sources and mixtures.

Clay source samples

Clay was collected using a bucket auger from six locations within Brookgreen Gardens during the May 2016 Coastal Carolina University archaeological field school. There were three clay deposits sampled along the perimeter of Jessamine Pond shown in Figure 3 as locations 1–3, as well as three locations around land previously used for rice cultivation as locations 4–6. These loci were selected because Jessamine Pond is touted by Brookgreen Gardens’ docents as the source of brick clay for the community of enslaved people on the property, but the rice fields would have been the area where many of the enslaved people worked, so people would have been aware of clay beds within the rice fields and could have obtained clay from those loci as well. Clay pellets were thoroughly air dried over several weeks prior to analysis. To best capture the variability within a clay source, 10 dried clay pellets from each location were tested to establish the variability of chemical composition present for each source location.

Results

XRF spectrometry was conducted on a total of 60 clay sample pellets, 10 from each collection locus, from six different locations across Brookgreen Gardens (Figure 3), to better understand the range of geochemical variability of natural clays within the property. Eleven Colonoware sherds were analyzed (Figure 4) and brick samples from our earlier study (Dillian and Palmer, 2018) were also included for comparison. The Colonoware sherds analyzed here were too small to determine vessel type, shape, or use.

When a principal components analysis (PCA) was performed on these geochemical data obtained using pXRF, the results showed significant overlap at a 95% confidence interval between clay source samples from collection loci 1, 2, and 5. Loci 3 and 4 have considerable overlap as well, but locus 6 only slightly overlaps with other loci. Figure 5 shows the results of the pXRF analyses and PCA. Ellipses in Figure 4 outline clay source sample loci 1–6 at a 95% confidence interval. Dots represent Colonoware artifacts and triangles indicate the brick fragments analyzed previously. Colonoware artifacts were analyzed with an Olympus Vanta pXRF spectrometer to yield elemental compositions in parts-per-million (ppm) for rubidium, strontium, yttrium, zirconium, niobium, and barium. PCA demonstrated that six of these Colonoware artifacts have clay chemistries consistent with collection locus 3, at the eastern end of Jessamine Pond (see Figure 3). When brick samples from the excavations were analyzed with pXRF, PCA demonstrated that only one of the brick samples is consistent with any of the clay samples collected from the property, at collection locus 4. The rest are outside the 95% confidence interval of these sources.

Figure 5.

PCA of the results of pXRF spectroscopy. Ellipses represent a 95% confidence interval around the clay source sample locations on the property (see Figure 3 for locations). Clay source locations are marked by an X (with 95% confidence intervals); Colonoware artifacts are marked by a dot; and brick artifacts (Dillian and Palmer, 2018) are marked by a triangle. Note that six Colonoware artifacts are within the 95% confidence interval of clay source sample locus 3 (see Figure 3).

Discussion and Conclusion

pXRF analyses of Colonoware and brick artifacts, as well as clay samples obtained from six different loci on the property of the former Brook Green Plantation, revealed that many of the Colonoware sherds are geochemically consistent with clay collected from the eastern end of Jessamine Pond. This collection locus is closest to the former homes of the enslaved people who lived and worked at Brook Green Plantation (see Figures 2 and 3 for the locations of houses, collection loci, and archaeological excavations), and could indicate that the African American people who lived there collected clay and made Colonoware pottery locally. Brick samples are inconsistent with clay samples from the property, contradicting earlier research (Palmer and Dillian, 2018), which may mean that brick was imported from elsewhere, or that in the production of brick, the mixing of other clays and inorganic tempers sufficiently altered the chemistry of the matrix to make it appear different in pXRF analysis.

However, it is important to note that this small study did not sample clay from the broader region, and it is unknown how much variation exists across Georgetown County, South Carolina, and beyond. It is possible that the Colonoware artifacts were made at other plantations owned by Joshua John Ward, such as Oryzantia, Alderly, and Prospect Hill. Future research must include additional survey and sampling to gain a better understanding of the variation and sources of clay in the region. Furthermore, sourcing clay artifacts can be complicated due to the addition of tempering material and due to the mixing of clay in the manufacture of brick or ceramics. Similar issues have been demonstrated elsewhere in qualitative analyses of brick from the South Carolina Lowcountry (Don, 2015; Lanphear, 2011; Pinto, 2015). As a result, analysis is often detecting brick or ceramic recipes, not virgin clay.

This study demonstrates that the Colonoware ceramics recovered from Brook Green Plantation may have been made by the people who lived and worked there while held in bondage, using clay that was available nearby, and provides a poignant glimpse at the lives and skills of those who often remain unnamed in the historical record. People who were enslaved on Brook Green Plantation took advantage of local resources and used their skills and ingenuity in the household production of ceramic vessels. These Colonoware vessels served as everyday cooking and storage pots, and ceramics could have been bought and sold on an informal market within the community. As we learn more through the archaeological field and laboratory studies, we hope to share these data with their descendants as a way to provide a bridge between the present and the past

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

We thank Brookgreen Gardens for granting permission for sampling, excavation, and analysis. Brick and ceramic samples were collected during excavations conducted by the Coastal Carolina University Historical Archaeology Field School (ANTH 396) in 2016, 2018, and 2020 under the direction of David Palmer. We thank Brookgreen Gardens’ Page Kiniry, Bob Jewell, Robin Salmon, Ron Daise, Andrea DeMuth, Jeff Hall, Julia Mills, and Preston Moore, who contributed to the success of the field schools and this project, as did field school students from 2016, 2018, and 2020; and volunteers John Blair, Joe Cannon, Andrew Cardinale, Caitlin Childers, Becky Cribb, Bill Dudeshyn, Anne Elder, Gabriel Frick, Henry Garbelman, Amanda Hassell, Susan Hayes-Hatcher, Daniel Cross-Turner, Allen Kenny, Blair King, Benjamin King, Gregory King, Nichole Palmer, Anatoly Policastro, Frank Policastro, MerryBeth Policastro, Bill Ross, Hal Vivian, and Joan Wood. Susan Bergeron of Coastal Carolina University and Jesse Rouse of UNC-Pembroke contributed their expertise in GIS and ground-penetrating radar technology to the field investigations. XRF analysis was conducted by Alexis Widdifield and Carolyn Dillian. We thank two anonymous reviewers for their comments. All errors are, of course, our own.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The pXRF instrument used for this study was purchased with support from the Horry County Higher Education Commission to the Department of Anthropology and Geography. The James L. Michie Endowment for Historical Archaeology, Coastal Carolina University, provided funding for some of the travel and other expenses for this project.

Author Biographies

Alexis Widdifield is currently a student in the Master of Arts in Liberal Studies program and also received her Bachelor's degree in History at Coastal Carolina University. Under the other two authors, she has worked on excavations in Brookgreen Gardens and on Waties Island in South Carolina.

David T. Palmer is an associate professor in the Department of Anthropology and Geography and the James L. Michie Endowed Professor of Archaeology at Coastal Carolina University. He holds a PhD from the University of California, Berkeley, MA from Louisiana State University, and BA from Boston University. His research centers on captive African daily life at Brookgreen and neighboring rice plantations, Gullah ethnogenesis, and brick and pottery manufacture by captive Africans in the Lowcountry (the latter as part of the pXRF Applications in Lowcountry Archaeology working group).

Carolyn D. Dillian is a professor in the Department of Anthropology and Geography and an associate dean of the Spadoni College of Education and Social Sciences at Coastal Carolina University. She received her PhD from the University of California, Berkeley, and MS and BA degrees from the University of Pennsylvania. Her work focuses on using geochemical characterization, primarily through X-ray fluorescence spectrometry, in the study of trade and exchange in prehistory and history.

References

Agha

(2003) Archaeological Testing for the Brookgreen Slave Settlement. Report Prepared for Brookgreen Gardens. Murrells Inlet: Brookgreen Gardens.

Agha

Isenbarger

(2011) Recently discovered marked Colonoware from Dean Hall Plantation, Berkeley County, South Carolina. Historical Archaeology 45(2): 184–187.

Barnes

Steen

(2012) Archaeology and heritage of the Gullah people. Journal of African Diaspora Archaeology and Heritage 1(2): 167–224.

Cobb

DePratter

(2012) Multisited research on colonowares and the paradox of globalization. American Anthropologist 114(3): 446–461.

Daise

(2012) Sights and sounds of “The Street” at Brookgreen Plantation. The Brookgreen Garden Path: The Newsletter of Brookgreen Gardens Winter 2012: 6.

Dillian

(2016) Current Questions and New Directions in Archaeological Obsidian Studies. Oxford Handbooks Online. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–32. Available at: www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935413.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199935413-e-2? (accessed 1 January 2021).

Don

(2015) “ A Posture of Defence”: A Forensic Brick Analysis of Charleston’s Seventeenth and Eighteenth Century Walled Fortifications . Unpublished MS Thesis, Clemson University.

Drucker

(1980) A Cultural Resources Inventory of Selected Areas of The Oaks and Laurel Hill Plantations, Brookgreen Gardens. Report prepared for Brookgreen Gardens. Columbia: Carolina Archaeological Services.

Ferguson

(1980) Looking for the ‘Afro’ in Colono-Indian pottery. In: Schuyler

(ed.) Archaeological Perspectives on Ethnicity in America: Afro-American and Asian American Culture History. Farmingdale: Baywood Publishing Company, Inc., pp. 14–28.

10.

Ferguson

(1992) Uncommon Ground: Archaeology and Early African America, 1650–1800. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

11.

Frahm

(2013b) Is obsidian sourcing about geochemistry or archaeology? A reply to Speakman and Shackley. Journal of Archaeological Science 40: 1444–1448.

12.

Frahm

(2013a) Validity of “Off-the-shelf” handheld portable XRF for sourcing near eastern obsidian chip debris. Journal of Archaeological Science 40: 1080–1092.

13.

Glascock

Speakman

Popelka-Filcoff

(eds) (2007) Archaeological Chemistry: Analytical Techniques and Archaeological Interpretation. Washington, D.C.: American Chemical Society.

14.

Isenbarger

Agha

(2015) Traditions and tasks: Household production and the internal economy at Dean hall plantation. In: Fogle

Nyman

Beaudry

(eds) Beyond the Walls: New Perspectives on the Archaeology of Historical Households, Gainesville: University Press of Florida, pp. 161–187.

15.

Joseph

(2016) Meeting at market: The intersection of African American culture, craft, and economy and the landscape of Charleston, South Carolina. Historical Archaeology 50(1): 94–113.

16.

Joyner

(2009) Down by the Riverside: A South Carolina Slave Community. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

17.

Lanphear

(2011) Profile of an Origin: A Chemical and Physical Characterization Study of Historic Brick and Clay from the Ashley River, South Carolina . Unpublished MS Thesis, Clemson University and College of Charleston.

18.

McLendon

Crabb

Carr

, et al. (1911) Georgetown County. Soil Survey of Georgetown County, South Carolina. Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Agriculture. Available at: http://digital.tcl.sc.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/HSSM/id/20/rec/1 (accessed 3 August 2017).

19.

McMillan

(2012) Brookgreen Slave Settlement Proposal for Bob Jewell, President of Brookgreen Gardens. Prepared by Susan McMillan for Waccamaw Archaeology Partnership. Murrells Inlet: Brookgreen Gardens.

20.

McMillan

(2015) 2014–2015 Brookgreen Plantation Archaeology Report for 38GE543-C. Report Prepared for Brookgreen Gardens. Murrells Inlet: Brookgreen Gardens.

21.

Michie

(1993) The Oaks Plantation Revealed: An Archaeological Survey of the Home of Joseph and Theodosia Burr Alston, Brookgreen Gardens, Georgetown County, South Carolina . Waccamaw Center for Historical and Cultural Studies, Research Manuscript 4, Coastal Carolina University.

22.

Michie

(1994) The Excavation of Joseph and Theodosia Burr Alston's House Site, the Oaks Plantation, Brookgreen Gardens, Georgetown County, South Carolina . Waccamaw Center for Historical and Cultural Studies, Research Manuscript 5, Coastal Carolina University.

23.

Michie

(1996) The Oaks Plantation Rice Mill, Brookgreen Gardens, Georgetown County, South Carolina . Waccamaw Center for Historical and Cultural Studies, Research Manuscript 9, Coastal Carolina University.

24.

Michie

(1995b) The Oaks Plantation: Additional Discoveries Related to the Managerial Complex and the Architecture of Joseph and Theodosia Burr Alston's House Site, Brookgreen Gardens, Georgetown County, South Carolina . Waccamaw Center for Historical and Cultural Studies, Research Manuscript 7, Coastal Carolina University.

25.

Michie

(1995a) Revealing the past: The house of Theodosia Burr Alston. Brookgreen Journal 25(1): 31–33.

26.

Noël Hume

(1962) An Indian ware of the colonial period. Quarterly Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of Virginia 17(1).

27.

Palmer

(2018) Archaeological research on the Brookgreen Rice Plantation, 2016–2018. The SHA Newsletter 51(4): 48–52.

28.

Palmer

(2019) Education, excavation, and outreach: The revival of the Coastal Carolina University–Brookgreen Gardens partnership for archaeology. South Carolina Antiquities 50: 67–76.

29.

Palmer

Dillian

(2018) Preliminary investigations into the source of brick clay, Brookgreen Plantation, Georgetown County, South Carolina. North American Archaeologist 39(1): 3–24.

30.

Pinto

(2015) “They Used to Make Brick Here”: Brick Manufacturing at the Grove Plantation and the Rise of the Cooper River Gray Brick. Unpublished MS Thesis, Charleston: Clemson University and College of Charleston.

31.

Salmon

(1981) Historical background of the plantations comprising Brookgreen Gardens. In: Mayor

Noble

(eds) A Century of American Sculpture: Treasures From Brookgreen Gardens. New York: Abbeville Press, pp. 111–126.

32.

Salmon

(2006) Brookgreen Gardens. Charleston: Arcadia Press.

33.

Sattes

Marcoux

Platt

, et al. (2020) Preliminary identification of African-style rouletted colonoware in the colonial South Carolina Lowcountry. Journal of African Diaspora Archaeology and Heritage 9(1): 1–36.

34.

Shackley

(2011) An Introduction to X-ray fluorescence (XRF) analysis in archaeology. In: Shackley

(ed.) X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrometry (XRF) in Geoarchaeology. New York: Springer, pp. 7–44.

35.

Steponaitis

McReynolds

Irwin

Moore

(eds) (2006) Stone Quarries and Sourcing in the Carolina Slate Belt. Research Report No. 25. Chapel Hill: Research Laboratories of Archaeology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

36.

Tarbox

Jr (1981) The development of Brookgreen Gardens. In: Mayor

Noble

(eds) A Century of American Sculpture: Treasures From Brookgreen Gardens. New York: Abbeville Press, pp. 97–110.

37.

Vivian

(1998) Archaeological Dig. The Visionary 1998: 5.

38.

Wayne

(1992) Burning Brick: A Study of a Lowcountry Industry . Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Gainesville: University of Florida.

39.

Wayne

(1997) “Burning brick and making a large fortune at it Too”: Landscape archaeology and Lowcountry brickmaking. In: Stine

Zierden

Drucker

Judge

(eds) Carolina’s Historical Landscapes: Archaeological Perspectives. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, pp. 97–111.

40.

Weeks

(1993) The Oaks Plantation Revealed: An Archaeological Survey of the Home of Joseph and Theodosia Burr Alston, Brookgreen Gardens, Georgetown County, South Carolina. Waccamaw Center for Cultural and Historical Studies, Research Manuscript 4, Coastal Carolina University.

41.

Weeks

(1999) 38GE543: Brookgreen Plantation. Site form. Columbia: South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina.

42.

Weeks

(2002) 38GE551: Brookgreen overseer dependency. Site form. Columbia: South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina.