We made a day: history and archaeology of tenancy on the L.E. Gay Plantation, Randolph County, Georgia, appendices [Dec. 30, 2011]

History and Archaeology
of Tenancy on the
L. E. Gay Plantation
Randolph County, Georgia

We Made a Day: History and Archaeology of
Tenancy on the L.E. Gay Plantation
Randolph County, Georgia
Contract Identification No. PEEDS002722174
GDOT Project No. ESD-27 (174)
Report submitted to:
Georgia Department of Transportation • One Peachtree Center • 600 West Peachtree NW •
Atlanta, Georgia 30308
Report prepared by:
New South Associates • 6150 East Ponce de Leon Avenue • Stone Mountain, Georgia 30083
Natalie Adams – Principal Investigator and Co-Author
Mary Beth Reed – Historian and Author
Natalie Adams – Principal Investigator and Co-Author
Jennifer Azzarello – Archaeologist and Co-Author
Terri Lotti – Co-Author
Sharman Southall – Co-Author
December 30, 2011 • Final Report
New South Associates Technical Report 1543

WE MADE A DAY i
ABSTRACT
New South Associates, Inc. was contracted to conduct the mitigation of the National Register
Eligible Site 9RH41 in Randolph County, Georgia. This work was conducted as part of the
Georgia Department of Transportation’s (GDOT) proposed improvements to U.S. Highway 27 in
parts of Randolph, Early, and Clay counties. The Randolph County site contains five houses/house
sites that once housed tenant farmers that worked the L.E. Gay plantation, now known as Gay
Farm, a recently designated Centennial Farm, situated in the south central part of Randolph County
along U.S. Highway 27 south of Cuthbert. The tenant houses, known collectively as Site 9RH41,
represent a small percentage of the many frame houses that once populated the large agricultural
property through which U.S. Highway 27 passes. Archaeological and architectural documentation
fieldwork was conducted from September through December 2006. While field investigations
were confined to the east side of U.S. Highway 27 where the proposed right-of-way (ROW)
currently sits, research for the context for these investigations was far ranging.
The historic plantation was established in the 1880s by the Louis E. Gay Family and would remain
a family-owned concern to the present. Consisting of merchants, farmers, pilots, and
entrepreneurs, the family history is intriguing and notably well represented by strong female figures.
Living in Cuthbert, they maintained a close relationship with their nearby plantation which would
remain their primary livelihood. Over 50 “hands” worked the plantation at its productive height.
Most if not all were African American families, and tenant houses ringed the plantation’s cultivated
fields, which showed the physical impress of their labor. Mitchell Grove Baptist Church and its
school located adjacent to the plantation and reached by a farm road would play a role in the lives
of these families. The five houses that fronted U.S. Highway 27 in the study area are part of this
larger history and setting. This document contains the findings of the study that illuminates
plantation life and lifeways between 1880 and the 1940s at a “New South plantation” in
southwest Georgia.
ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The Archaeological Mitigation of Site 9RH41 was conducted on behalf of the Georgia Department
of Transportation (GDOT). New South Associates would like to thank the staff at the Office of
Environmental Services for their assistance in completing the project goals. We would like to
specifically thank Teresa Lotti and Sharman Southall for their input and support, advice, and
constant assistance that have helped facilitate project success.
This project results from the combined efforts of many people working toward the goal of
investigating the historic resources located along U.S. Highway 27. Natalie Adams served as the
Principal Investigator, while J.W. Joseph served as Project Manager. Mary Beth Reed, Mark
Swanson, and Christina Olsen served as Historians for the project. Jennifer Azzarello served as
Archaeologist for the project. The archaeological field crew consisted of Andy Belcourt, Justin
Byrnes, Rodrigo Solinis Casparius, Valerie Davis, Shannon Iverson, and Scott Morris. Scott Morris
and Stefan Brannan conducted the laboratory processing of the artifacts under the supervision of
Amy Irons, Laboratory Manager. Tom Quinn generated the graphics for the report. Julie Coco
and Jennifer Wilson edited and administered the report production. Yulounda Ralls provided office
administration throughout the project duration.
New South Associates would also like to extend thanks to Max Pittman and Sam Heard who
conducted the mechanical stripping at the sites. Ms. Karan Pittman, local historian and librarian at
Andrew College, was always available to discuss the history of the area and offer advice in
conducting oral history survey in Randolph County.
A special thanks goes to all of the oral history informants who willingly participated and shared
their personal histories of growing up on farms. Their stories contributed greatly towards our
understanding of life on a tenant farm and helped make this project a success. New South
Associates would like to extend gratitude to Mr. Jones and Mrs. Melba Brady, Mr. Hollis and Mrs.
Evelyn Taylor, Ms. Helen Davis, Ms. Elen Hudson, Mr. Robert Starling, Mr. Lester Starling, Ms. Eva
Smith, Mr. James Wilson, and Ms. Lola Merle, in addition to the other anonymous informants, for
participating in the oral history survey. Mr. Willie Lightner deserves thanks for talking with us
about Mitchell Grove Baptist Church.
Finally, we wish to express our deep appreciation to the Mathews Family for allowing us to visit
their much-loved family farm and for sharing their family history. We came away knowing how
much the L.E. Gay Plantation means to them and their heritage and what is involved with making
sure the farm is there for the next generation to appreciate.
WE MADE A DAY iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT.......................................................................................................................................i
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...................................................................................................................ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................................... iii
LIST OF FIGURES............................................................................................................................. v
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................. vii
I. A REINTRODUCTION TO THE L.E. GAY PLANTATION ....................................................................1
Document Organization ................................................................................................................4
II. THE ROAD TO THE L.E. GAY PLANTATION....................................................................................5
III. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT ...................................................................................................19
Physiography .............................................................................................................................19
Geology....................................................................................................................................21
Soils .........................................................................................................................................21
Flora and Fauna.........................................................................................................................22
Hydrology .................................................................................................................................25
Climate .....................................................................................................................................26
IV. AGRICULTURE AND TENANCY IN RANDOLPH COUNTY............................................................27
“Almost Everything Necessary for the Comfort of Man”...................................................................28
Tenancy ....................................................................................................................................30
Tenancy in Randolph County .......................................................................................................39
Taking Stock – L.E. Gay Plantation as Randolph County Farm ..........................................................50
V. L.E. GAY PLANTATION.............................................................................................................51
VI. LAYOUT AND ARCHITECTURE..................................................................................................67
Georgia’s Tenant Architecture......................................................................................................83
L.E. Gay Plantation Architecture ...................................................................................................87
VII. DATA RECOVERY RESULTS ......................................................................................................95
Introduction ...............................................................................................................................95
Southern Tenancy Archaeological Studies......................................................................................95
Waverly Plantation..................................................................................................................96
Millwood Plantation.................................................................................................................97
Savannah River Site.................................................................................................................98
May Plantation .......................................................................................................................99
Strawberry Plains ..................................................................................................................100
Gibson Plantation..................................................................................................................101
Hickman Cabin.....................................................................................................................102
Finch Farm ...........................................................................................................................102
Free Cabin ...........................................................................................................................103
Sites 38RD1249, 38RD1260, 38RD1262 ...............................................................................103
Summary..............................................................................................................................104
Archaeological Results ..............................................................................................................104
Tenant House 2.....................................................................................................................104
Tenant House 4, Corbett House ..............................................................................................113
iv
Archaeological Results...........................................................................................................116
Tenant House 5.....................................................................................................................126
Tenant House 6, Outbuilding, and Well Pump ..........................................................................135
Tenant House Site 9 ..............................................................................................................152
Discussion of Artifacts............................................................................................................152
Foodways................................................................................................................................155
VIII. CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................................169
Research Questions ..................................................................................................................170
Landscape and Architecture....................................................................................................170
Consumer Choice and Status..................................................................................................172
Refuse Disposal.....................................................................................................................173
Subsistence ..........................................................................................................................173
Building Preferencesand Ethnic Influences.................................................................................174
Summary.................................................................................................................................176
BIBLIOGRAPHY ...........................................................................................................................183
APPENDIX A: METHODS
APPENDIX B: TRANSCRIPTIONS OF ORAL HISTORY INTERVIEWS
APPENDIX C: ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS OF THE TENANT STRUCTURES
APPENDIX D: EXCAVATION NOTES
APPENDIX E: RESULTS AND INTERPRETATIONS OF THE PREHISTORIC INVESTIGATIONS
APPENDIX F: ARTIFACT CATALOG
APPENDIX G: SITE 9RH41 FORM
APPENDIX H: ETHNOBOTANICAL RESULTS
APPENDIX I: ARCHAEOBOTANICAL CATALOG
APPENDIX J: ZOOARCHAEOLOGICAL CATALOG
APPENDIX K: CURRICULUM VITAES OF REPORT AUTHORS
WE MADE A DAY v
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1 L.E. Gay Plantation and Area of Study............................................................................. 2
Figure 1.2 Study Buildings, 2009................................................................................................... 3
Figure 2.1 Architectural Field Photography, 1996, 1 of 2 ................................................................. 7
Figure 2.2 Architectural Field Photography, 1996, 2 of 2 ................................................................ 8
Figure 2.3 1996 Archaeological Investigations East of U.S. Highway 27............................................ 9
Figure 2.4 1996 Plan and Boundary Map of Proposed District.........................................................10
Figure 2.5 Proposed Improvements Plan, Showing Tenant House Locations along U.S. Highway 27
within Gay Farm, 1987 ..............................................................................................12
Figure 2.6 Images and Locations of Previously Unrecorded Resources and Features, 2010..................14
Figure 2.7 Resource Names.........................................................................................................17
Figure 3.1 Ecoregions of Georgia Showing L.E. Gay Plantation .......................................................20
Figure 3.2 Detail from Soil Map Showing Soil Types and Streams within Plantation............................23
Figure 4.1 Historic Maps of Randolph County 1885-1955 ..............................................................41
Figure 4.2 Detail from1924 Soil Map Showing Study Plantation Boundary........................................43
Figure 5.1 Four Generations........................................................................................................52
Figure 5.2 Gay Family Tree and View of Family Plot in Greenwood Cemetery, Cuthbert .....................54
Figure 5.3 Study Plantation Showing Land Lots Acquired................................................................. 57
Figure 5.4 Historic Postcard of the Gay Hotel and Sanborn Map Showing its Position on the Square....59
Figure 5.5 Airfield Views of the Sheffields with Mail Run and at L.E.Gay Plantation ............................62
Figure 5.6 Rock Wall at L.E. Gay Plantation ..................................................................................63
Figure 5.7 Mathews Era Farming at Gay Farms .............................................................................65
Figure 6.1 New South Landscape, 1924.......................................................................................69
Figure 6.2 1938 Highway Map Showing Rural Development South of Cuthbert................................. 70
Figure 6.3 Southern Portion of Cuthbert Showing Locations of Ginneries, Warehouses,
Cotton Storage, Fertilizer Storage, and Peanut Shelling Plant ...........................................71
Figure 6.4 Mitchell Grove Baptist Church and Cemetery ................................................................. 73
Figure 6.5 Mitchell Grove School ................................................................................................. 75
Figure 6.6 Plantation Layout, 1924...............................................................................................76
Figure 6.7 Detail from 1938 County Highway Map Showing Study Plantation Boundary and
Tenant House Locations Only Along Highway ................................................................78
Figure 6.8 Detail from 1941 Aerial Showing Study Plantation Boundary and Building Locations ..........79
Figure 6.9 Close-up of Plantation Center, 1941 .............................................................................80
Figure 6.10 Diagram of a Mature New South Plantation and Historic Views of Georgia Examples.........81
Figure 6.11 Diagram of L.E. Gay Plantation Showing Mature New South Plantation Layout and
Agricultural Features ...................................................................................................82
Figure 6.12 Floor Plans of Tenant House Types in Georgia................................................................84
Figure 6.13 Historic Views of Tenant Houses, Exterior and Interior, circa 1930 ...................................86
Figure 6.14 Saddle Bag Tenant House, County Road 55...................................................................88
Figure 6.15 Tenant Houses 1 and 8, U.S. Highway 27.....................................................................89
Figure 6.16 Manager/Overseer’s House, Exterior Views...................................................................91
Figure 6.17 Manager/Overseer’s House, Interior Views ...................................................................92
Figure 6.18 Plan and Historic Views of Gay Plantation Main House ...................................................92
vi
Figure 7.1 Tenant House 2 Photograph, Floorplan, and Site Plan ...................................................105
Figure 7.2 Map Illustrating the Artifact Distribution at Tenant House 2.............................................107
Figure 7.3 Plan View and Photograph of Feature 20 in Test Unit 15 ...............................................108
Figure 7.4 Area Mechanically Stripped at Tenant House 2 ............................................................110
Figure 7.5 Features 23 and 31 (Posts) Illustrated in Plan View and Profile........................................111
Figure 7.6 Feature 27 Illustrated in Plan View and Profile with Photographs.....................................112
Figure 7.7 Features 30 and 31 Illustrated in Plan View and Profile with Photograph .........................114
Figure 7.8 Tenant House 2 Photograph, Floorplan, and Site Plan ...................................................115
Figure 7.9 Map Illustrating the Artifact Distribution at Tenant House 4.............................................117
Figure 7.10 Plan View and Photograph of Features 15, 16, and 17 in Test Unit 10 ...........................119
Figure 7.11 Area Mechanically Stripped at Tenant House 4 ............................................................120
Figure 7.12 Features 34, 35, 36, 37, and 68 (Posts) Illustrated in Plan View and Profile.....................121
Figure 7.13 Feature 40 Illustrated in Plan View with Photograph ......................................................122
Figure 7.14 Feature 40 Illustrated in Profile with Photograph ...........................................................123
Figure 7.15 Feature 38 Illustrated in Plan View and Profile ..............................................................124
Figure 7.16 Feature 39 Illustrated in Plan View and Profile with Photograph ......................................125
Figure 7.17 Feature 41 Illustrated in Plan View and Profile with Photograph ......................................127
Figure 7.18 Tenant House 5 Photograph, Floorplan, and Site Plan ...................................................128
Figure 7.19 Interior Views of Tenant House 5 ................................................................................129
Figure 7.20 Map Illustrating the Artifact Distribution at Tenant House 5.............................................131
Figure 7.21 Plan View and Photograph of Features 8 and 9 in Test Unit 6 ........................................132
Figure 7.22 Plan View and Photograph of Feature 12 in Test Unit 8 .................................................133
Figure 7.23 Plan View and Photograph of Feature 13 in Test Unit 8 .................................................134
Figure 7.24 Areas Mechanically Stripped at Tenant House 5...........................................................136
Figure 7.25 Features 45, 48, 49, 55, 59, and 60 (Posts) Illustrated in Plan View and Profile...............137
Figure 7.26 Tenant House 6 Photograph, Floorplan, and Site Plan ...................................................138
Figure 7.27 Tenant House 6, Outbuilding and Well Pump...............................................................139
Figure 7.28 Map Illustrating the Artifact Distribution at Tenant House 6.............................................141
Figure 7.29 Photograph and Plan View of Test Unit 1 Illustrating Features 1, 2, and 3........................142
Figure 7.30 Areas Mechanically Stripped at Tenant House 6...........................................................144
Figure 7.31 Plan View and Photograph of Feature 7 in Test Unit 2 ...................................................145
Figure 7.32 Plan View and Profile of Features 5 and 6, with Photograph of Feature 6 in Test Unit 3.....146
Figure 7.33 Plan View and Photograph of Feature 4 in Test Unit 3 ...................................................147
Figure 7.34 Shovel Testing Grid at Tenant House 9 ........................................................................148
Figure 7.35 Features 61 and 61A in Plan View and Profile .............................................................149
Figure 7.36 Feature 62 Illustrated in Plan View and Profile ..............................................................150
Figure 7.37 Features 63 and 64 Illustrated in Plan View and Profile .................................................151
Figure 7.38 Feature 67 Illustrated in Plan View and Profile ..............................................................153
Figure 7.39 Surfer Map Illustrating the Artifact Distribution at Tenant House 9 ...................................154
Figure 7.40 Foodways Group Artifacts from Site 9RH41, 1 of 2 ......................................................157
Figure 7.41 Foodways Group Artifacts from Site 9RH41, 2 of 2 ......................................................158
Figure 7.42 Clothing Group Artifacts from Site 9RH41 ...................................................................160
Figure 7.43 Household/Structural Group Artifacts from Site 9RH41 .................................................162
Figure 7.44 Personal Group Artifacts from Site 9RH41, 1 of 2.........................................................164
Figure 7.45 Personal Group Artifacts from Site 9RH41, 2 of 2.........................................................165
Figure 7.46 Agricultural/Labor Group Artifacts from Site 9RH41 .....................................................167
Figure 8.1 Artifacts Representing Idosyncratic Behaviors ...............................................................179
Figure 8.2 Rural Historic Landscape............................................................................................181
WE MADE A DAY vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 4.1 County Population, 1830-1890......................................................................................29
Table 4.2 How It Worked – Systems of Tenure ................................................................................34
Table 4.3 Agricultural Statistics, Randolph County, 1860-1940 ........................................................37
Table 4.4 Farms Classified by Race and Tenure, Randolph County, 1900..........................................40
Table 4.5 Number of Farms, Acres by Tenure, and Value of Buildings by Tenure,
Randolph County, 1940................................................................................................45
Table 4.6 Randolph County Crop Production, 1929 and 1939.........................................................46
Table 5.1 Gay Family’s Land Acquisition, 1878–1896 ..................................................................58
Table 6.1 Defining Features of the Old and New South Plantations Eras, 1800-1940..........................67
Table 7.1 Summary of Artifact Group Classification from Tenant Houses at Site 9RH41 .....................155

WE MADE A DAY 1
I. A REINTRODUCTION TO THE L.E. GAY
PLANTATION
The historic L.E. Gay Plantation lies just south of Cuthbert, Randolph County’s county seat, along
U.S. Highway 27/SR 1 in southwest Georgia. At its largest, the plantation was comprised of over
2,500 acres that stretched for large expanses across U.S. Highway 27/SR 1, and its operations
supported the employment and residences of at least 25 tenant families (Figure 1.1). Today, the
L.E. Gay Plantation is one of the few large-scale Randolph County farming operations to survive the
twentieth century with its original family lineage of ownership intact. In 1880, Louis and Callie
Margaret Gay, the plantation’s young founders, initially called this tract their home. Moving north
from Damascus, Georgia, the couple, once engaged in mercantilism, was ready to try their hands
at large-scale farming. Their ingenuity led them to a property with an established farming
infrastructure and access to the city of Cuthbert, which provided all services required for the
operation of a post bellum plantation. Their success eventually allowed them to move into Cuthbert
where they began to diversify their business interests. It is their legacy that is the focus of this study.
The plantation was a consolidation of several tracts that abutted U.S. Highway 27/SR 1. These
properties were acquired by the family in rapid-fire succession in the 1880s. While the unified
tracts may have contained some houses and other cultural features associated with their previous
owners, the landscape that exists today is more a product of what occurred after its acquisition by
the Gay family. Under their tenure, the plantation contained a large-scale settlement that was both
dispersed and centralized. The plantation center was located at the intersection of U.S. Highway
27/SR 1 and what is now known as Airport Road. The west side of U.S. Highway 27/SR 1
contained the main house, which was occupied for a time by Louis and Callie Margaret, a
manager’s residence, a central barn, and a commissary. The east side of the road contained the
five tenant houses that were the original resources that necessitated this study (Site 9RH41; Figure
1.2). Several other tenant houses, outbuildings, a church, school, and two cemeteries, which were
incorporated during the plantation’s expansions, are scattered throughout the plantation’s
landscape. This infrastructure provided a bigger sense of community for the tenants that lived and
worked on the plantation.
The L.E. Gay Plantation’s success was due to the farsightedness of its young owners. The location
of the farm was optimal because it was along a main artery only five miles south of Cuthbert. In a
reinvented economy, it was not enough, however, to be in close proximity to just any city. A farm’s
success in the post-bellum era relied greatly on its relationship with a city that could support its
operations from the ground up. Antebellum plantation systems that were defined by enslaved labor
and sole profit for a single person were replaced by technological advancements in
mechanization, the promotion of commercial fertilization, and the shared profits of paid workers,
which caused the expedient sale of crops. Cities became extensions of a farm’s day-to-day
operations, and Cuthbert’s large public ginneries, warehouses, cotton and fertilizer storage, and a
2
Figure 1.1
L.E. Gay Plantation and Area of Study
L.E. Gay Plantation Boundary
Site 9RH41
Tenant House 6
Tenant House 5
Tenant House 4
Tenant House 2
Tenant House Site 9
0 255 510 1,020 Meters
0 1,000 2,000 4,000 Feet
L.E. Gay Plantation Boundary
Site 9RH41
Source: USGS 7.5” Quadrangle, Carnegie, Georgia Source: 1987 USGS 7.5" Quadrangle, Carnegie, Georgia.
WE MADE A DAY 3
Figure 1.2
Study Buildings, 2009
Tenant House 2
Tenant House 4
Tenant House 5
Tenant House 6
4
peanut shelling plant provided the foundation upon which the L.E. Gay Plantation could thrive. In
addition, Cuthbert had a railroad depot that serviced two branches of the Georgia Railroad and
one line for the Florida and Alabama Railroad.
The L.E. Gay Plantation began in what Charles Aiken (1998) referred to as the New South
Plantation Era (1880-1910). Using a cultural geographic approach, his study provided several
earmarks of a New South plantation including a dispersed settlement pattern, a central place
hierarchy, close proximity of churches and schools to serve the African American community, a
railroad network, and physical links to the new burgeoning agricultural infrastructure. As will be
discussed, the historic L.E. Gay Plantation possesses a majority of the traits identified by Aiken,
suggesting that it is a significant example of this important evolution in our understanding of the
history and culture of Southern plantations. Moreover, its identification and study as a New South
plantation may provide important information about our understanding of this plantation type; how
it differs from its antebellum counterpart, and how it survives Aiken’s subsequent period - the
Demise of Plantation Agriculture (1910-1940).
One last important point of this study is that nothing touched by human hands is created in a
vacuum. Twentieth-century resources are unique because they offer a myriad of research avenues
that help to tell a complete story. The history of the L.E. Gay Plantation would be truncated if it
were only represented by a single discipline, like archaeology, or one perspective, such as only
telling this story in the voice of its tenants. The intent of this mitigation was to represent the entirety
of the L.E. Gay Plantation - its owners, its tenants, its history, its architecture, and its artifacts - and
that this representation can help guide practitioners and advocates alike when studying historic
resources in the future.
DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION
Chapter I introduces the project and is followed by a description of the site’s investigation record in
Chapter II. These chapters were co-authored by GDOT Archaeologist Terri Lotti and Historian
Sharman Southall. New South’s Mary Beth Reed, Natalie Adams, and Jennifer Azzarello authored
the remainder. The natural environment of the region is discussed in Chapter III. A historic context
for tenancy in Randolph County is presented in Chapter IV. A history of the L.E. Gay Plantation is
developed in Chapter V. A discussion of plantation layout and architecture is provided in Chapter
VI. Chapter VII contains the results of the investigations of the historic component at Site 9RH41.
Finally, Chapter VIII addresses the research design and the project's findings and provides
recommendations for future study of tenant sites.
Appendix A presents the methodology that was applied during various stages of the mitigation and
includes an overview of the research methods, field methods, laboratory methods, and curation
procedures. Transcriptions of the oral history interviews are presented in Appendix B, and the field
drawings of the buildings are provided in Appendix C. Appendix D contains a detailed analysis
of the historic archaeological findings followed by Appendix E, which presents the results of the
archaeological investigations of the prehistoric component at Site 9RH41. Appendix F presents a
full artifact catalog. Appendix G contains the 9RH41 site form. Appendix H contains the
ethnobotanical results followed by Appendices I, which contains the archaeobotanical inventory,
and Appendix J that includes the zooarchaeological inventory. Appendix K contains the vitaes of
the primary contributors to the project and report.
WE MADE A DAY 5
II. THE ROAD TO THE L.E. GAY
PLANTATION
In the early 1990s, planning began to widen U.S. Highway 27/SR 1 from south of Columbus to
the Florida State Line as part of the Governor’s Road Improvement Program (GRIP). The GRIP was
originally adopted in 1989 by the Georgia General Assembly with the purpose of stimulating
economic growth via an improved transportation network within the state. Because the proposed
widening would employ federal funding, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of
1966 required GDOT to take into account the effects of this undertaking to historic properties.
During the planning process for the transportation project, a number of historians and
archaeologists were privileged to travel the rolling back roads of Early, Clay, and Randolph
counties in efforts to identify historic resources located within the area of potential effects (APE) of
the proposed project.
When travelling the two-lane road in the early 1990s, it was immediately obvious that the area
was distinctive for its lack of modern development as seen in other parts of the state. The area had
lost population rather than gained it, and the impact to the built environment was striking. With no
industry to attract returning soldiers, even the post-World War II housing boom had not occurred
here. In addition to the lack of mid-to-late twentieth-century development, historic houses, barns,
stores, churches, and agricultural buildings continued to dot the landscape. Although no longer in
use, old stores and unpainted tenant houses located close to the edge of the roadway remained.
Agricultural buildings lined farm roads ready to serve the land, although many were dilapidated
and used for the storage of implements no longer needed on a modern farm. The pristine condition
of the built environment also implied that the archaeological remains of generations of tenant
farmers might still be intact. Over the next 20 years, the highway segments above Cuthbert and
below Blakely were constructed, and GRIP corridors with higher traffic volumes took priority to the
segment stretching from Cuthbert south to Blakely. All the while, the rural architecture of this area
continued to vanish slowly, leaving foundations, chimneys, and their fading imprint on the land.
Over the years, the proposed roadway design was modified several times in order to avoid historic
and natural resources and as a result of community concerns. Historians and archaeologists
revisited the area every time the alignment of the proposed roadway was modified. Each time the
area was revisited, the exceptional character and heritage of this part of Georgia was recognized.
First, the area contained a high number of extant tenant houses signifying a long history of tenant
farming and/or sharecropping. Second, much of the farmland consisted of large parcels,
continuously owned by the same families for generations. Third, stories from longtime residents
alluded to the possibility that some of the tenant houses were once slave cabins. And finally,
farming was still conducted on much of the land. Because the tradition of farming continued in
these families, it was believed their oral traditions could be employed to describe the daily lives of
the community that once lived in the tiny tenant houses that punctuate the landscape and had been
heretofore rarely documented.
6
It seemed that the greatest opportunity for the study of tenancy was along a section of U.S.
Highway 27/SR 1 south of Cuthbert in Randolph County (Figures 2.1 and 2.2). GDOT would be
acquiring a strip of land just east of the existing roadway that possessed several extant tenant
cottages and the ruins of others (Figure 2.3). This strip of land was historically part of the L.E. Gay
Plantation, which was created in the 1880s and once included a farmhouse, a manager’s house,
tenant houses, and agricultural buildings. When conceived, it was hoped that the study would
document some of the structures used by tenant farmers on the L.E. Gay Plantation both as
architectural and as archaeological sites. GDOT cultural resource professionals at the time
believed that it might also be possible to study the broader landscape of tenancy, conduct oral
history interviews with former residents of the tenant farming community, as well as interview the
descendants of L.E. Gay, the Richard Mathews family, who still own and farm the land.
Once the alignment was agreed upon and the funding for the acquisition of property was secured
in 2006, the strip of land was acquired and archaeological work began. In addition, extant
houses were photographed and measured, and historic research was conducted. Despite attempts
to find tenants who once worked on the L.E. Gay Plantation, no one who had occupied these
particular houses came forward to be interviewed for this project, so the search was expanded to
long-time residents of the area with a connection to tenant farming. After the tenant house sites
were closely examined and studied, the descendants of L.E. Gay were interviewed in 2010 to help
identify the locations and uses of other buildings, structures, and sites historically associated with
the plantation, which added to the larger story of the geography of the L.E. Gay Plantation.
In addition to the study of tenancy, this process, which began in the early 1990s and ends with the
presentation of this paper in 2011, illustrates many of the challenges in developing mitigation for
adverse effects to historic resources. One challenge is the loss of resources and research
opportunities, both buildings and people, over time. Not only can the building fall to ruin, key
informants can move away or become unavailable before study is complete. In the case of the L.E.
Gay Plantation, several buildings surveyed initially are no longer extant, but we are fortunate to
have site sketches from these surveys that document their location and their relationship to the
plantation (Figure 2.4).
A second challenge is the receptivity of the individuals or community impacted. Often communities
and individuals have varying responses to the changes initiated by a roadway project. While
some welcome the changes and the opportunities to receive compensation for properties no longer
in use, many are not so inclined. The proposed project might cut through a family farm or
necessitate the destruction of a store operated by a father or grandfather now deceased. People
can have a potent connection to a place, and in this area of the state, unchanged for so long,
residents have a forceful connection to the land. These emotions and resistance to a project can
restrict communication and bias the collection of history.
A third challenge is the initial determination of significance itself. Unfortunately, determinations
about historic and archaeological significance are made early in the process with just enough
information to deem the structure or site eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).
Because a resource may be completely avoided, it is not prudent to study every aspect of a site
until it is determined that it will be affected by the construction of the roadway. Once it has been
WE MADE A DAY 7
Tenant House 1
Tenant House 2
Tenant House 4 (Manager/Overseer’s House)
Tenant House 5
Tenant House 6
Tenant House 7
Slave Cabin
Figure 2.1
Architectural Field Photography, 1996*, 1 of 2
*Labeling Keyed to
Figure 2.4
8
Fields
Shed Barn, Silo, Windmill, and Water Tower
Collapsed Outbuilding Machine Shed
Gay Cemetery
Figure 2.2
Architectural Field Photography, 1996*, 2 of 2
*Labeling Keyed to
Figure 2.4
WE MADE A DAY 9
Figure 2.3
1996 Investigations East of U.S. Highway 27
TENANT HOUSE 9
TENANT HOUSE 6
TENANT HOUSE 5
SHED
TENANT HOUSE 2
Source: Reid et al. 1996:95 in Brockington and Associates 1996
10
Figure 2.4
1996 Plan and Boundary Map of Proposed District
Source: Georgia Department of Transportation (n.d.)
Shed
Proposed Historic District Boundary
Silo
WE MADE A DAY 11
determined that harm to the resource cannot be avoided, historical research must be expanded and
earlier research vetted in order to properly document the resource. In this case, one building had
been misinterpreted by a previous historian as a store, leading to an erroneous conclusion about
the spatial relationship of the tenant community on the east side of U.S. Highway 27/SR 1. The
store-like structure was actually a remnant of a tenant house that was left in place after a
transportation improvement that predated this project (Figure 2.5). In addition, informants used in
early reports also believed that some of the extant buildings dated to the antebellum period. Based
on the research included in this report, this is not believed to be the case.
A fourth challenge is that archaeological investigations are typically restricted to the portion of the
property being directly affected by the road project. This restriction can severely limit the
understanding of a resource. In this instance, the area studied for archaeology only surrounded
five tenant houses that were close in age and tenure of use. In addition, the research regarding the
tenants on the L.E. Gay Plantation revealed that most, if not all, were African American and of a
lower economic status. This finding produced a sort of bias in the dataset where the artifacts are
only representative of a single group in a single setting. Meanwhile, across the highway, the main
house, manager’s house, commissary, and central barn were not archaeologically explored
because they were not physically impacted by the road which meant that no comparisons could be
made across the plantation hierarchy, such as types of artifacts that might be recovered from the
context of an owner versus those associated with the tenants. Additionally, analyses could not be
conducted between the communal aspects of the plantation and the individual dwellings because
this dataset was also not available. Lastly, the artifacts and features studied at the five tenant
houses did not confirm a previous slave occupation despite the presence of house types, such as
Single Pens, that may have predated the Gay family’s occupation, and an oral account identifying
one building as a slave cabin.
The final and perhaps the most frustrating challenge is the time allotted to the completion of
mitigation. Most mitigation activities can only occur once the alignment of the roadway is agreed
upon, and the acquisition of property is completed. The reasons for this challenge are
understandable. Until the alignment is determined, the effects to each historic and archaeological
resource are uncertain. In addition, we are unable to access the property to do the archaeology
and often—to photograph, measure and document buildings-- until the ownership has been
transferred to the Department. Multiple properties along a corridor are often involved, multiplying
the impact of this time limitation. The time between the acquisition of property and the construction
of the project is generally two years or less. During this time, the study of all impacted properties
within a project area must be completed.
In the case of this report, two years would have produced a different study; however, the time
between the acquisition of properties and the construction of the roadway was extended due to a
lack of funding. Although the properties along the proposed alignment were purchased in 2006,
the roadway was not constructed as soon as planned due to the lack of transportation funds.
Coincidentally, the Matthews family pursued and obtained a Centennial Family Farm Award in
2010 from the Department of Natural Resources, Historic Preservation Division. The Centennial
Family Farm program recognizes family farms that help preserve Georgia's agricultural history by
maintaining working family farms for more than 100 years. This effort to document the farm’s
12
Tenant House 2
Tenant House 1
WE MADE A DAY 13
Figure 2.5
Proposed Improvements Plan, Showing Tenant House Locations
along U.S. Highway 27 within L. E. Gay Plantation, 1987
Tenant House 4
Tenant House 5
Tenant House 6
Tenant House Site 9
(Locus 5)
14
0 400 800 200 Meters
0 1,000 2,000 4,000 Feet
County Road 33
Tenant House North of County Road 33
Tenant Site on
“Alabama” Side
Mitchell Road Baptist
Church and
Mitchell Grove
Baptist School
Farm Road to Church
Mitchell Road Baptist Cemetery
Trees Marking
House Site Along
U.S. Highway 27
WE MADE A DAY 15
Figure 2.6
Images and Locations of Previously Unrecorded Resources and Features, 2010
U.S. H gi hway 27
Images and Locations of Previously Unrecorded Resources and Features, 2010
Cemetery Location
Church Location
School Location
Road
Tenant House
Field
Unknown Cemetery
Tenant House North of County Road 55
Well South of
County Road 55
Fields Along U.S. Highway 27
Tenant House 7
County Road 55
Tenant House North of County Road 55
16
history prompted New South to reestablish a dialogue between the family and the project team and
expand the study. The additional time, though unplanned, resulted in a more thoroughly
researched history and the opportunity for site visits.
The resulting document goes beyond the study of five sites in isolation. It recognizes a larger
landscape that includes the original farmhouse, an African American Church and school, a
manager’s residence, a commissary, two cemeteries, and multiple agricultural structures and sites
(Figure 2.6). Added to the agricultural fields, airfield, farm roads, fence lines, and other landscape
features, one can view the historic plantation as a large landholding shaped by economic, social,
and cultural forces.
In order to describe the L.E. Gay Plantation, a common vocabulary should be established before
moving forward. Figure 2.6 shows the locations of extant features of the L.E. Gay Plantation as
photographed in 2010. Figure 2.7 is a map showing the locations of buildings with labels
indicating their historic use. This figure only includes buildings and features at the core of the
plantation. Many of these buildings are no longer extant but will be described in Chapters VI and
VII.
WE MADE A DAY 17
Figure 2.7
Resource Names
Manager/Overseer’s House
Tenant House 3
Gay Cemetery
Pump House
Tenant House 1
Tenant House 8,
Sugar Boy’s Cabin
Tenant House 7
Machine Shed
Wind Mill
Barn
Water Tower
Tenant House 4, Shed, Corbett House, Locus 2
Tenant House 2, Locus 1
Tenant House Site 9, Locus 5
Tenant House 6, Locus 4
Tenant House 5, Locus 3
Former Building
National Register Historic
District Boundary
Archaeological Loci
Cemetery
Building or House
Source: USGS 7.5” Quadrangle, Carnegie, Georgia
Mitchell Grove Baptist
Church and Cemetery
Unknown
Cemetery
Silo
*Bold text indicates names used in report

WE MADE A DAY 19
III. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT
The L.E. Gay Plantation is located in the south central portion of Randolph County in southwest
Georgia, approximately 180 kilometers from the Florida Gulf Coast. It is situated in the Fall Line
Hills District of the Coastal Plain province of the state and lies approximately 40 meters above
mean sea level (AMSL). The following discussion looks at the physiographic and geologic setting,
soil information, hydrology, climatic conditions, and floral and faunal communities in, and
surrounding, the plantation that helped to define its historic landscape.
PHYSIOGRAPHY
The plantation falls within the Fall Line Hills district of the Coastal Plain province of Georgia, and is
bordered by the Dougherty Plain district/eco-region on the south and the Pine Mountain district in
the north. The Fall Line is the zone of transition between two physiographic regions: the Piedmont
and the Coastal Plain. This region is very dissected with moderate hills, marshy flood plains,
narrow stream terraces, and wider floodplains in the south (Hodler and Schretter 1986).
The Fall Line Hills are heavily dissected with little level land. Level land is found in the form of
marshy floodplains and well-drained, narrow stream terraces. Stream valleys generally lie 50-250
feet below the adjacent ridge tops. As rivers and streams flow south through this district, rapids
and shoals appear near the geologic contact between the two provinces. Further south from this
contact, floodplains increase in width and stream meanders increase in frequency. Relief
decreases towards the south and east within the district; maximum elevations between Columbus
and Macon are around 760 feet AMSL and decrease to 150 feet AMSL south of Augusta (Clarke
and Zisa 1976).
The Fall Line Hills district is further subdivided into four ecoregions (Figure 3.1): Southern Hilly Gulf
Coastal Plain in the northwest; Sand Hills along the Fall Line, Coastal Plain Red Uplands along the
southern boundary of the Fall Line Hills; and the Southeastern Floodplains and Low Terraces along
the rivers and streams. The L.E. Gay Plantation is found in a narrow portion of the Coastal Plain
Red Uplands ecoregion, squeezed between the Southern Hilly Gulf Coastal Plain ecoregion to the
north and the Dougherty Plain ecoregion to the south (Griffith et al. 2001).
The Coastal Plain Red Uplands are formed on reddish Eocene sand and clay formations. These
soils are well drained and have a brown to reddish brown sandy loam surface with red subsoils.
Most of the area is either cropland or pasture, but there are some forested areas on the steeper
slopes and ridges (Griffith et al. 2001).
20
Figure 3.1
Ecoregions of Georgia Showing L.E. Gay Plantation
L. E. Gay
Plantation
WE MADE A DAY 21
The Southern Hilly Gulf Coastal Plain, north of the site, is composed of gently rolling hills and
dissected irregular plains. It has higher elevations and more relief than the Red Uplands. Natural
vegetation in the area is an oak-hickory-pine forest mix. The Sand Hills, northeast of the site, is a
highly dissected rolling to hilly area. Shortleaf-loblolly pine forests are common throughout the
area (Griffith et al. 2001).
The Dougherty Plain, south of the site, is a flat to gently rolling karst-like province and is located
between the Fall Line Hills to the northwest and the Tipton Uplands to the southeast (Wharton
1978). This province is characterized by limestone geology with subsurface aquifers and surface
wetlands interwoven (Jones 2003). The Dougherty Plain differs from the other provinces in that
they have hilly terrain, sinuous drainages, and large floodplains. Dougherty topography slopes
from 300 feet AMSL in the north along the Fall Line Hills to 77 feet AMSL in the southwest corner of
Georgia.
Elevations range from 250-750 feet AMSL. The terrain along the project corridor is comprised of
steep knolls and gently rolling ridge tops, as well as the lower lying drainages separating them.
The relative relief is approximately 200 feet (31 meters).
GEOLOGY
The Georgia Coastal Plain region formed through sea level fluctuation during the Upper Cretaceous
and Cenozoic geologic timeframes (Cooke 1943). The region as a whole was repeatedly covered
by the sea as illustrated by the numerous and distinct strata of seashells and erosional deposits.
Strata of gravels and clays from the erosive intervals and sandier deposits during inundation can
be observed, all of which are mingled with calcium carbonate rock such as limestone.
SOILS
The United States is divided into Major Land Resource Areas (MLRA), which is a way of organizing
the different geographic areas by agricultural importance. These areas consist of several thousand
acres and are characterized by patterns of soils, climate, water resources, land uses, and types of
farming. The L.E. Gay Plantation is located in the South Atlantic and Gulf Coast Slope Cash Crops,
Forest, and Livestock Land Resource Region; the MLRA is the Southern Coastal Plain 133A, which
has a terrain including surface relief ranging from almost level, undulating, and gently sloping to
rolling and hilly (Monroe 2007:2; United States Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resource
Conservation Service [USDA NRCS] 2007a). The highest elevation in Randolph County is 580 feet;
the lowest is 230 feet.
Eocene/Paleocene deposits dominate the soils of Randolph County and are generally well drained
and have sandy or loamy characteristics. Soils in this resource area are derived from Coastal Plain
marine sediments, weathered Piedmont rocks, loams, and clays on crystalline and metamorphic
bedrock in the uplands. These soils tend to be infertile (Hodler and Schretter 1986).
22
The plantation is centrally located in the southern half of Randolph County where the Altamaha
Formation has created an undulating rolling body of land. The Altamaha Formation is composed
of Greenville, Faceville, Norfolk, Orangeburg, and Red Bay soils (Monroe 2007:181). The USDA
NRCS has recorded two soil types within the project area at Site 9RH41: Faceville Sandy Loam (0-
2 percent slopes) and Henderson Gravelly Sandy Loam (2-8 percent slope) (USDA NRCS 2007a).
In general, the soils that were recorded during the archaeological excavations by New South
Associates in 2006 recorded both soil types as fine sand (or sometimes referred to in the results as
silty sandy loam).
Faceville soil series are very deep, well-drained soils that are found in Coastal Plain uplands in
broad ridge landforms. These soils are moderately permeable and are formed in clayey marine
Coastal Plain sediments (Monroe 2007:44; USDA NRCS 2007b). Cotton, peanuts, corn, small
grains, grain sorghum, and soybeans are successfully grown in Faceville soils and dominate the
landscape (Monroe 2007:45). The soil profile is typically 0-10 inches of reddish brown (5YR 4/4)
sandy loam that has a weak fine granular structure and is very friable. From 10-72 inches, there is
red (2.5YR 4/6) sandy clay that has a moderate medium subangular blocky structure. Following
this is 72-80 inches of red (2.5YR 5/6) sandy clay that is mottled with strong brown (7.5YR 5/6).
It has moderate permeability, fine soils, and a subangular, blocky structure (Monroe 2007:159).
Henderson soil series are very deep, well-drained soils that are found in Coastal Plain uplands in
ridge, knolls, and side slope landforms. These soils are slowly permeable and are formed in
clayey marine sediments and impure limestone Coastal Plain sediments (Monroe 2007:163).
Woodland dominates the landscape, as loblolly pine is successfully grown in Henderson soils.
However, in other areas in the county, bahiagrass, coastal Bermuda grass, common
bermudagrass, legumes, and ryegrass are also successfully grown in pasture or hayland (Monroe
2007:63). The soil profile is typically 0-4 inches of very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) gravelly
sandy loam that has a weak fine granular structure, which is very friable. From 4-13 inches, there
is yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) gravelly sandy loam that had a weak fine granular structure and is
very friable. Below this layer is 13-49 inches of strong brown (7.5YR 5/6) gravelly sandy clay that
has moderate permeability, fine soils, and a subangular, blocky structure that is friable.
The 1928 soil survey of Randolph County uses the soil names Greenville, Blakely, and Carnegie as
typical for the county (Figure 3.2). Carnegie soils, characterized as very deep, well-drained,
moderately slowly permeable soils, are found in south central Randolph County where the
plantation is situated. Much of the landscape of Randolph County had been cleared and used for
cropland or pasture during the Postbellum period. Today, some of the formerly cultivated fields
have been planted in pine trees, while many acres remain under cultivation. Wooded areas
contain longleaf pine, slash pine, and loblolly pine, along with a few red oak, scarlet oak,
blackjack oak, hickory, haws, and dogwoods.
FLORA AND FAUNA
Georgia has a very prolific natural environment. Compared with the other 49 states, Georgia
ranks seventh in overall diversity of vascular plants, second in amphibian diversity, third in
freshwater fish diversity, seventh in reptile diversity, fifteenth in bird diversity, and seventeenth in
mammal diversity (GDNR 2005). Georgia ranks sixth in overall biological diversity.
WE MADE A DAY 23
Figure 3.2
Detail from Soil Map Showing Soil Types and Streams within Plantation
Source: USDA, Randolph County Soil Map
L.E. Gay Plantation Boundary
012 0.5 Kilometers
0 0.5 1 2 Miles
L. E. Gay Plantation Boundary
24
Differences in physiography, topography, and historic land use create a large variation in
vegetation in the area surrounding the plantation. The project area is found in the LoblollyShortleaf Pine ecotone between Longleaf-Slash Pine Forest in the south and Oak-Pine Forest in the
east (Hodler and Schretter 1986). For the Fall Line Hills and Upper Coastal Plain, forests are
dominated by loblolly and shortleaf pine. Other abundant trees include: white oak, willow oak,
southern red oak, post oak, swamp chestnut oak, water oak, hickory, and white ash (Braun 1950).
Understory species include yaupon, hawthorn, sassafras, southern sugar maple, and sweetgum
(Braun 1950).
Prior to the severe disturbances caused by silviculture, a quilt-work of plant communities covered the
different landforms in the Dougherty Plain. Longleaf pines and wiregrass tended to grow on the
ridge tops, while dense hardwood forests, including tupelo and water oak, occurred along
streambeds. Cypress and gum trees grew within the lime sinks. May hawthorn trees tended to
grow within the better-drained loamy sand portions of ponds, swamps, and stream banks.
Adjacent to the ponds and wetlands are big live oaks, most of which have little resistance to fire
but thrive in the disturbance created by irregular flooding (Wharton 1978).
Original vegetation, before large-scale agricultural development, consisted of mixed pines and
hardwoods. Stands of planted pines now cover ridge tops with areas of natural regeneration
containing a pine and hardwood mixture cover the lower slopes and drainages. Remnants of the
mixed pine and hardwood forests include loblolly, shortleaf/slash pines, longleaf, hickory, oaks,
and various understory trees. Deciduous trees common to the wetlands and lower ridge slopes
include blackgum, sweetgum, laurel oak, swamp oak, and water oak, while scrub oaks are
common on the higher slopes.
Animal species in the area are abundant and varied. Common larger mammals and marsupial
species include white-tailed deer, beaver, coyote, bobcat, gray fox, opossum, and raccoon.
Smaller mammals include cotton mouse, cottontail rabbit, eastern pipistrelle, field mouse, flying
squirrel, gray squirrel, mole, pocket gopher, red bat, rice rat, swamp rabbit, weasel, and wood
mouse (Golley 1962).
A variety of avian species have been observed and reported within the area; they include the bald
eagle, turkey vulture, multiple hawk species, quail, and wild turkey. Reptiles and amphibians can
also be found in abundance, including timber rattlesnake, garter snake, eastern box turtle, and
gopher tortoise. Fish are also plentiful, with over 200 fish species reported in local streams and
rivers (Wharton 1978).
A variety of environments are found within the western Fall Line Hills and Coastal Plain. These can
be lumped into general categories of water systems, forests, and ravines. For the water systems,
there are at least eight types: Coastal Plain springs, underground aquifers, wet cliffs and outcrops,
spring-fed streams, blackwater river and swamp systems, alluvial river and swamp systems, cypress
ponds, and limesinks. These systems are generally located on lower floodplains, sandy soils,
flatwoods, pond edges, and moist pine forests. The fauna in these areas tends to consist mostly of
fish, salamanders, lizards, frogs, toads, turtles, and snakes. Mammals, found in these areas, are
generally moles, muskrats, beavers, river otters, rats, minks, rabbits, and raccoons.
WE MADE A DAY 25
For the Chattahoochee and Flint rivers and their tributaries, a variety of snails, bivalves, crayfish,
and shrimp are available for exploitation. As stated previously, there are over 200 fish species
reported locally, and some of these include lamprey, gars, herring, shiners, suckers, catfish, perch,
bass, sunfish, bluegill, crappie, and walleye (Wharton 1978).
There are at least seven forest and ravine systems in the areas surrounding the site. Bluffs forests of
northern affinities, broadleaf deciduous-needleleaf evergreen, longleaf pine upland forest, loblollyshortleaf pine upland forest, Chattahoochee ravines, torreya ravines, and solution ravines and
sinks. These systems are predominantly found in higher hammocks, upland forests, and lower
floodplains on sandy soils. Fauna include some frogs, southern toads, some turtles (including the
gopher turtle), lizards, and snakes. Bats, mice, opossum, shrews, moles, squirrels, weasels,
bobcats, deer, foxes, skunks, pocket gophers, armadillo, and rabbits represent the mammals
(Wharton 1978).
HYDROLOGY
The broad shallow valleys of the Lower Piedmont constrict near the Fall Line Hills, resulting in rapids
and shoals that give way to broad floodplains in the Upper Coastal Plain. The principal drainage
for the region is the Chattahoochee River. The L.E. Gay Plantation falls between two major river
systems in Georgia that flow from north to south and are part of the Apalachicola River system.
The Chattahoochee River lies 25 kilometers to the west and the Flint River 60 kilometers to the east.
Together, these river basins combine with the Apalachicola River Basin to form the Apalachicola
Drainage Basin, which contains roughly 20,400 square miles. Although the project area is closer
to the Chattahoochee River, it is barely included in that river basin. The water from its creeks
ultimately empties into the Flint River Basin, which drains most of southwest Georgia.
The Chattahoochee River originates in the Blue Mountain district of far northern Georgia in Union
County, and then flows in a southwesterly direction via Atlanta to Alabama at the current West
Point Lake. From this lake, the river creates the state border with Alabama and flows in a southerly
direction, entering the Fall Line Hills in the vicinity of Columbus. The Chattahoochee winds through
the steeply sided Fall Line Hills northwest of Blakely to enter the more level Dougherty Plain and
creates the western boundary of this province. Navigation up and down the Chattahoochee River,
between the Gulf of Mexico and the Fall Line around Columbus, would have been effortless in
prehistoric and historic times, before dam construction in the twentieth century. From the Dougherty
Plain, it continues south terminating in Lake Seminole. The river is roughly 450 miles in length. The
Chattahoochee River Basin contains 8,770 square miles (USGS 2004).
The Flint River is also a large drainage that spans a great portion of central to western Georgia.
The headwaters of the Flint River occur north of the Fall Line within the Soapstone Ridge area of the
Piedmont, immediately south of Atlanta. Where this river flows southward across the Coastal Plain,
subsurface aquifers are formed, including the Providence and Floridan (Loettler and Meyer 2006).
The Flint River joins Spring Creek and the Chattahoochee River at the Florida border to form Lake
Seminole. The Apalachicola River flows south from this point to the Gulf of Mexico. This drainage
represents the eastern edge of the Dougherty Plain physiographic province. The Flint River Basin
consists of a large area incorporating 8,460 square miles (Loettler and Meyer 2006).
26
Located in the Flint River Basin, the Ichawaynochaway Watershed contains 716,388 acres and is
immediately adjacent to the site. Croplands and pasture dominate this area, with the topography
ranging from level to rolling valleys with gently sloping uplands (USGS 2004). Tabor Branch
Creek, the closest water source to the plantation is located in this watershed.
Scattered tributaries and sinks feed the Chattahoochee and Flint rivers in the coastal region,
helping to recharge the aquifers. The sites lie above the Claiborne and Clayton aquifers. The
Claiborne aquifer consists of thin, sandy deposits and is not as productive as other aquifers in the
area. The Clayton aquifer is made of limestone and can support large amounts of groundwater;
however, the recharge area is very small and has been put under a great deal of strain due to high
agricultural demand (McDowel 2007).
Part of the Floridan Aquifer—located to the south and east of the project area—is found in the
Dougherty Plain. This allows underground springs to enhance a branching network of above and
below ground streams (Wharton 1978). The porous limestone found in the area also favors the
formation of sinks, ponds, and marshes (Clarke and Zisa 1976) and gives the Dougherty Plain the
title of Lime Sink region in the Coastal Plain province. This artesian system was created by
carbonate bedrock, which underlies the coastal regions of the southeast and is one of the major
water sources for the area. The Cretaceous aquifer, located north of the project area, follows
along the Fall Line directly adjacent to the Piedmont and Blue Ridge provinces. Limited to this
narrow strip, its sources are generally found in upslope areas (McDowel 2007).
Two tributaries flow through the historic plantation. Tabor Branch, a tributary of Carter Creek, is
the closest water source to the five investigated tenant sites. They are located 121 meters north of
the southern fork of the creek and 915 meters south of the northern fork of the creek. Rhodes
Branch, a tributary of Cemochechobee Creek, flows through the southwest portion of the
plantation.
CLIMATE
Southwest Georgia is part of the Warm Temperate Subtropical Climate Zone (Hodler and Schretter
1986). Air from the Gulf of Mexico covers the area with moist tropical air, creating long and hot
summers. Winters are cool and relatively short, with cold spells lasting for only a few days
(Johnson 1983). Summer temperatures average 80-85 degrees Fahrenheit, while winter
temperatures average 45-50 degrees Fahrenheit. Annual precipitation averages just over 50
inches and is relatively evenly distributed throughout the year. The growing season generally lasts
from late March through late October with an average length of 230 days (Johnson 1983).
WE MADE A DAY 27
IV. AGRICULTURE AND TENANCY IN
RANDOLPH COUNTY
This study is about tenancy and in particular, tenancy in Randolph County from 1880 through
1950. Like many counties in Georgia’s Black Belt, Randolph County evolved from a full-blown
plantation economy built upon slave labor in the antebellum period into a new farming era after the
Civil War. Postbellum agriculture was based on tenancy; a different social and economic order
that transformed people’s lives and, by doing so, subtly changed the rural landscape. A physical
hallmark of this era today is the frame one-story tenant house standing vacant, alone or in groups,
overgrown with kudzu, or lying in ruins. Like apartments today, these buildings represent an
architecture of convenience in a world of change as most tenants moved from one tenant farm to
another to better their circumstances. Some moved annually while others sought a new situation
when circumstances demanded it. Many tried their luck in industry or town life for a time but later
returned to farming, rejoining the ranks of the tenants. Five such dwellings and the archaeological
features associated with them were the impetus for this study. They were part of a large plantation
operated by tenant labor in south central Randolph County after the Civil War and into the mid
twentieth century. The history of the L.E. Gay Plantation will be presented in the next chapter; this
chapter provides a context for its development from 1880-1940. During those decades, the
number of Randolph County tenants and tenant farms grew slowly through the 1880s, reached its
apex in the 1920s, and decreased somewhat by 1940. While tenants were still a viable part of
the county’s agricultural life in the 1940s, the 1950s would bring this era in Randolph County’s
history largely to an end.
Mostly known through agricultural statistics, New Deal photography, and early twentieth-century
literature that sometimes romanticized tenant life, tenancy is a complex topic. Agricultural statistics
collected by the Federal Census Bureau provide baseline information on its structure on the state
and county level. The tabular data within this chapter was culled from these statistics as taken from
the Historical Census Browser hosted by the University of Virginia’s Fischer Library. Period
analyses such as Arthur Raper’s Preface to Peasantry: A Tale of Two Black Belt Counties first
published in 1936 (Raper 2004) and T.J. Woofter, Jr.’s examination of tenant life in Landlord and
Tenant on the Cotton Plantation, also published in 1936, are important contributions to tenancy
scholarship. Each described tenant life, underscoring that while there were shared features within
tenant life there were real differences in each tenant’s experiences that had to do with race, the
landlord’s ethics and acumen, the size of the operation, the size of one’s family, soil, personal
drive to succeed, and a host of other factors.
Oral history from descendants of Randolph County tenant farmers provides confirmation for this
early scholarship. Although no descendants of L.E. Gay Plantation’s tenant community were
located, others who lived through the era contributed their stories and three excerpts were adapted
from the transcriptions for inclusion in this chapter. Appendix B contains the transcriptions. The
28
1928 Soil Survey for Randolph County was equally important to this discussion as it contains a
strong account of Randolph County agriculture and tenancy that is descriptive rather than
analytical. It is a key source of information for the post World War I period through the mid
1920s when tenancy was in its primacy. Finally, Charles S. Aiken’s study The Cotton Plantation
South Since the Civil War (1998) was integral to understanding the landscape and addressing the
L. E Gay Plantation as a whole. A product of the 1880s, it has the character and features of a
New South plantation as discussed by Aiken (1998).
“ALMOST EVERYTHING NECESSARY FOR THE COMFORT OF MAN”
R.T. Nesbitt, Georgia‘s State Commissioner for the Department of Agriculture, published this verbal
snapshot of Randolph County in his Georgia: Her Resources and Possibilities, published in 1895:
Randolph County was formed from Lee in 1828; is bounded north by Stewart, east by
Terrell, south by Calhoun and Clay, west by Quitman and Clay. Post-offices:
Benevolence, Coleman, Lodrick, Shellman, Springdale and Cuthbert, the county seat…
Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians and some Episcopalians in this county; schools are
good, and especially in Cuthbert. Society refined and intelligent. The climate is mild
and may be called a healthy county. The county contains a large quantity of fertile
lands, capable of producing in large quantities almost everything necessary for the
comfort of man - cotton, corn, wheat, oats, rye, sugar-cane, rice, potatoes, ground
peas, melons and an endless variety of vegetables and fruit.
The Randolph County described by Nesbitt appeared to have it all: a strong county seat and a host
of villages/post office locations, good schools, an assortment of church congregations, refined
society, and a healthy climate. But in particular, he emphasized its great potential for agriculture
at the close of the nineteenth century when many other Georgia counties could not make the same
claim. Despite booster statements found in earlier county descriptions such as White’s 1854
Statistics of Georgia that lauded Randolph County’s “excellent lands,” the call to settle in the
isolated southwestern Georgia county went largely unheeded. Its location in the state, distant from
both commercial and political centers, was probably a determining factor.
Census population statistics (Table 4.1) suggest a sparsely populated county with a strong growth
pattern between 1830 and 1850 as the area opened up for settlement. Early settlers from the
Carolinas, Virginia, and other parts of Georgia preferred the lands along stream slopes and the
well-drained ridges and uplands in the western, central and southern parts of the county. The forest
cover in these areas would be the first to be prepared for cultivation of subsistence crops such as
corn, oats, rye, and wheat (Phillips et al. 1928:5). Hogs and cows, allowed free range in wooded
areas, and wild game provided meat for early Randolph County residents.
WE MADE A DAY 29
Table 4.1 County Population, 1830-1890
Year Aggregate White Slave Free Blacks
1830 2,191 682 1
1840 8,276 2,679 9
1850 12,868 5,008 1
1860 9,571 5,103 4,467 1
1870 10,561 5,084 5,477
1880 13,341 5,545 7,796
1890 15,267 5,794 9,473
Source: Historical Census Browser 2007
Despite its fertile land, roughly only one-third of the county’s acres contained improved farmland in
1850 and this was divided between 930 farms (White 1854:590). The 1850 census counted
1,408 families in Randolph County and an equivalent number of dwellings. This first wave of
population growth associated with early settlement ended between 1850 and 1860 when a 25
percent decrease in overall population occurred. Accordingly, the amount of acres in improved
farmland decreased. These numbers suggest outmigration, possibly to areas further west, as some
residents may have elected to journey westward in search of better prospects. Others may have
left to pursue a different career from farming, while urban life in Cuthbert may have enticed some
away from the farm. Cuthbert in 1850 prospered with a population of 500. The county seat had
15 mercantile establishments, seven doctors, a dentist, nine lawyers, carpenters, waggoners, a
cabinetmaker, a silversmith, tailors, shoemakers, a merchant miller, a brick layer, a civil engineer,
two hotelkeepers, and a dancing master (Goolsby et al. 1977:8). However, larger cities such as
Macon, Atlanta, Columbus, and others were also probable destinations.
The coming of the railroad in 1859 marked a new era of growth for Randolph County. Prior to
1852, travel in the county was over “coach roads” from Lumpkin and Columbus and Fort Gaines
on the Chattahoochee was the shipping point for produce and supplies (Phillips et al. 1928:5).
Steamboats plied the Chattahoochee River, tying Fort Gaines to regional markets. Considered a
lifeline that sustained the county and region’s agriculture and industry, the Southwestern Railroad
opened in 1859 with a passenger train from Smithville to Cuthbert. In 1865, the line would be
completed to Eufala, Alabama. The Central of Georgia (later Southern) would build a depot on
Front Street that served the Montgomery, Alabama, to Macon, Georgia region and that would
become a local landmark. The presence of the train engendered industry in the county seat; a
cottonseed oil and peanut mill was soon established and other industry followed. One anecdote
provides a visceral sense of the railroad’s coming:
The first trains were greeted with elation and terror. The planters and residents of the
section welcomed the opportunity to move cotton to markets more speedily, and to
have faster and more frequent mail service and to have more comfortable access to
nearby towns… The trains raced across cotton fields at speeds of almost 30 miles an
hour – showering cinders upon onlookers and sounding bells and whistles at every
house and at the inevitable groups of curious bystanders (Williford as quoted in
Goolsby et al.1977:109)
30
Railroad construction was essentially completed after the Civil War, and it continued to have a
major and lasting impact upon the region and the commercial life of the cities it linked.
As Randolph County was distant from the theaters of war between 1860 and 1864, the county’s
landscape was unchanged by any direct impacts. The loss of family members was the paramount
impact for many Randolph County residents. However, the long-term effects of the Civil War would
be sweeping in their scale, changing the region, state, and county’s agricultural way of life and its
landscape through the mid twentieth century.
While the railroad put Cuthbert and Randolph County on the map as part of the state’s developing
rail network, the majority of the county residents remained rural. After the Civil War, population
increased once again but slowly. Between 1860 and 1890, the white population grew by only
691 individuals (see Table 4.1). An early twentieth-century description of the county’s residents
observed that “the present white population consists almost entirely of the descendants” [of its first
settlers], suggesting a strong continuity in the land tenure of its Euroamerican families (Phillips et al.
1928:3). The names of some of these families are listed in White’s Historical Collections of
Georgia (1854): Samuel A. Greer, James P. Sharp, James Martin, Jacob Hawk, Wiley Strickland,
Thomas Coram, Lewis Rivers, Benjamin Davis, Allen Moye, Martin Brown, Abel Bass, John Roe,
Edward McDonald, Z. Bailey, Joseph Sands, David Rumph, Dr. Jones, Colonel Alexander, Rev. Mr.
Swain, and George Wood. Other county histories offer more surnames of prominent individuals or
families. In essence, those that came to the county early on and prospered, stayed. Some
remained on the land, while others retained the family farm but operated it as absentee
landowners.
Whether the county’s enslaved African American population and their descendants also stayed in
Randolph County is less documented. In 1860, there were 4,467 slaves and a white majority with
5,103 individuals. Census statistics show a decided increase in the county’s black population after
the Civil War that continued through the 1890s. In 1880, the county had a black majority with
7,767 African Americans. Between 1880 and 1890, the county experienced a 21.5 percent
increase in its black population, suggesting migration of blacks into the county. Sixty-two percent
of Randolph County’s population was African American in 1890.
While tied into regional markets and integrated into commercial networks, Randolph County in the
postbellum period remained a rural county with few population centers. Agriculture still defined its
economy, social order and landscape, but how agriculture was practiced changed demonstrably
as the area’s farmers became non-owners, tenants, renters, and sharecroppers.
TENANCY
Large-scale cash crop farming continued in the South and in Randolph County after the Civil War
but under a different guise. Simply said, black and white tenant farmers performed the labor that
was once performed by slaves. As practiced, this was a far more complex situation. In 1936, T. J.
Woofter, Jr. published Landlord and Tenant on the Cotton Plantation, providing a definitive study of
tenancy in the South. Much of the following will be excerpted from his scholarship to explain the
structure of tenancy and how it functioned.
WE MADE A DAY 31
Wage labor was the only avenue open to freed men immediately after the Civil War, and it
continued to be one way of making a living farming through the twentieth century. In the years
immediately following the war, with the exception of a receipt of wages in return for labor, the
wage labor system did not result in significant spatial reorganization of settlements (Wright
1978:161). The former slaves were still overseen by white or black foremen and continued to
work in groups known as “squads.” While the plantation settlement system continued to be
nucleated, the “squad system” did require some modification of settlement since the laborers were
divided into semiautonomous groups. These groups were often extended families of 2-10 workers
who often occupied settlements close to agricultural fields (Orser and Nekola 1985:70-71). The
former slaves were not fond of this arrangement since it was not significantly different than the
labor arrangement they had while enslaved.
Share cropping, where laborers receive half of a crop in return for their labor, developed quickly
after the war and may have been the most widespread type of tenancy practiced. Other types of
tenancy developed in which a tenant provided work, stock, and tools thus garnering a larger share
of the crop than a traditional sharecropper might. Where share renting occurred, a tenant could
rent land and pay his rent in cash or produce. As sharecropping and sharerenting became more
common, the spatial organization of plantations changed to more dispersed settlements. In
instances where the tenant only provided labor, it is likely settlements were located in proximity to
the plantation’s core where work animals and tools were located. The greater contribution
provided by the tenant (labor, tools, animals, etc.) the more likely that settlements would be
dispersed and more autonomous (Prunty 1955).
Few concepts have ever been more parsed than the various tenant arrangements found in the South
after the Civil War. Many agencies, including the U.S. Census, had their own terminology to
explain the range of farm tenancy, and the definitions were often overlapping and confusing. For
the most part, the census defined farm tenants as people who worked land they did not own, and
usually received payment for that work in the form of a share of the crop, rather than with weekly
or monthly wages (Goldenweiser and Truesdell 1924:15).
Most modern researchers divide Southern farm tenancy into the three broad categories that came
to be recognized by the U.S. Census by the end of this era, and these are the categories that will
be used here. They are: 1) sharecropper or cropper; 2) share tenant or share renter; and 3) cash
tenant or cash renter. It is worth noting that these three categories were fairly well established by
the 1900s but were not so well-defined in 1880, when rent arrangements were much more fluid
and the range of tenant possibilities more broad-based. Nonetheless, these three categories are
basically accurate, even in the early phase of tenant farming that followed the Civil War (Aiken
1998:29-33).
“WE MADE A DAY”
Hollis Taylor
I was born in Cuthbert in 1926. That was a year or
two ago, wasn’t it? At the time I was born, my father
was working with Georgia Power, putting up that main
line from Cuthbert to the power dam in Albany, Georgia.
He was not an electrician, but he was working with the
power company putting up the lines.
He started farming in ‘27. He moved from Cuthbert out
here to, I call it “Old Settler’s Store” area, and started
farming around there. That was one year that he farmed
there. And then he moved with my granddaddy and my
grandmother. We moved to Moultrie. We made two
years down there farming. I was small. We stayed down
there two years and he raised tobacco and cotton, and
corn that time. And then we moved back over here to
this area. This was home to them, and they wanted to
come back. We put everything my mama and daddy
had on the back of my granddaddy’s old truck. It was
an old flatbed, Model T truck. You remember the “The
Waltons” on television? Well, that was what we had. So
we came back up here and we stayed around up here
until the fall of ’38.
My father was a sharecropper. In the fall of ’38, he quit
sharecropping. He didn’t want it that way. He said “If I
can make it for somebody else, I can make it for myself.”
So he started out renting, and then the next year he rented
a two-horse plow, which would give him a bigger pull.
And during the time, our farm supervisor came by and
wanted to know if he would accept a farm if they bought
him one. Well, they bought him one. And he made his
first crop in ‘41. And they gave him 15 years to pay for
that farm. And that farm was 170 acres. Approximately
70 acres of cultivatable land and 70 acres of wood and
a creek.
So what he did, he was a hard worker, good management.
He paid for his in seven years. And he was pretty prosperous
in his work. He died at 55 years old. Cancer. Still hurts.
In 1946, he bought his first tractor. We started with the
tractor farming. And at that time, we only had me and
some [helpers]. Let’s see, at that time, I had come out of
the service in ’45, and made our first crop in ’46 with the
tractor. When he died in ’61… he had accumulated three
or four tractors, I believe it was. Three new trucks, two or
three peanut pickers. Three peanut pickers, I think it was.
And paid for his farm. That’s how hard he worked.
We farmed – we’d get up at daylight. And we worked
for sundown. We didn’t go out there and start middle of
the morning and quit middle of the evening. We made a
day. And he was a good manager.
We grew cotton, corn, and peanuts. Back then, a
sharecropper working a mule would have a good crop
if he had 20 acres. There’s not every day when a mule
was making any speed, any progress. But you see,
sometimes I could plow all day and then spit across it.
You didn’t make much progress. You didn’t have any
speed. That mule is set at a certain speed, and that was
it! That’s as slow as you can get. So, my daddy got
out and he was plowing with a one-horse plow. And
I’d plow with him too. We’d go down one row and
come back the other side of the row. When you made a
round, you made one row. You had to make a round to
just plow one row. Well how long do you think it would
take you to plow a row like that? And it’s not all that fast.
Finally, my daddy got him a two-horse cultivator, which
could plow both sides of one row at the same time. He
really was getting up somewhere then. He thought he
was moving on.
Mother had a lot to do with the garden. Hoeing it,
cleaning it up, things like that. She did a lot. My daddy
was plowing that garden – he had one mule he would
always put in the garden. We had to have [a garden]
when he was a sharecropper, because we didn’t get
much – our draw, and we call it “draw,” because when
we work a sharecropper, you work with this fellow, this
farmer here, this man owns his farm, and you were
working on sharecropping with him.
You got $6 every two weeks. You got $3 a week to live
off of. Could you do it today? No. That’s why we talk
about times were so much different then.
The landlord – he had to furnish everything [for the
tenant]. And they hardly furnished anything. They had
their own mules and a barn up there at his house. So
you would go up there and get your mules out and go
to work and then put them back in the barn. And so,
that was the only thing about it. We had nothing of our
own. And like I said, my daddy made his last crop in ’38
sharecropping. Rented his first farm in 1939 and that
was just a one-horse farm [in current Clay County]. And
then in 1940, he rented a two-horse farm right over here
[Beulah Church vicinity]. He rented a two-horse farm,
and that’s when he got modern equipment. He got a
Walton cultivator. Of course, that put us to moving – we
moved about every year, it looked like.
For two years [late 1920s], [my father] was a tenant. And
then he’s moved from across the road over there on the
Farm back up here to the Rhodes Farm, and then he stayed
four years up here on this farm. I don’t really know how
many tenants they had. I would say one, two, three, four,
five, six, about six or eight. That’s roughly guessing. I don’t
know how many there was. There was a pretty good bunch
of them. The overseer rode a horse around over the farms
to see if everybody was doing the work they should do.
They didn’t depend on everybody to be honest with a day’s
work, I reckon. They just rode around a mule or horse to
see if they were doing it. Back in those days, they couldn’t
afford a car or a truck no how neither. They had to have
some way to get around.
We hardly even knowed one another. Because they stayed
on their farm and we stayed on ours. The only way we
could get from one place to another was to walk. I “knew”
most all of them. Knew them by name. But I wouldn’t know
anything about them or visit them socially. They could get
out and walk that half a mile. But still, like I said, we didn’t
associate. We knew them. There was a lot of
good people on that farm. Hard working people,
back in them days. They worked hard.
But my father was climbing up, so when he got
that horse farm, that’s when that man came along
and asked if we had a – I think what happened
was, they saw what type of person he was and
how hard he worked, so they offered it to him.
And, don’t misunderstand, them other people
got it too, because on this plantation, over here,
this man sold that plantation to the government,
and they divided it up, and they was fifteen new
homes going up at one time. Fifteen new homes!
My daddy got 170 acres. This one got 150
acres, this one got 100 acres, this one got 80
acres. They portioned the location of the farms
the way they wanted them and they rented those
or sold them. Every one of them was paid for.
Let’s see, we built our first house in 1941 and we
had an outhouse then. But in ’41, they built a
bathroom in the house, but they did not put no
pumps or nothing, they just left room for it. That
house cost my daddy $1,500. The contractor contracted
$1,400-something to build a three-bedroom, one-bath, back
porch and front porch house. And it was a nice home.
He had 165 acres of land; he gave $125 for it. And the big
barn, he had a big barn for his livestock, it cost him $300 to
get that built. And the chicken house, or the smoke house as
we called it – they was 25 dollars a-piece.
In the following year, he closed out his crops and went
over yonder to help that fella’ build a house. He may
have gone over to help build a schoolhouse. He would
work over in what they call the basket factory here in
Cuthbert. And then, in spring of each year, he returned
back to the farm again. He even worked for the WPA –
WPA was “working people’s association.” Some people
make a joke about it and said it was “we piddle around!”
You know what I’m talking about? But, it was Roosevelt
back then, he was trying to help the people. Time was
so tight. Nobody had no money. ‘Cause I said before,
we was getting like $3 a week to try to live off of. And
we couldn’t live off something like that. You had to raise
everything in your garden. You had your own chickens
and your eggs, and your own meat. You had your cows
and your own milk. You had to milk your own cows. You
had to live at home. In fact, you did live at home.
Well, my daddy mostly did that. I had very little to do
with that part of it. Now, he did raise hogs. And he
raised cows. He raised chickens and had eggs. And he
always had a big garden, because we did not have the
money to buy stuff in town like you do today. We had to
raise our own.
He bought his own equipment. That’s what I’m talking about.
He started out a sharecropper, and he worked his way up.
He really accomplished a lot in his short life.
We’re very proud of it. There’s not anything left for us except
the memories of what we done. But he accomplished a
lot in his short life.
34
As a rule, a sharecropper or “cropper” was the lowest form of tenant, with the least legal rights. A
cropper owned no farm tools or “work stock” (work animals). These were things that the
landowner provided, in addition to the land, housing, animal feed, seed, and wood for fuel.
Usually, the only thing the sharecropper brought to the partnership was labor. Sometimes the
sharecropper was responsible for one-half of the fertilizer needed for the crop, and sometimes the
landlord paid for all the fertilizer in return for the cottonseed. Sharecroppers were more likely to
have to work under some sort of supervision from the landowner or the farm manager. Legally,
they were considered laborers, who were paid with a share of the crop, usually on the basis of an
even 50-50 split. This was the result of various rulings made in a number of Southern state courts
throughout the 1870s. Because the sharecropper was considered a laborer, the landowner
“owned” the crop, and was responsible for making the split. During the era of Jim Crow, this was
not always done honestly (Aiken 1998:23, 29-33; Orser 1988:56; Goldenweiser and Truesdell
1924:52, 119-123).
Share tenants (share renters) were the next step up, even though their legal status as “laborers” was
the same as that of sharecroppers. In this arrangement, the landowner provided the land, housing,
and one quarter to one third of the fertilizer. Share tenants provided the labor, the tools, the work
animals, the animal feed, the seed, and the balance of the fertilizer. As a result of their greater
input into the partnership, share tenants got a larger share of the crop, usually two-thirds or threefourths, divided on the basis of the fertilizer split. This category is generally the most difficult to
categorize, however, because of the wide range of tenant possibilities between sharecropping on
the one hand and cash renting on the other. Other arrangements or splits were possible. In some,
the landowner might receive one third of the cotton and one quarter of the other crops grown that
year. Regardless, the landowner still owned the crop and was responsible for making the split
(Aiken 1998:29-33; Orser 1988:58-59; Bode and Ginter 1986:90-94).
A cash tenant (cash renter) was the highest form of renter, and the one with the most rights. As a
rule, the landowner provided the land and the housing, while the tenant provided everything else.
Cash tenants paid money for their use of the land, and usually received nothing from the
landowner in the form of farm implements or work stock. As a result, the cash tenant had estate
rights to the crop and could sell it as he or she pleased, assuming the rent was paid. This was
usually a fixed rent, per acre, paid in cash. A common variation of this was called “standing rent,”
where a fixed amount of the crop was paid to the landowner in lieu of cash (Aiken 1998:29-33;
Orser 1988:55-56, 59). Cash renting was not that common in the early years of the New South
plantation era, but became more common in the 1900s (Orser 1988:61-62). Table 4.2 provides a
description of the tenure classes and the expectations of both the landlord and the tenant.
Table 4.2 How It Worked – Systems of Tenure
Method of Renting
Sharecropping Share Renting (Share Tenants) Cash Renting (Cash or
Standing Tenants)
Landlord Furnishes
Land Land Land
House House House
WE MADE A DAY 35
Table 4.2 How It Worked – Systems of Tenure
Method of Renting
Sharecropping Share Renting (Share Tenants) Cash Renting (Cash or
Standing Tenants)
Fuel Fuel Fuel
Tools One-fourth or one-third
Of fertilizer
Work Stock
Seed
One-half fertilizer
Feed for work stock
Tenant Furnishes
Labor Labor Labor
One-half of fertilizer Work stock Work stock
Feed for work stock Feed for work stock
Tools Tools
Seed Seed
Three-fourths or two-thirds of fertilizer Fertilizer
Landlord Receives One-half of the crop One-fourth or one-third of the crop Fixed amount in cash or lint
cotton
Tenant Receives One-half of the crop Three-fourths or two-thirds of crop Entire crop less fixed amount
Source: Woofter 1936:10
All types of tenants could be found an any given plantation, a name that stayed in vogue after the
Civil War, meaning for many, a tract farmed by an owner or manager with five or more resident
families (landlord and laborers, share tenants or renters). With the exception of wage laborers,
each operator family had its own piece of land to cultivate and the owner/manager had more
control over the wage laborer, share or sharecropper tenant than the renter. Woofter (1936:xxi)
noted that of the plantations covered under his study, 71 percent represented a mixed tenure
operation, 16 percent were operated by croppers, four percent by wage hands, three percent by
other share tenants, and six percent by renters.
Prior to 1910, the acreage of improved land was on the rise, allowing some wage laborers and
tenants to save funds to buy animals or tools, to rent land, or to become owners. Improved acres in
farmland rose from 77,760 acres in 1870 to 92,654 acres in 1880, 123,041 acres in 1890 to
130,759 acres in 1900 in Randolph County (Historical Census Browser. Retrieved on December
30, 2007 from the University of Virginia). Census statistics for Randolph County show a decrease
in the number of owners for this period (Table 4.3), suggesting that the rise of improved acreage
was not linked to an increase in ownership in Randolph in this period. However, some other
benefits may have been derived by Randolph County tenants seeking improvements in their
situation through the acquisition of tools or livestock.
[There were] two systems. What they called, standing rent, that was the terms…where you would rent a farm, set
amount of rent for the year, or you would be a sharecropper. Then the landowner would furnish everything; he
would furnish the equipment, the mules, we’re talking mules here as opposed to…and he would give you a certain
amount of money each month to live on…you’d run out…you would have enough money, the sharecropper,
if he was fortunate, he would
have enough, make enough
money maybe get him through
the winter. Then he would
need to borrow money to get
him through the spring and the
summer until the next harvest,
so that was typical here as was
there.
My father was a sharecropper
but the sharecropper…when
the harvest was finished and
whatever you grew was sold,
then the landowner paid half
the expenses, the sharecropper
paid half the expenses and
the sharecropper got half the
profits, minus what you had
been advanced through the
year. In 1949, my father made
50 cents.
[After] everything was added
out, it came out two cents a
head…we picked cotton back
here, my father never picked cotton. I picked, he picked, my brothers picked, we picked cotton…I didn’t get any
money, the old man got the money, but we picked cotton to try to earn a little money to get through, and that’s
pretty much how sharecropping went.
[The landowner provided] a shack [to live in]. We had four rooms, the last house that we lived in before, when I left
home, there was four rooms. There was two bedrooms, a living room, and a kitchen. That point in time, it was very
common to have a bed in the living room.
IN 1949, MY FATHER MADE 50¢
Jones Brady Family
Now, I wanna tell you something,
you get way out there in the field, and it’s hot and you work
until you think you’re gonna die of thirst, and you go pull up
a bucket of that water, that be the best tasting stuff you ever
tasted in all of your life! Guaranteed. Trust me, I know that.
Spent half my youth dying of thirst. When we went to the field
in the morning, we took a fruit jar of water. You could make it
last or you can drink it all up, you ain’t getting any more. Set
it out there, if there was shade, you can put it in the shade, if
there was no shade, just set it out in the sun. You say to yourself, “boy, hope I can drink that hot water!” You drink it and
like it. In some ways, I count myself very fortunate. Number
one, I didn’t die young. That means I became immune to a lot
of things. I could probably go to Mexico and drink the water,
and old Montezuma’s revenge wouldn’t [hurt me].
-Jones Brady
WE MADE A DAY 37
To underscore the difficulty of improving one’s status in this regime, Woofter (1936:xxi) noted that
in 1860, all black agricultural workers in the South were laborers. By 1930, only 13 percent were
owners, 58 percent were tenants (includes sharecroppers), and 29 percent were laborers. He
further noted that these statistics did not take into account the quarter-million individuals that
migrated annually to industrial cities/locations prior to the Depression, alleviating excess labor
concerns. This migration was reflected in the small increases in the population of people living on
farms in the southeast between 1885 and 1930.
Table 4.3 Agricultural Statistics, Randolph County, 1860-1940
No. of
Farms
Average
Size
Owner
operated
Part Owner
operated
Managers Cash
Tenants
Share
Tenants
1860 492
1880 1,216 178 612 N/A N/A 89 515
1900 2,219 96.5 500 54 14 529 1,122
1920 2,315 81.8 466 18 266* 1,554
1940 1,952 97 318 62 4 367 1,145
*includes 25 standing renters Source: Historical Census Browser 2007
After the Depression, this trend changed as fewer industrial positions were opening and white
families returned to farming, thus competing with black farmers who stayed on the land in tenant
and laborer positions. Once again using 1860 as a baseline, Woofter observed that while the
“vast majority of white agricultural workers were owners in 1860, by 1930 over three-quarters of a
million white families in the Southeast had joined the tenant or laborer class.” By 1936, whites
composed the majority of tenants in the “Old South,” 53 percent of the surveyed plantations
operated exclusively with black tenants, five percent exclusively with whites, and 42 percent with
both. Another trend was that white tenants were associated with smaller plantations while black
tenants were employed on larger farming operations (Woofter 1936:xxi).
The county statistics in Table 4.3 suggest that there were fewer plantations after 1860 as the
number of farms increases and the average farm size declined. Aiken (1998:9-10) noted that
while the increase in the number of sharecroppers played a role in this, another factor – the
practice of census takers counting each tenant unit as a farm – helped to disguise the continued
existence of large-scale plantations after the Civil War.
Foreclosures put many plantations under the supervision of banks, insurance, and mortgage
companies and many who bought a foreclosed farm were not necessarily experienced farmers. In
this situation, owners made use of a farm manager to run the enterprise. Absentee owners also
availed themselves of a manager for day-to-day operations; 31 percent of owners spent more than
a quarter of their time in occupations other than farming.
The success of a tenant was largely tethered to the skill and acumen of the landlord. Managing a
successful plantation operation was time consuming and labor intensive:
The plantation system requires an abundance of skill, energy, and knowledge on the
part of the landlord if his operations are to be successful and his tenants are to make a
profit. He must be able to plan and assign the crop acreage to the best advantage,
38
handle financial operations, manage labor, animals, and implements, and supervise
marketing and subsistence advances. On the very large plantations there is often the
additional management of such supplementary enterprises as commissaries, gins, mills,
and shops. Usually the owner or landlord is also obligated to aid in the social and
community affairs of his tenants. The large plantation owner or manager is assisted in
executing these functions by managers, overseers and gang bosses. On small
plantations all of these functions are performed by one man. One of the landlord’s
major duties, and one upon which the success of his operation depends, is the
expenditure of the plantation’s working capital, in the purchase of seeds and fertilizers,
in plantation upkeep, and in the apportionment of subsistence advances to the tenants
for food and clothing. This practice of subsistence advances, to be repaid by the
tenant when the crop is marketed, is one of the chief trouble spots for the landlord.
The supervision of these advances determines the living standards of the share tenant
(Woofter 1936:xxiii).
Handling the finances of any plantation, for most landlords and tenants, involved credit and it was
a stumbling block for both the owner and the tenant. Owners were strapped with high interest
mortgages entered into to purchase new machinery or to make up past debts. Tenant long-term
debt was owed to the landlord and was secured by livestock or equipment or was carried forward
as a lien against future crop production. Short-term debt could be owed to a landlord or merchant.
Landlord advances for the tenant’s share of expenses and his subsistence advances during the crop
season in the early 1930s were provided over a seven-month period with an average advance of
$12.80 per family per month. Evidently the rates of interest for the tenant were usually higher than
the landlord’s rate, making his climb out of debt more difficult to achieve.
Over the year, about one–third of a tenant family’s income stemmed from products raised for home
consumption such as chickens and eggs, “home killed pork,” syrup, cornmeal, cowpeas, and sweet
potatoes. These appeared in late summer and fall. During crop cultivation, a tenant typically used
a third of his income (~$13) per month on food (flour, lard, salt pork), kerosene, medicine, and
clothing. The final third was spent on clothing and other supplies at the close of fall. This spending
regime made for slim pickings during the winter months. Some plantations had commissaries run
by the landlord and, in some cases, tenants were required to use the commissary for their
purchases. If the commissary provided goods on a wholesale basis the tenant was in good shape.
If retail prices were in place, the commissary was simply another profit-making tool for the landlord
(Woofter 1936:xxviii).
Agreements between landlord and tenant tended to be informal with the exception of the financial
recordkeeping associated with subsistence advances and credit. Table 4.2 outlines the give and
take between landlord and tenant under the three major types of tenant arrangements. Universally,
the landlord furnished land, a house, and fuel, while the tenant provided labor. After that,
sharecroppers received tools, work stock, seeds fertilizer, and feed for the animals. Share renters
received a percentage of fertilizer, and cash tenants were essentially on their own.
WE MADE A DAY 39
Houses were typically frame buildings with 3-4 rooms, many with no glazing, screening, or
plumbing (see following chapter for discussion of tenant housing). Wells typically supplied the
water to both owner and tenant houses. Raper’s analysis of tenancy in Macon and Greene
counties, Georgia, observed that the difference between tenant houses was usually attributable to
upkeep rather than design or building materials.
Tenants who move every year or so, whether white or black, seldom take much interest
in the appearance of their dwellings. The presence of flowers, shrubs, and vines about
a farm cabin suggests lengthy residence rather than the tenure or color of the family
who lived there (Raper 2004 {1936}:62).
The architecture of tenancy thus was tied to the mobility of its occupants. Good land and/or a fair
landlord were the typical rationales for many moves and while some families moved each fall, most
stayed within their native county or ventured no further than neighboring counties. Another impetus
for moving occurred when farmers changed their tenure status. If times were good, farmers moved
up the ladder in status, provoking a move in location that corresponded to their move in stature. A
downward turn in a family’s financial circumstances could also require a move. A third mobility
trend occurred as farmers shifted from the country to town to try their hand at different jobs usually
in the industrial sector. Within Woofter’s study group, the average number of years that white
families stayed on a farm was 4.8 years, while black families averaged 6.1 years. Similarly white
sharecroppers stayed in one location for an average of 4.4 years while black sharecroppers
remained in one location for 5.6 years. Raper’s study indicated that length of residence was a
result of a family’s tenure class and farm conditions rather than race. A South Carolina study in
1933 showed that white farm owners moved once in 11 years while black owners moved once in
12 years (Woofter 1936:xxviii). Thus, owners stayed in one house longer while landless families
tended to move every year or so (Raper 2004 {1936]:59-61). These numbers suggest a transient
lifestyle. For the landless, this mobility was a defining characteristic of tenancy, created a mindset
that did not value investment in one’s home, community, or schools. The tenant house belonged to
the landlord and the tenant’s community was to a certain extent their immediate family. Moving
was part of their way of life.
TENANCY IN RANDOLPH COUNTY
The number of farms in 1860 is a good point of departure for discussing the advent of tenancy in
Randolph County. There were 492 farms in the county at the outset of the Civil War and 50
percent of them were 500 acres in size (Table 4.3). The remainder was mostly farms containing
between 20 and 49 acres (107) or farms containing between 50 and 99 acres (127). In 1870,
530 farms were enumerated and 46 percent of these farms were between 100 and 499 acres in
size. Between 1860 and 1870, the general farm statistics are for the most part stable. Overall,
the largest change occurred in the growth of farms between 50 and 99 acres in size from 127 in
1860 to 171 in 1870.
The 1880 statistics really provide the first indicators of tenancy in the number and size of farms. In
1880, the number of farms rose to 1,216 with an average size of 178 acres. There were 612
owner-operated farms; 89 were rented and 515 were sharecropped. Of the owner-operated
40
farms, most were between 100 and 500 acres in size. Those farms that were rented ranged in
size from 20-500 acres, while the farms cultivated by sharecroppers were mostly between 20 and
50 acres.
Tenancy further expanded in 1890. Randolph County had 1,879 farms with an average size of
120 acres. Thirty-one percent of its farms were owner operated, 43 percent were rented for
shares, and 25 percent were operated as fixed rentals. By 1900 the number of farms rose to
2,219 and the average size was reduced to 96.5 acres. Sharecroppers worked 50.6 percent of
the county’s farms, and cash tenants farmed 23.9 percent. This translates into roughly 75 percent
of the county’s farms as tenant operated while only 24.9 percent were operated by owners and
part owners. Black farmers were in the majority with 60.2 percent of the county’s farms; white
farmers cultivated 39.8 percent (see Table 4.4).
Table 4.4 breaks down farms by race and tenure. In 1900, African American farmers owned four
percent of the total number of county farms. Of all black farmers, only seven percent owned farms.
White farmers owned 21 percent of the total number of county farms; however, 49 percent of all
white farmers were owners. Fourteen of the county’s farms reported managers; 11 were white and
three were black. The high number of African American cash tenants (352) suggests that while
ownership may have been elusive in 1900, some families were able to improve their situation
sufficiently to become cash renters. Finally, 1,122 farms were sharecropped and black Randolph
County residents operated the majority of those.
Table 4.4 Farms Classified by Race and Tenure, Randolph County, 1900
Farms Number Owners Part
Owners
Owners and
Tenants
Managers Cash
Tenants
Share
Tenants
White Farmers 883 435 24 11 177 236
Black Farmers 1336 65 30 3 352 886
Source: United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Federal Census, 1942
The patterns set in the nineteenth century in Randolph County did not change much in the early
twentieth century (Figure 4.1). Almost 82 percent of Randolph County was characterized as rural
in the 1920 census. African Americans (62.8 percent) remained in the majority, a trend that
began in 1870. The 1928 Soil Survey for the county and its companion map provide a
description of the county’s development by the mid 1920s. Much of the following is drawn from
the county's agricultural description in that survey. The county’s population was concentrated south
and east of Cuthbert, clustered near towns and villages, and stretched along the main roads. The
sand hills section west, south and north of Coleman and extending to the Stewart County line and
areas in the northeast and east sections of the county were not occupied, partly as a result of the
migration of African Americans out of the South (Phillips et al.1928:3). Randolph County’s overall
population decreased by 11.3 percent between 1910 and 1920 (Federal Census 1930).
Cuthbert was home to 3,022 individuals as well as to many industries and Andrew College, a
woman’s college. Shellman, the next largest city, was the commercial hub of the eastern part of
the county and an important peach shipping point. Other towns/villages included Coleman with
342 individuals in 1920; Carnegie, 200; Benevolence, 219; and Springvale, 148. Cuthbert,
WE MADE A DAY 41
Figure 4.1
Historic Maps of Randolph County, 1885-1955
Source: Digital Library of Georgia, 2011
Rand McNally Map of Georgia, 1910
Rand McNally Map of Georgia, 1955
George Cram Railroad and County
Map of Georgia, 1885
42
Shellman, and Coleman were the principal local markets for farm produce. The Central of Georgia
Railway traveled through the central part of the county, connecting Shellman, Cuthbert and
Springvale Station. The Georgia Florida & Alabama Railway ran southward connecting
Benevolence, Cuthbert, and Carnegie. It provided shipping facilities to points north and south in
the county. Two main roads traversed the county; the Dawson-Eufala Road handled east/west
traffic while the Blakely-Cuthbert-Lumpkin Road ran north and south (Phillips et al. 1928:3). The
latter would later become U.S. Highway 27 along which the study property is located.
Cotton was grown throughout the county. The best results depended on three factors: the
productivity of the soil, the kind and amount of fertilizer applied, and the frequency of cultivation.
Carnegie sandy loam, Greenville pebbly loam, and Marlboro sandy loam and the pebbly lands,
originally passed over as unproductive, were considered the best producers (Figure 4.2).
Randolph County farmers usually planted “Petty’s Toole” and “Cleveland” varieties and fertilizer
was typically applied at about 200 pounds to an acre at planting. In May, many farmers followed
up with a second dressing of fertilizer about 75-100 pounds per acre. Phillips et al. (1928:6)
noted that some farmers elected to apply fertilizer at higher rates ranging from 600-800 pounds
per acre and that certain soils were enriched with potash. Eighty-eight percent of the county’s
farmers used fertilizers spending collectively $255,629 or $124.39 a farm in 1920. These
numbers take on real meaning in the context of the tenancy agreements where the furnishing of
fertilizer and the amount was a major tenet of the agreement between landlord and tenant. Cotton
remained the principal crop until 1916 when the boll weevil reached the county. As a result,
cotton cultivation decreased and corn and peanuts increased. In 1919, 29.2 percent of the
county’s arable land was cultivated in cotton with an average yield of one-fifth bale to an acre.
Corn occupied 32.8 percent of the county’s arable land in 1919 and peanuts, planted on 6.4
percent of the land, gained in popularity as a cash cop. Randolph County farmers grew the small
Spanish variety for market and the large white peanut for livestock. Oats and wheat also
appeared in the 1920 listing of crop products but in small quantities. Phillips et al. (1928:6) noted
that corn, oats, and hay had to be shipped into the county as local production did not meet the
demand. Randolph County farmers preferred the Hiley Bell peach variety, as well as the Belle of
Georgia, Carman, and Elberta varieties and pecans had great promise in the 1920s. Sweet
potatoes, sugar cane, sorghum, velvet beans, and cowpeas were grown for individual farm use.
Hogs were raised for meat but the survey notes that many tenant farmers were dependent on others
for meat. Some cattle grazing was practiced in the hilly regions of the county and poultry raising
was on the rise.
Seventy-one percent of the land in the county was farmed in 1920 and tenant farming was on the
increase with 79.1 percent of the farms operated by tenants and 20.4 percent under owner
control. The Soil Survey described the share rent system as practiced in Randolph County in the
1920s. Typically, the owner furnished the land, livestock, and tools, one-half the fertilizer and one
half or all the seed. The products were divided equally between the landlord and tenant. The
1928 description noted that cash rentals were few and that since the boll weevil devastation, cash
rentals and other share agreements had virtually disappeared.
WE MADE A DAY 43
0 285 570 1,140 Meters
0 1,150 2,300 4,600 Feet
L. E. Gay Plantation Boundary
Source: 1924 Soil Map
SOILS WITHIN PROJECT AREA
Orangeburg Sandy Loam
Henderson Stony Loam
Caregie Sandy Loam
Grady Clay Loam
Greenville Clay Loam
Marlboro Sandy Loam
Os
Hs
Cs
Go
Gc
Ms
US Highway 29
US Highway 29
Figure 4.2
Detail from 1924 Soil Map Showing Study Plantation Boundary
Source: Randolph County Soil Map, 1924, Science Library,
University of Georgia Libraries
44
White owners of small farms and black farmers depended upon their own labor and the labor of
their families to succeed. Most wage earners were black although the emigration of farmers
northward in the early twentieth century left areas in the county abandoned. On average,
Randolph County farms reported an expenditure of $113.21 per farm for labor. Wages for farm
labor ranged from $20-$30 a month; where board was provided, smaller wages were given.
Black women and children appear to have been the major labor force for the peach crop. Many
were paid by the day or by the basket.
No description of Randolph County outbuildings was given although the lack of need for sheltering
livestock given the climate was mentioned along with a description of farm equipment:
…as little need exists for shelter for livestock or for storage space for much stock feed.
The equipment on the tenant farms consists largely of one-horse implement, but the
larger plantations are generally well equipped with two-horse plows, grain drills, and
binders, and on many farms where the surface is such to allow their use tractors and
heavy plows, and on some farms threshing outfits, are kept. Most of the work animals
are mules, although oxen are used in lumbering operations around some of the
sawmills (Phillips 1928:9).
Soil erosion was noted as a significant problem in areas with sloping lands. Well-built terraces
were recommended to stem its effect. Overall, the description of agriculture in the 1920s was one
of diversification. While some farmers were wiped out by the boll weevil and its destruction, other
farmers adapted by diversifying their crop base planting peanuts, corn, raising poultry, truck
farming, and maintaining orchards.
The Soil Survey’s 1928 description is timely, capturing the county’s agricultural health prior to the
Great Depression. The 1930s were a decade of hardship, shared by Randolph County residents:
Bank failures, bankruptcies and individual losses happened over night, almost before
the general public knew what was happening. This shattering experience was
equaled only by the experience after the War Between the States. Old and stable
businesses were strained to the breaking point and many did break.
As the economy collapsed the best men were out of work, walking the streets begging
for any kind of job. Unemployment was so widespread that youngsters away from
home came home to their parents, and families moved in with each other. Salaries
dropped to unbelievable levels and everybody swapped, bartered, traded and shared,
in an effort to survive.
King Lumber Company held on, Burgin moved in, Coca Cola held fast and some old
establishments survived (Goolsby et al. 1977:21).
Overall the county’s population decreased almost by 10 percent during the Depression, from
17,174 individuals in 1930 to 16,609 in 1940 (U.S. Federal Census Population and Agricultural
Statistics 1940). African Americans still composed the majority of the county’s citizens, comprising
68 percent of the population in 1940. The 1938 Randolph County highway map shows the
county and its settlement in this important decade. The southern part of the county surrounding and
WE MADE A DAY 45
south of Cuthbert and Shellman remained the most densely populated. The cartographic symbol for
tenant house or houses, a black square overlain with a cross, is the most dominant symbol on the
map followed by owner houses/farm units, churches, cemeteries and schools. Seventy-nine percent
of the county’s population was rural; 21 percent was urban. The rural farm population was
enumerated at 11,317. In addition, 91 residents were classified as “urban farmers.”
Randolph County had 4,345 housing units with tenants occupying 2,641 of these or roughly 60
percent. White tenants dwelled in 723 of these; black tenants were housed in 1,918 units. The
median number of persons in a tenant unit was four; the median number of persons in an owner’s
unit was three. The average monthly contract for a tenant occupied unit was $6.00 per month
(median rent of $3.76), a reduction of $1 per month from the average rental contract in 1930.
Overall, 18 percent of Randolph County homes were electrified, 14 percent had indoor plumbing,
and 30 percent had radios. Clearly the majority of the population’s housing had seen little
modernization, and it is likely that those that had were owned rather than rented.
The composition of the aggregate agricultural statistics for 1940 reflect the toll the Depression took,
providing an equivalent statistic from 1930 to show change. Ownership of farms decreased from
357 in 1930 to 318 in 1940 and tenants increased. Tenants farmed 61 percent of the county
farms in 1930 and 80 percent in 1940. The decrease in population figured into that percentage
increase in 1940. Notably, only 12 county farms were over 1,000 acres in size in 1940; the
average farm size was 97 acres. Black farmers still outnumbered white farmers; the 1940 census
reported 1,222 non-white operators, and 730 white operators. While the 1928 survey noted that
cash rentals were on the decline, if not gone, over 350 cash tenants were operating farms in 1940
(Table 4.5).
Table 4.5 Number of Farms, Acres by Tenure, and Value of Buildings by Tenure, Randolph County, 1940
Owners Part
Owners
Managers Cash
Tenants
Share Cash
Tenant
Share Tenant/
Cropper
Other
Number of Farms 318 62 4 367 4 1,145 52
Acres by tenure N/A 8,562 2,506 39,841 701 68,391 4,121
Value of Farm
Buildings $461,700 $77,690 N/A $154,010 $2,200 $331,700 $24,720
Value of Buildings
and Land $1,117,526 $236,320 $40,000 $541,085 $12,380 $1,391,322 $74,990
Value of
Implements and
Machinery and
number of farms
reporting
$92,292
273
reported
$30,860
56
reported
$7,000
4 reported
$49,097
348
reported
N/A $75,345
995 reported
$5,970
45
reported
Source: Historical Census Browser 2007
Comparisons of these statistics give a perspective on the economics of tenancy in 1940 in the
average value of the farm buildings and the implements and machinery for the different tenure
classes. The owners had an average value of $1,691 for farm buildings, cash renter farm
buildings averaged $442 in value, and share renters/sharecroppers’ farm buildings had an
average value of $333. As would be expected, the greatest difference lies between the tenant
46
and the owner’s buildings. However, the buildings of the cash renter and sharecropper were
somewhat close in average value. In terms of implements and machinery, the average value of the
owner’s implements and machinery was $338 per farm, the cash renter’s average value per farm
was $141, and the sharecropper’s average value for implements and machinery was $75 per
farm. In this category, the difference in value between the owner and cash renter’s equipment is
far less than the average value of buildings while the cash renter’s equipment is almost double in
value to the sharecropper’s equipment value.
Crop production statistics for the 1930s show a decrease in the total value of all crops. Hay, other
grain and nuts, and wheat production (Table 4.6) showed some gains; hay production tripled in
value and other grains and seeds doubled. Even with these gains, the total value of crop
production had decreased by half.
Table 4.6 Randolph County Crop Production, 1929 and 1939.
Category 1929 1939
Total value of all crops $2,322,208 $1,173,559
Value of cereals harvested $296,245 $196,053
Value of corn harvested for grain $162,127 $115,054
Value of wheat threshed $669 $1,848
Value of other grains and seeds harvested $343,330 $510,889
Value of hay and forage harvested $28,242 $90,916
Value of vegetables for sale and home use $60,204 $57,338
Value of fruits and nuts harvested $31,792 $27,840
Value of Irish and sweet potatoes $42,661 $26,874
Value of all other crops $12,273 $10,807
Value of forest products sold N/A $5,094
Source: U.S. Federal Census, Agriculture, 1940
Both tenant and owners were hit by the Depression. The year 1933 was considered the low point
of the period and saw the creation of the National Recovery Administration, followed two years
later by the Works Progress Administration (WPA) and the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC).
These programs were created by President Franklin Roosevelt and his administration and sought to
provide economic relief for Americans in need. Randolph County and its citizens participated in
many of the programs that provided work on highways, public buildings, and in conservation
projects. WPA workers inventoried the county cemeteries; work was completed in libraries. A
CCC camp was set up at Cotton Hill that provided young people employment. The Rural
Electrification Administration was established in 1935 and the local electric company would begin
supplying electricity in the early 1940s (Goolsby et al. 1977:21; Randolph County Historical
Society 1997:86-87). Such programs brought necessary relief to many county residents.
New Deal farm legislation passed in the 1930s also sought to benefit the farmer. During the Great
Depression, more cotton was being produced than could be sold profitably, thus prices dropped.
The main thrust of the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) of 1933 was to restrict crop production by
paying farmers to reduce their agricultural fields. Essentially farmers would rent part of their cotton
WE MADE A DAY 47
land to the Secretary of Agriculture who would pay them 3.5 cents per pound of cotton that was
not cultivated. Subsidies were also part of the strategy. Understandably, the Agricultural
Adjustment Act passed with basically no opposition in Georgia, and it effectively decreased
acreage planted in cotton by about 45 percent from acreage planted between 1910-1914
(Messick et al. 2001).
In 1936, the act was deemed unconstitutional based on some of its most important components.
The Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act followed which included most of the provisions
of the earlier act; however, it did not provide for compulsory action.
This act paid a certain amount per acre for diverting land from cotton to crops, which would build
and conserve the soil. Yet, since it was not compulsory, it did not have the same effect as earlier
legislation had on restricting crops. Georgia farmers began returning to the cotton crop, planting
about 500,000 acres more in the AAA days and in 1937, they reaped the largest crop since
1918. This resulted in a sharp drop in prices, and once again, cotton farmers called for effective
controls. In the following year, a new AAA program was established which continued and
strengthened the provisions of the 1936 Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act. It also
provided compulsory authority to limit the amount of cotton that could be marketed without being
penalized. There were minor adjustments afterwards, but this program was still in force in 1950
(Messick et al. 2001).
Regardless, cotton maintained its prominence in Georgia as its most important cash crop. While
the era of soil conservation and farm aid had begun, other national events took center stage. In
short chronological succession, Randolph County residents moved from recovery from the
Depression into the Second World War. American life changed in many ways in the post war
period and tenancy would follow suit. Farmers were asked during the war to grow edible crops.
This request led to a reduction in cotton acreage that was the smallest since 1869. Statewide, the
cotton acreage was 80 percent lower in 1950 than its peak years of 1918 (Range 1954:180;
Messick et al. 2001)
In 1950, Randolph County had 1,508 farms; black farmers operated 831 farms and white farmer
cultivated 677 farms (Federal Census 1950). Croppers numbered 665 and 233 cash tenants
were present. Including “other tenants,” there were 975 tenant farms, comprising 64 percent of
the county farms. Clearly tenancy was still a strong component of farming in Randolph County.
The 1953 County Highway map shows these as farm units, not differentiating between tenant and
owner housing. Settlement in 1950 was still concentrated in the southeast, south central, and
southwest portions of the county. Despite the strong percentage of tenants in 1950, an indicator of
change is the average farm size that changed dramatically from 97 acres in 1940 to 1,460 acres
in 1950. Farm consolidation and mechanized farming had probably reached the agricultural
county by 1950 beginning changes that would end tenancy as was practiced earlier in the century.
MY LIFE OF RAISN’ UP
Helen Davis
I was born in 1950. [My parents], I know they were farmers.
When I was grow’d up, I can go back and remember when
I was four years old now. They were farmin’ then [in]
Carnegie, Georgia. [My father] he didn’t own the land, unhuh. So back then it was six of us, four older siblings lived
with grandmother, six at Carnegie home. All live in the same
house. Two bedrooms and a kitchen. Well you know back
then, they had two beds in each room. Like two beds in this
room, two beds in that room, and um, [sometimes three or
four] slept together. Some sleep at the foot. Some sleep at
the head. You laughin’ but that be the truth. Some sleep at
the head, some sleep at the foot.
My father grew peanuts, corn. That’s it, peanuts and corn.
The landowner, who ever he worked for [decided what crops
would be grown]. No, back then, where we was livin’, it
was a big [farm], it was pretty big… Grandmamma stayed
where we stayed it was uh, it was real (smart?) I don’t know
about how many acres or nothin’ like that. I don’t think he
[her father] got none of it [crops produced].
She [my mother] raised her own garden, own chickens, own
hogs. And, so like in the summer they always can, they raise
the garden, then they’ll can the food. Hogs - had their own
hogs. Always killed the hogs in the wintertime for their meat.
[We purchased stuff at a] a rollin’ store. You’d have a
rollin’ store commin’ through. And so like… ok there was
like a rollin’ store and an ice, ice truck. We didn’t have no
refrigerator like they have now. They had an ice box. Well,
you bought ice in a big old 25-pound block of ice. You take
that and you put it in the box, in the bottom of the box. It
was like a regular refrigerator, but it wasn’t electric. It was
just a big old box you keep ice in. Like a big cooler. Why
ya’d always buy your ice to put in there twice a week. My
momma always bought it twice a week. The ice boy, the ice
truck come around twice a week. And she get one big, she
get one big block and then they take um with the big block.
But you know back then they raised their own meat, own
vegetables, and then like the corn, they’ll go grind it up for
meal and grits.
*Photographs Courtesy of Library of Congress Website
So, and, when they killed the hog, they had their own lard.
They didn’t have to buy none of that. I remember this. I used
to go out there and help kill the hogs. I ain’t kiddin’. My dad
used to kill two to three hogs a year. Not at one time.
And ah, I used to remember when my daddy used to hit em’
in the head, hit the hog in the head. That way they die there.
The water be boilin.’ They had a wash pot. Boil the water.
That the way they clean em.’ They’ll get the hide, you know
the hair and stuff be on, they’ll burn it off em’, you know, roll
it. The way my daddy used to do, when they kill the hog,
they’ll take their hair and burn it down till you get down to
the meat… That’s the way my daddy used to do now. Yeah,
you gonna have a big fire goin.’ My daddy never killed it by
hisself. He always had his brother or somebody come in.
Bout three or four get together and kill hog. That’s what they
did, they helped one another back then, they’d always hang
it up when they get through killin’ it. They have a certain place
they’ll hang it up and let it cure. Like de hams, ok the hams
and the shoulder, they like hang that up. But like the, we call
them chitlins now, but called them guts. Like the liver. They
made [Brunswick] stew out of it. Brunswick stew and soups
and stuff, out of de hog head. But that what they used the hog
head for back then. And they always used the skin to (dry)
up for lard. The skin and the fat meat. They always brought
that for, that’s the lard they used, you called it grease, and
they would, grease and still cook with it. It was lard. So they
didn’t throw away nothing.
Well, we washed My momma used to wash in a wash pot.
Make a fire around the wash pot. You wash your clothes first.
You wash em’ first, then you put em’ in the wash pot and boil
em’. You take em’ out the wash pot and you wash em’ again,
then you rinse em’, put em’ on the line.
We had a pump. We had like a well, but you had to pump
your water… the well, it’s just like a bucket. It’s a bucket be
up on the thing. And you have a rope and you have to push
that bucket down in the well to bring your, to get your water
back up there. We had uh, ok, like uh, back then, when one
go dry. You always can go to the other one. So like when
one well go dry, you always have the other well to go to.
Back then you couldn’t go to school till you get six. It ain’t
like it is now. So, I wasn’t six years old and uh, I went to my
momma they go out there in that field and I wait till they get
way up there, then I get my little croker-sack and I get me a
row way behind em’. That way I pick my cotton there, and
so they caught me, and my daddy said [don’t]-let-her-go-on
pickin’ cotton, because back then snakes were real bad. And
uh, after awhile they just let me wander out there.
I love to cook. When my
momma use to hit the floor,
I use to hit the floor right
wit her. She would get up
out that bed at five and six
o’clock… I say she gotta be
out of bed at five o’clock to
cook breakfast, I’ll get up
too. I’d get ready to help
her. Whatever she did, I
were there with her to do
it. So, hear what I said,
I ain’t ashamed of my life
back den. So, you know
it was, it was rough, and
it was hard, but it was, it
was some thing you had to
go through.
See y’all got it easy now. Ya’ll got it easy. The black folk
back then didn’t know what goin’ to the store buyin’ a chicken
was. They raised their chicken, they killed their chicken. They
raised their hog, they killed their hog. They raised they
garden, that where they got their food out their garden. They
canned peas, okra, tomato, anything they planted that’s what
they put in them jars.
Nu-huh, [no opportunities for her father] not back there then.
You sharecrop or you worked. And you might be surprised
what the pay was back then. Probably $10 or $15 a week.
Now, you might say how do she know that? Because, it
couldn’t be too much more. It might have been twenty-five
dollars a week. He [my father] always ended up working
it for somebody. He ain’t never owned no farm now. Back
there black people didn’t own farms. They always worked it
for somebody. I didn’t even know, no black person to own no
farm. As it got better, they probably did.
Well that’s the way it mostly went back there then. And you
worked for the person, they always give you a house …but
you did the farmin’ for them. That the way it is.
50
TAKING STOCK – L.E. GAY PLANTATION AS RANDOLPH COUNTY FARM
This overview of agriculture and tenancy provides a frame of reference for the study plantation. In
some ways, the L.E. Gay operation was representative of Randolph County. As the next chapter
will establish, family history and public records confirm that it was farmed by African Americans on
shares and essentially grew the crops discussed above. The plantation property was consolidated
during a decade of strong population growth in Randolph County when the county experienced a
21.5 percent increase in its black population. The size of this increase suggests possible migration
of agricultural workers into the area, suggesting that the postbellum reordering of the agricultural
landscape and workforce and perhaps the creation of large-scale New South plantations such as
the L.E. Gay Plantation may have been a draw.
Where the study plantation diverges from the county norm relates to its size and the fact that it was
manager operated possibly from the 1890s to the 1940s. The 2,600-acre plantation was large in
scale and size from its inception and as map research will show contained about 25 tenant
operations. As discussed, most manuscript census records mask the presence of such plantations
by enumerating each tenant farm as a single entity and by not showing the actual tenant-owner
relationship. Aggregate census statistics are more relevant in this regard. In 1900, 14 of the
county’s farming operations employed a manager. In 1940, only four employed managers. The
L.E. Gay Plantation was one of this minority. Statistics also show that Randolph County had only
12 county farms over the size of 1,000 acres in 1940 with 318 county farms noted as having full
owners. Again, the L.E. Gay Plantation would have been one of this group, containing over 2,500
acres at that point in time. Clearly, the L.E. Gay Plantation’s size and operation made it one of the
larger farming entities in this agricultural county. Unlike many of its contemporaries, it was already
a large-scale operation prior to the advent of mechanized farming which helped usher in the end of
tenancy. It had remained a viable large-scale plantation through out the first half of the twentieth
century, surviving the boll weevil, the Great Depression, and the world wars. Tenancy would end
in the 1940s at the plantation in keeping with the same trend across the county as mechanized
farming reduced the need for a large labor force. The final unique characteristic of the L.E. Gay
Plantation in relation to other Randolph County farms, was that it remained family owned and
retained its historic boundaries with relatively little change until the present. Clues to this longevity
may lie in its history.
WE MADE A DAY 51
V. L.E. GAY PLANTATION
After 1880, 24-year-old merchant Louis Erasmus Gay, his 23-year-old wife, Callie Margaret, and
their two-year-old son, William Allen, traveled northward from Damascus in Early County to
Randolph County to make their fortune. It was not a large move in terms of distance; Early County
sits below Randolph. However, it was life changing for the couple. Louis and Callie Gay briefly
made their home at a newly acquired rural tract on Land Lots 105, 123, 124, 143, and 144
within District 718. Keeping a residence at the plantation and employing a manager to run the
operation, they would shortly move into Cuthbert. While immersed in town life and business, the
family, specifically Callie Margaret Gay, continued to acquire land adjacent to their first
agricultural property, which grew into a New South plantation containing over 2,600 acres. By
the turn of the century, their farming operation stretched over 12 full land lots and three adjoining
partial land lots in the 6th Land District of Randolph County. A large portion of this property is still
farmed by the family today (Figure 5.1).
The historic core of the plantation, Land Lots 123 and 124, appears to have been owned by
Thomas Johnson prior to 1880 (Randolph County Deed Book P:242, Reid et al. 1996:40-42).
During this time period, the land and soils may have been considered to be nonproductive. The
1928 Soil Survey noted that some county areas that were at first thought to be unproductive were
brought under cultivation later after the county’s initial settlement. In the late nineteenth and early
twenty centuries, these areas became the most desirable agricultural land in the county. The soils
included the Greenville, Blakely, and Carnegie soils. The latter characterizes south central
Randolph County where the L.E. Gay Plantation is situated.
Thomas Johnson of Randolph County conveyed the land to his daughter, Martha Johnson Snell,
wife of Benjamin W. Snell, possibly in the 1870s (Randolph County Deed Book P:242). Thomas T.
Johnson is reported to be buried in the family plot on the study property but this was not
corroborated by survey. The 1878 Tax Digest for Randolph County lists Benjamin W. Snell as
owning 1012.5 acres in District 6 including Land Lots 105, 123, 124, 142 and 143. “NR”
appears after Snell’s name probably signifying that he was a nonresident of the property. Robert
F. Snell, presumably his brother, was listed as his agent. The property referred to as the “Snell
Place” in the deeds, was valued at $2,500, horse and livestock at $225, and tools at $10. Robert
Snell employed seven “hands” on the farm.
Land Lots 106 and 130, as well as 20 acres in Land Lot 123 were owned by neighbor Nicholas
M. Weaver, Sr. within an 800-acre property north of the Snell farm. Weaver, who kept a
residence in town, employed three hands. Notably, the Weaver farm values suggest a more
prosperous enterprise than the Snell farm despite its lower acreage. The lower value for the Snell
property may indicate a lesser investment in the property. Weaver is listed in 1879 with the same
property however the number of hands employed rose to seven. Some of the Weaver property
would become part of the study plantation in the next decade.
52
Figure 5.1
Four Generations
Callie Margaret Gay and Daughter
Louie Gay Owen
Margaret Owen Sheffield and
Daughter Gay Sheffield
Margaret Owen Sheffield on Hunting
Trip at Farm, Sitting on Vacant Tenant
House Porch
WE MADE A DAY 53
Neither the Snells nor Weaver are listed in the 1880 Tax Digest as owning the study property.
Instead, 1880 appears to be the year that the Snells conveyed their property to William Erasmus
Gay Sr. of Quitman County (Randolph County Deed Book P:242). The land lots were conveyed to
Gay Sr. for $2,800, $200 less than their value of $3,000 provided in the tax rolls. “NR” appears
beside W. E. Gay Sr.’s name suggesting that he was not residing on the farm and no household or
goods are mentioned underscoring that assumption. The transfer of property did not include the
approximately 20 acres owned by N.M. Weaver in Land Lot 123.
Land records indicate that William E. Gay Sr. was a resident of Quitman County and tax
information from 1881 suggests that he never resided on the Randolph County property. Instead,
he preferred to employ his son-in-law, Louis E. Gay, as his agent/manager on the Randolph County
farm. While William E. Gay, his wife Sarah, and their large family would later move to Cuthbert,
his involvement with the farm is short lived. In 1882, he conveyed the property (Land Lots 105,
123, 124, 143, and 144 with the exception of 20 acres at the northeast corner of Land Lot 123)
to his nephew, Francis Marion Gay, and his daughter, Callie Margaret Gay, for a consideration of
$4,500 (Randolph County Deed Book Q:23). From this point on, the identity of the farm became
associated with Callie Margaret and her husband, Louis E. Gay.
Louis E. Gay was the son of Sarah and Allen Gay Jr. who had at least six children: Andrew, Mary,
Emma, Louis, Matthew, and Francis (Figure 5.2). His branch of the family hailed from Early
County, and they were farmers. His father, Allen Gay Jr., died at the age of 35 in 1866 in Early
County, after serving a brief stint in the Civil War between May and August 1862, leaving Sarah
and five children (Historical Data Systems 1999). The widow and her children resided with John
M. Gay in 1870; it appears that John M. was Allen’s brother.
Louis E. Gay and Callie Margaret Gay married in 1877 and established their household in
Damascus, a small community in Early County in 1880. Louis’s brother’s, Francis Marion, age 19,
and Matthew Crawford, age 18, were part of the household as well as Louis and Callie Margaret’s
son, William Allen. All three men were merchants while Callie Margaret managed the household
with the help of two servants: Mary Davis, the cook, and her daughter Clorie. The move from
farming to commerce within this generation of the family could not be clearer. Their father’s death
may have played into their career choice but the potential for commercial success in the closing
decades of the nineteenth century as the southern economy was reestablished was ripe with
opportunity. The Gays moved northward allowing Louis E. to serve as agent or manager on W.E.
Gay Sr.’s plantation. Francis Marion Gay (also referred to as F.M. Gay in the records) appears to
have moved with them as he is referred to as the half owner in the 1882 deed along with Callie
Margaret.
In Louis’s first year as agent in 1881, 12 hands or tenants were employed. The value of the land
was quoted at $2,500, horses and livestock at $400, and tools at $100. Notably, the household
goods for Louis and Callie Gay were valued at $100, suggesting that they may have initially
resided on the property for a short period. The couple had two more children, both girls, Birdie
Allene (1882-1883) and Addie Lenore Gay (1880-1881) between 1880 and 1882. Both passed
away within a year of their respective births, and they are buried in a small fenced plot on the
54
Figure 5.2
Gay Family Tree and View of Family Plot in Greenwood Cemetery, Cuthbert
Allen Gay Jr. = Sarah
Andrew Mary Emma
William E. Gay = Sarah E
Mathew Crawford Louis E. = Callie Margaret (1856 – 1911) (1857 – 1937) Francis Marion
William Allen
(1878 – 1904)
Addie Lenore
(1880 – 1881)
Birdie Allee
(1888 – 1942) Louie = Granby Hilyer Allen (1878 – 1904) (1888 - 1936)
Margaret = Wallace Sheffield (D. + 1980) (= Thomas Eve, = Sam Weil)
Gay = Richard Mathews Jr. (B. 1938)
(Early County)
(Quitman County)
Gay Plot, Greenwood Cemetery, Cuthbert
WE MADE A DAY 55
farm. Their burial at the farm further suggests that the couple made their initial home there. Later
family burials occurred in Cuthbert at the Greenwood Cemetery (Figure 5.2). Historic photographs
and a scaled house plan drawn from memory by Mrs. Mathews indicate that the farmhouse was a
frame vernacular house with at least one end chimney and a central recessed front porch. Located
on the west side of U.S. Highway 27 or the “road to Blakely,” the house faced the highway but
was set back. The house and adjacent outbuildings located within Land Lots 123 and 124
developed into the historic core of the farm and a long rock wall that skirted the highway frontage
distinguished its entry. Although no plat was located, family oral tradition places barns, a
commissary, and other buildings at this location. The outbuildings have not been preserved but the
manager/overseer’s house, a large Saddlebag house, still stands. The frame Saddlebag house
faces the highway and a portion of the historic rock wall skirts the front of the building.
The 1881-1882 Tax Digest provides information on employees. Three individuals were listed as
employees of L.E. Gay in the “Colored Section” of the Tax Digest: Charly Drummer, Washington
Morris, and Wesly Williams. The digests do not indicate whether the three men and their families
worked in Cuthbert or the farm however census research provides a little more information.
Charles and Marzella Drummer moved from Early County to Randolph in 1880 where they appear
to have entered the employ of the Gay Family. The census form has errors but it is likely that
Charles was a farm hand in Early County. The Drummers are not listed in the 1900 census but
Charles, a widower, and his two sons and two daughters, are listed in 1910 in the 934 GM
District of Randolph County. At that time, Charles was a farmer at a “house farm.” Washington
Morris was enumerated in 1880 as a Cuthbert town resident that worked as a laborer, residing
with his mother, Martha, who was a cook. The 1900 census records Wesly Williams as a
Cuthbert resident as well and his occupation was noted as woodchopper.
In 1882, the number of hands at the study plantation increased to 17 and Charles Drummer,
“Wash.” Morris, and Vandy Smith were listed separately in the tax rolls as employees working for
the Gay Family. Vandy Smith was not located in the Federal census. The separate listing implies
that the Drummers, Washington Morris, Wesley Williams, and Vandy Smith may have been
employed by the family providing services either in Cuthbert or at the owner’s farm home in the
early 1880s. The Drummers listing as farmers at a house farm suggests that they may have
become tenants or renters on the study plantation by 1910.
In 1885, Francis Marion Gay conveyed his half interest in the property to his sister-in-law, Callie
Margaret Gay (Randolph County Deed Book EE:182). This was followed by a period of
aggressive land acquisition in which Callie Margaret Gay purchased and consolidated tracts that
surrounded the original tract purchased from W.E Gay Sr. (Table 5.1, Figure 5.3). Notably, Mrs.
Gay is listed as the agent for the property from 1890 onward. The Beacham properties (Land Lots
104, 125, 141 and 142) to the south were acquired; Land Lot 161, once part of the Snell Place,
was added to the west (Randolph County Deed Book EE:181,183, and 185). Finally, while a
complete chain-of-title was not found, land records show that acreage in Land Lots 123 and 122
were purchased from P.B. Hussey (Randolph County Deed Book EE:180) in 1891, a resident of the
20-acre property in Land Lot 123 that had once belonged to the Weaver Family. Hussey had
acquired 75 acres from E.H. Keese in 1885 comprising a portion of the south half of Land Lot
56
122. The remaining 25 acres were conveyed at the same time to Billy Brown, a freedman by
Keese (Randolph County Deed Book Q:521). The warranty deed for the Hussey-Gay transaction
shows that Hussey did not include the 25 acres deeded to Billy Brown nor the 13-acre tract in Land
Lot 123.
Mr. Brown would donate an acre of land in Land Lot 145 directly adjacent to the L.E. Gay
Plantation in 1886 to Mitchell Grove Baptist Church (Randolph County Deed Book Q:611). The
deed stated that “for the consideration of my love of Christ and my desire to aid in the
advancement of his cause on earth” he would provide the acreage to the congregation, noting that
a church was already standing on the property. A brief history of the church stated that the
congregation was established as early as 1880 (Goolsby et al 1977:64), prior to William E.
Gay’s purchase of the property to the south in 1882. The church’s history further states that the
church was named after the individual that had donated the land. Perhaps, Mitchell was a family
name associated with Billy Brown. While the deed was not located, the section of Brown’s land in
Land Lot 124 referred to on the Hussey deed would later become part of the L.E. Gay Plantation.
The church property would grow to include an early twentieth-century African American church and
its school that operated between 1928 and 1950 and a large cemetery (Soil Map 1928, Mr.
Willie Lightner, personal communication, 2011).
The school was not recognized as a Rosenwald School in a statewide study completed in 2009;
only two Rosenwald schools were identified in Randolph County: the County Training School and
the Shellman School (Cyriaque et al. 2009). Rosenwald Schools were constructed primarily for the
education of African Americans in the early twentieth century. However Mitchell Grove School’s
architecture appears to be derivative of the standard community plan school in the Rosenwald
School plans. More research is needed to identify the school’s history and associations.
Concomitant with this increase in size, there was a marked increase in the number of hands at the
plantation: 20 in 1890, 40 in 1891, and 50 in 1892. Randolph County agricultural statistics
indicate that African American tenants outnumbered white tenants in the county and the proximity
of the African American Mitchell Grove Baptist Church and school suggests this to be the case with
the L.E. Gay Plantation. As the plantation was acquired after 1880, no census information is
available for that year and no relevant census data is available for 1890 for the county. By 1892,
the family holdings had increased to 1,800 acres valued at $9,000, horse and livestock at
$2,370, and household goods at $300. In 1896, the plantation reached its largest size at 2,600
acres including Land Lots 104, 142, 161, 144, 122, 124, 126, 105, 123, 162, 143, 125, and
87. No number of hands was given for this year but clearly the plantation was in a growth period.
WE MADE A DAY 57
Figure 5.3
Study Plantation Showing Land Lots Acquired
Source: Randolph County Tax Map 74
1. Snell Place: Originally Purchased From
Thomas Johnson, 1882; Lots 105, 123, 124,
143,144, 161
2. Beacham: Lots 104, 125, 126, 141, 142
3. Hussey/Weaver Property: Parts 9-122
(South 123, 20-A)
4. Bryant: Lot 106
5. Watson: Partial Lot 87
6. Landlots 162, 163 Information From Tax
Records
Key
58
Table 5.1 Gay Family’s Land Acquisition, 1878–1896
1878
(District 718)
Snell
1880
(District 718)
Wm. E. Gay Sr.
1881
(District 718)
Wm. E Gay Sr.
1882
(District 934)
F.M. Gay
C.M. Gay
1890
C.M. Gay
1891
C.M. Gay
1892
C.M. Gay
1896
(District 718)
C.M. Gay
87* 87*
104 104 104
105 105 105 105 105 105 105 105
106* 106*
122* 122* 122* 122*
123 123 123 123 123 123 123
124 124 124 124 124 124 124 124
125 125
126 126 126
140 140
142 142 142 142
143 143 143 143 143
144 144 144 144 144
145
161 161 161 161
162 162 162
1012.5 Acres 1400 Acres 1600 Acres 1800 Acres 2600 Acres
* Indicates partial lots Source: Randolph County Tax Digests. Note that the study lots were listed in different General
Militia Districts (GMD) over time
The 1900 and 1910 Federal census shows Louis E. and Callie as residents of Cuthbert on Lumpkin
Street along with their daughter Louie who was born in 1888. Louis is listed as a farmer in 1900
and then as “having his own income” in 1910, perhaps signifying his financial success. Family
tradition indicates that the Gays raised Black Angus cattle in addition to growing cotton, peanuts,
corn and hay (Richard Mathews, Jr. personal communication 2010). The family maintained a
residence at the plantation and its proximity to Cuthbert allowed the family to travel between town
and country fairly easily. Their son, William Allen, now married, ran a livery stable in town in
1900. Unfortunately, he would pass away in 1904, leaving Louie as their only living descendant.
The family would play a strong role in Cuthbert’s early twentieth-century life. The large and
impressive Gay Hotel on the square was one indication of their success Figure 5.4).
WE MADE A DAY 59
Figure 5.4
Historic Postcard of the Gay Hotel and Sanborn Map Showing its Position on the Square
1920 Sanborn Showing Central
Square and Gay Hotel
Undated Postcard Showing Gay Hotel,
Courtesy Mathews Family
60
Six years after William Allen’s death, Louis E. Gay died, leaving Callie Margaret a widow. The
1920 census indicates that she opened her household to her daughter and her husband, Granby
Hilyer Owen. In 1923, Callie Margaret conveyed the 2,635-acre “L.E. Gay Plantation” to her
daughter and in the event of her death, her child or children (Randolph County Deed Book
QQ:528). The following full 202.5 acre land lots were conveyed:104, 105, 123, 124, 125,
126, 141, 142, 143, 144, 161, and 162; as well as 30 acres in the southwest corner, south and
west of Branch within Land Lot 67; 100 acres of Land Lot 106 lying north of Big Branch and east of
Cuthbert and Blakely Public Road; and finally, 75 acres in Land Lot 122 specifically, the south half
that lies north of Big Branch. The conveyance has additional stipulations that speak to Mrs. Callie
Margaret Gay’s interests and the close knit character of the family: in the event of her daughter’s
death, a portion of the estate would be given to the following: “in consideration of the love I bear
to my son-in-law, Granby H. Owen, and because of my deep interest in the Georgia Baptist
Orphanage of Hapeville, Georgia; Georgia Baptist Hospital in Atlanta; and Bessie Tift College in
Forsythe.” The Owens and their daughter, Margaret, would live with her at the Lumpkin Street
house until her death in 1937.
Public records and oral tradition provide insight into the Gay family’s establishment in Randolph
County. It is challenging to use the same sources to learn about the tenants and managers who
lived and worked the property from the 1880s through the 1940s. Use of the manuscript Federal
Census to determine the identities of the tenants on the plantation was hampered by the property’s
location within two militia districts, the lack of few geographic references in the census
enumeration, and the fact that the owner’s family was enumerated in Cuthbert, not at the plantation
property. Moreover, the current owner, who was born after World War II, does not have first
hand knowledge of the plantation prior to 1940.
Within the study decades, the 1910 census is the first to provide geographic information. The
census taker indicated along the left edge of the sheet, the road the households were fronting and
in some cases would give road locations. In District 718 excluding the town of Cuthbert, there are
three census pages listing households along the Cuthbert to Blakely Road. As noted in the previous
chapter, the census taker listed each tenant farm as a separate household; there is no reference to
the larger landholding. Plus, as early twentieth-century maps indicate the tenant households were
dispersed throughout the plantation operation, this may provide data only on those who lived on or
near the public road.
There were 33 households listed on the public road within the militia district. Only four white
families were noted; the head of the household’s occupation ran the gamut from merchant to
overseer to farm laborer. Twenty-nine households were black and every family derived its
livelihood from agriculture except for one laborer. Within this group, there were farm operators,
an overseer, farm hands, wage laborers, and laborers. No farm owners were noted on the pages
but that category was used elsewhere, suggesting that farm operators may have been tenants. As
the Gay family were Cuthbert residents, a manager/overseer was needed to run the overall
plantation property and a house identified as an manager/overseer’s residence on the property is
still extant. There was only one overseer within the census grouping and this suggests a possible
association with a large-scale plantation operation such as the L.E. Gay Plantation. The 28-yearold white overseer and his wife were native Georgians, L.B. and Elise [Eliza] Sanders.
WE MADE A DAY 61
The postwar 1920 census is not as useful. No patterns can be discerned that speak to the possible
inhabitants of the plantation along the Blakely Road entries. Conversely, the 1930 census may
show the tenants along the highway. In this census, Cuthbert to Blakely Road inhabitants follow a
listing of households on Mitchell Grove Road, a road just above the historic core of the Gay
plantation. The first household to be enumerated is a white farm manager and his family: James
Mayfield, his wife, Mary, and their children Elton and Louise. Twenty-four-year-old Elton was listed
as a clerk in a fertilizer factory. Bish Mitchell, a 40–year-old African American servant was also
part of the household. The heads of households listed after the Mayfields are: William Jones, Pet
Miller, Richard Page, George Coleman, Page Edwards, Beck Mitchell, Roy Day, Homer Lee,
Homer Deloach, Ada Evans, Oscar Nixon and John Johnson. These individuals were listed as
African American farmers or laborers on a farm. Some households had multiple generations living
together while others represented extended families. None of the names match those cited in the
1910 census.
Having a manager had its pluses and minuses. The 1928 Soil Survey authors observed that some
large plantations in Randolph County were not as well maintained as they would be if the owner
resided on the farm (Phillips et al. 1928). While this could translate into trouble for the tenants in
some instances, by the same token, later owners were able to derive income from the family
holding while following other occupational pursuits. This was certainly the case with the Gay
Family. For example, Louie and Granby’s daughter, Margaret, an outdoorswoman who knew the
plantation landscape well, married Wallace Sheffield from Americus. The couple, who maintained
households in Cuthbert and Americus, was notable with business interests beyond the plantation.
Both were pilots (Figure 5.5). She and her husband established a grass landing strip at the
plantation for their use in 1938. The field was in the general location of the current county airfield
but was smaller. In the 1960s, the strip within a 46-acre tract was donated to Randolph County to
encourage economic growth in the area. Margaret, a groundbreaker, received her pilot’s license
allowing her to fly helicopters in 1938. Her husband worked with Southern Airways in Atlanta.
Margaret’s daughter, Gay Sheffield Mathews, a Cuthbert resident, owns the plantation today.
Interviews with family members suggest that the plantation was once home to a number of families.
Mr. Mathews, Jr. noted that the L.E. Gay Plantation employed sharecroppers who were able to
draw from the commissary store and then settle up at the end of the year (Mr. and Mrs. Richard
Mathews Jr., personal communication 2010). Row crops were cultivated before the 1950s. Some
families had their own mule and wagon. Mr. and Mrs. Mathews, Jr. remember 27 houses
scattered all over the plantation, some in clusters, featuring swept yards, wells, henhouses, hogs,
and vegetable gardens. Hedgerows and fences helped delineate the individual tenant fields.
Figure 5.6 shows a detail of the cobble rock wall that once fronted the plantation entry. Looking
east, the undated view appears to show U.S. Highway 27 in the background and wire and post
fencing along the eastern highway frontage. The houses on the west side of the property were
referred to as the “Alabama” houses because they were so far west from the farm core.
The houses were part of the landscape they inherited so no dates of construction are known. Mr.
Mathews Jr. most remembers the central role the stove played in each house and he remembers
enjoying plain but delicious food cooked on many of them. Marbles were played a great deal and
62
Figure 5.5
Airfield Views of the Sheffields with Mail Run and at Gay Farm
Margaret Owen Sheffield with Pilot Wings
The Sheffields at Americus Airstrip Carrying U.S. Mail Bag
Private Plane at Gay Airstrip
Southern Airways Plane at Gay Airstrip
WE MADE A DAY 63
Figure 5.6
Rock Wall at L. E. Gay Plantation
Historic View, Unnamed Manager’s Son
with Dog, U.S. Highway 27 in Background
Detail of Rock Wall
Gate Opening in Rock Wall in Front of Overseer’s House
64
thus could be found all over the property. A commissary supplied the tenant’s basic needs; many
families would go to town on Saturdays to shop for supplies. A rolling store would also come by
once a week to offer different goods to the community. As a child who lived in town, Mrs.
Mathews would ride horses around the plantation with her parents, be part of holiday traditions
such as giving out Christmas baskets to the working families, and enjoyed swimming in the streams.
Mrs. Mathews also remembers the agricultural landscape where peanuts were stacked around
poles in the field to dry, cotton sacks were used to pick cotton, mules and wagons were
everywhere, and lunch in the field for many tenant farmers included syrup, a biscuit, and
sometimes some meat in a syrup can made into a pail (Mrs. Richard Mathews Jr., personal
communication 2010).
As the plantation lost its residential population, the buildings and structures associated with that era
of agriculture were no longer needed. Members of the family had never resided on the plantation
and that did not change. The last tenants left the plantation in the late 1950s and the last known
tenant was Mr. Red Corbett who died in a fire in the 1960s while living in the overseer’s house.
Mr. Corbett’s original house was partially destroyed by the 1987 road improvements (see Figure
2.5). Fire would also claim the farmhouse in the 1950s and a tornado claimed both a new and
old outbuilding in the 1970s. Mechanical equipment became an essential part of farming and
labor needs were reduced to day labor. Vacant tenant houses began to deteriorate; some were
used for storage, others were rented. The commissary and an older barn fell in the 1980s. The
overseer’s house would be used off and on after the 1950s and the main house was used by the
plantation manager around World War II prior to the fire. The parts of the landscape that
remained in use were the fields, circulation paths, and the buildings that could be readapted for
agricultural purposes.
In the second half of the twentieth century, Mr. Richard Mathews Jr. farmed the property in addition
to establishing a family-owned propane company in Cuthbert. He started working the plantation in
1957 and continued to work it until 2000 along with his son, Richard Mathews III, growing
Coastal Bermuda hay (1950s), peanuts (1960-1990), corn, sunflowers, sweet potatoes, soybeans,
and rye. Cotton would make a comeback in the 1990s (Figure 5.7). A circa 1980 view of a barn
(see back cover) bearing the business style “Gay Farms” suggests that the plantation had become
known as Gay Farms. Mr. Mathews, Jr. noted that the world economy and the government played
a major role in what would be grown. The L.E. Gay Plantation contained 2,635 acres as late as
1969 with only a decrease of 45 acres donated to the City of Cuthbert for an airport (Randolph
County Deed Book WW-1:204). Over the following decades, some land would be sold to
accommodate the farm’s finances; timber leases let in 1941, 1951, and 1981 also helped out with
farm expenses. Despite the economics, a new generation of the family cultivates about 744 acres
of the farm producing cotton, corn, peanuts, soybeans, wheat, and grain sorghum and enjoys its
wildlife, natural beauty, and their family’s heritage.
WE MADE A DAY 65
Figure 5.7
Mathews Era Farming at Gay Farms
1960s Barn on U.S. Highway 27 Advertising Hay for Sale at Gay Farms
Farm Worker on Tractor, circa 1965
Farm Worker on Tractor in Field, circa 1965
Richard Mathews, Jr. and Worker Watering Crops, circa 1985
Combine at Work

WE MADE A DAY 67
VI. LAYOUT AND ARCHITECTURE
Charles S. Aiken, in his 1998 study of the cotton plantation South, pointed out that plantations did
not disappear after the Civil War. They evolved. Using a cultural geographical approach, he
demonstrates that a new generation of plantations emerged and subsequently declined between
1880 and 1940. Typified by a new settlement pattern that featured tenant houses dispersed
around the plantation in proximity to the acreage that was cultivated, the “New South” plantation’s
geography allowed for distance between owner and tenant. Where the tenant community was
African American, nearby churches and schools were established that served the African American
community. In addition, Aiken stated that: “the landscape was reordered, not only by the transition
of the plantation system from a slave to a tenant labor force, but also by the emergence of a
railroad network, a central place hierarchy, and a new more complex agricultural infrastructure”
(Aiken 1998:39). Tenant farmers and plantation owners were facing great change as the
agricultural infrastructure of the lower Piedmont moved from the Old South model to a New South
organization. Table 6.1 summarizes many of these changes and also shows the variables involved
with the end of plantation agriculture under the New South era. The L.E. Gay Plantation and its
vicinity had many, if not most, of the physical characteristics noted by Aiken as earmarks of a New
South landscape and plantation.
Table 6.1 Defining Features of the Old and New South Plantations Eras, 1800-1940
Old South Plantation Era
1800-1865
Reorganization
1865-1880
New South Plantation Era
1880-1910
Demise of Plantation
Agriculture
1910-1940
Expanding plantation
agriculture
Arrival of boll weevil
“Boll Weevil depression”
Great Depression
Slaves Freedmen Black and white tenant farmers Out-migration of blacks
Gang System Squad and gang systems,
Tenant farmers
Tenant farmers
Aggressive plantation
management
Management alterations Decline of Changes in plantation
management, absentee
ownership
Disintegration of plantation
management
Nucleated plantation
settlement pattern
Disintegration of
nucleated plantation
settlement pattern
Dispersed settlement pattern
Plantation cotton gins
Increasing cotton
acreage
Increased cotton acreage Decline in cotton acreage
Embryonic rail and road
network
Expanding railroad
network
Railroad network
Embryonic central place
network
Expanding central place
network
Central place hierarchy Disintegration of central
place hierarchy
68
Table 6.1 Defining Features of the Old and New South Plantations Eras, 1800-1940
Old South Plantation Era
1800-1865
Reorganization
1865-1880
New South Plantation Era
1880-1910
Demise of Plantation
Agriculture
1910-1940
Embryonic infrastructure:
Cotton factors, Banks,
Guano companies
Infrastructure:
Furnish merchants, Banks,
Public cotton ginneries,
Fertilizer plants,
Cotton factors
Extensive agricultural
infrastructure: Public cotton
ginneries, Furnish merchants,
Cotton factors, Banking system
Cotton Warehouses
Cotton Oil Mills, Fertilizer Plants
Disintegration of
Infrastructure
Decline of white yeoman
farmers
Increase in:
Absentee and passive-resident
landlords
Cash tenants
Black and white yeoman farmers
Soil erosion
Field abandonment
Commercial fertilizer
Increase in:
Absentee and passiveresident landlords
Agricultural disinvestment
Agricultural Adjustment Act
Lag in agricultural
mechanization
Source: Adapted from Aiken 1998:40-41
In 1910, there were 2,500 plantations in the Lower Piedmont region. By 1940 there were only
382. The L.E. Gay Plantation was one of the few to survive into the twenty-first century but
embedded in its landscape is the new order that Aiken and other scholars have recognized. It was
a New South plantation having many farms in dispersed parcels under the general supervision of
an individual or firm. At its height, it consisted of over 2,600 acres and more than 25 tenant farms
supervised by a manager or overseer. And its larger setting in the county has many if not all the
characteristics noted in Table 6.1 as features of this new era in plantation agriculture.
Historic maps show that the plantation’s setting in southern Randolph County was reasonably
developed with existing rail lines, developed rural commercial nodes, and an agricultural
infrastructure. The 1925 Soil Map for Randolph County shows the Central of Georgia railway to
the west of the property and the Florida and Alabama railroad to the east (Figure 6.1). The latter,
which later became the Seaboard Air Line, intersected with the Central of Georgia in Cuthbert.
The 1938 map shows a rural area dotted with stores, churches, schools, and mills along with small
towns such as Carnegie and Coleman that had populations of fewer than 300 (Figure 6.2).
Cuthbert, the county seat and the closest city, was only approximately seven miles from the
plantation, making its warehouses, gins, stores, and banks easily accessible to the outlying farming
community. It was the community’s central place (Figure 6.3). No gins or fertilizer factories
outside of Cuthbert are shown on the maps but as noted in the previous chapter, Elton Mayfield, a
plantation manager’s son, either at the L.E. Gay Plantation or in the vicinity, worked as a clerk in a
fertilizer factory, possibly in Cuthbert. In the vicinity of the plantation, Bass Store was located at
the southern perimeter of the plantation and a plantation commissary for basic supplies was
centrally located on U.S. Highway 27 (see Figure 6.7).
WE MADE A DAY 69
Figure 6.1
New South Landscape, 1924
L. E. Gay Plantation Boundary
0 1 2
N 1’’ = 1 mile
Source: 1924 Soil Map
County Road 55
Cuthbert
Carnegie
Georgia RR
Florida and Alabama RR
County Road 33
Georgia RR
US Highway 29
70
Figure 6.2
Highway Map Showing Rural Development South of Cuthbert
012 0.5 Kilometers
0 0.5 1 2 Miles
L. E. Gay Plantation Boundary
Source: 1938 Randolph County Highway Map
WE MADE A DAY 71
Figure 6.3
Southern Portion of Cuthbert Showing Locations of Ginneries, Warehouses, Cotton
Storage, Fertilizer Storage, and Peanut Shelling Plant
Source: University of Georgia
72
New South plantations also featured nearby schools and churches: “Tenant house, church, and
school had come to occupy their ordered places on the landscape" (Aiken 1996:52). Just as the
scattered geography of tenant houses within the New South era spoke to the new social order,
churches and schools were also “landscape symbols of freedom” (Aiken 1996:55). It appears
Mitchell Grove Baptist Church, school, and cemetery, which serve the African American community
in the plantation vicinity and are situated at the northern perimeter of the property, were an integral
part of the L.E. Gay Plantation’s geography. A farm road or footpath directly leads from the
plantation to the Baptist property, suggesting years of use within the plantation community (Figure
6.4). The church’s land was donated to the Mitchell Grove Baptist Church congregation by a
freedman named Billy Brown in 1886 and the deed indicates a church was standing on the
property (Randolph County Deed Book Q:611). This meshes with a brief history of the church that
states that the congregation was established as early as 1880 (Goolsby et al 1977:64). Thus, a
congregation was present prior to William E. Gay’s purchase of the property to the south in 1882.
More research on the church’s history is needed to establish how the establishment of the largescale plantation to the south would directly affect the fledgling congregation but at a glance its
architecture suggests that the church expanded at some point in its history to meet the needs of a
growing congregation. In a larger sense, its establishment coincides with a period of growth
within the county’s black population.
The modest white frame church covered in weatherboard siding is composed of two disparate
sized buildings and a connecting passageway; the three create a T-shaped configuration. The
main building is a broad front-gable church featuring a rectangular plan with a tower projecting
from the roofline on the north side of the building. The façade contains a simple double-door entry
accessed by concrete stairs. Stained glass windows flank the main entry, with similar windows
found along the side elevations. The building rests on a pier foundation that has been filled in with
concrete blocks. The rear appendage is a one story, gable roof building constructed of the same
building materials as the principal portion of the church. The rear building may have been an
earlier church that was later expanded. However, no cornerstones or other clues supporting this
were noted and attempts to reach members of the community were not successful despite the fact
that it is an active church and cemetery. The “yard” surrounding the church is mostly open, with a
few foundation shrubs planted along the church’s exterior walls. In contrast, the informal cemetery,
which sits across from the church, is surrounded by vegetation, including pines, cypresses and
yuccas; the latter are likely cemetery plantings. The cemetery is large and features a wide range of
memorials and gravestones. There are family plots and individual burials. The boundaries of the
historic cemetery are not readily discernible and some graves may be present among adjacent
trees.
Historic maps show the school in operation between 1924 and 1953; it is shown as vacant on the
1961 County Highway Map. Mr. Willie Lightner described the school as church based,
accommodating grades 1 through 7 for the neighboring community. He attended the school in the
late 1940s before finishing his education at a city school in Cuthbert (Mr. Willie Lightner, personal
communication, 2011). As discussed previously, the school has not been recognized as a
Rosenwald School but its architecture suggests that the builders may have been familiar with
Community School Plans (1921) published by the Rosenwald Foundation (Cyriaque et al. 2009). It
was possibly constructed based on the Rosenwald one-teacher school plan. The building features
WE MADE A DAY 73
Figure 6.4
Mitchell Grove Baptist Church and Cemetery
Farm Road from Plantation Center
to Church
Church Front North Elevation
Cemetery Showing Layout and Plantings
Gravestone Types
74
frame construction, a seamed metal gable roof, and a pier foundation. A bank of narrow windows
flanking a central doorway is located on the east elevation. No windows punctuate the north or
west elevations, but two doorways are found on the south elevation (Figure 6.5). The interior
features a platform or stage on one end and a painted band on the windowless walls that was
used as a blackboard. Although the interior is in poor condition, what remains indicates it may
have been a single-room plan school, similar to the Rosenwald one-teacher plan. Interestingly,
unlike other schools that served the African American population, such as nearby St. Luke’s School
that was noted as a “colored school,” Mitchell Grove’s was not shown as a “colored” school on
the 1938 Highway map.
Information on the plantation’s internal settlement pattern lies in the early twentieth-century maps
and aerial photographs that visually chart the plantation, its buildings, and its fields. The layout
was to a great extent a product of the landholding, its topography, its available arable soils, and
the existence of a public road that ran through the plantation. The area opened for cultivation at
the plantation was irregular in shape with U.S. Highway 27 running in a north-south direction
through the tract. Most of the potential tenant houses shown are located on and surrounded by
Carnegie sandy loam soils (noted as “Cs” and colored in light pink) and Henderson stony loams.
As noted, both soil types were considered to be unproductive during the county’s first settlement
and they were initially bypassed. Their productivity was recognized later and entrepreneurs such
as L.E. and Callie Margaret Gay quickly acquired land with these soils. Aerials from the 1940s
show woodlands generally surrounding fields, particularly to the west where a branch of the
Cemochechobee runs, while Carter Creek and the railroad lie to the east. Agricultural terraces are
particularly evident in the western reaches of the property, in the area referred to by the Mathews
Family as the “Alabama” side of the plantation due to their distance from the farm center.
The 1924 Soil Map (Figure 6.6) provides the most information on the plantation’s early road
system. Referred to as the “Public Road between Cuthbert and Blakely” in the land records, the
presence of a public road through the plantation was an advantage for commerce and
convenience but it was also an organizing factor, which the Gays took full advantage of. Fifteen
tenant houses were positioned at intervals along its frontages to make use of its proximity and to
better position each tenant with the fields they would cultivate. Using this same geographic
economy, tenant farms were also located along County Road 55, west of the highway, and County
Road 33, the southern boundary of the plantation. Both of these roads emptied into U.S. Highway
27. In addition to the main roads, a network of unimproved roads east of the highway linked the
sprawling tenant plantation together. The first road led from the highway through the plantation
center to Mitchell Grove Church and ended to the north, connecting with what is now known as
Mitchell Grove Road. A second road also led from the highway but below the first road. It
proceeded south and west linking the “Alabama” farms and the farms at the southern periphery
with the plantation center. Both roads are still in existence. Two internal settlement patterns
emerge from this: a linear plan oriented toward the road, and a plan that conformed to the
property’s terrain and topography. The different patterns may emanate from land acquisition with
the western and southern landscape, possibly a product of an earlier owner. Together, they
created an overall dispersed settlement plan that was representative of a New South plantation,
specifically, one that was an outcome of land consolidation in the late nineteenth century.
WE MADE A DAY 75
Figure 6.5
Mitchell Grove School
Oblique View Showing Front and
South Elevation
Oblique View Showing Front and
North Elevation
Banks of Long, Narrow Windows
School Interior Showing Platform Area Dual Entries on South Elevation
Painted Wall,
Possibly Used
as Blackboard
76
Figure 6.6
Plantation Layout, 1924
"S "S
"S
"S
"S"S"S
"S
"S
"S
"S "S
"S
"S
"S "S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S "S"S
"S
"S"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S "S "S
"S
"S
0 225 450 900 Meters
0 1,000 2,000 4,000 Feet
L. E. Gay Plantation Boundary
"SHouse Location
Source: 1924 Soil Map
WE MADE A DAY 77
The 1938 county highway map (Figure 6.7) identified many of the houses shown on the 1924 map
as tenant houses. It shows at least 20 tenant houses as well as three non-tenant buildings,
probably the main house, a manager or overseer’s house, and outbuildings within the study
plantation. The map, however, does not include the buildings on the interior of the property and
incorrectly shows Bass’ Store within the L.E. Gay Plantation.
Aerial views from the 1940s yield closer looks at the plantation’s settlement pattern, showing the
association of fields, buildings, and roads, as well as spatial relationships between the tenant
farms. The overall settlement pattern shown in the 1941 aerial is a dispersed one, with houses
occurring in clusters near the main roads and neighboring fields (Figure 6.8). Four of these clusters
occur along a long stretch of U.S. Highway 27, while singular clusters are found along County
Road 55, the eastern boundary of the property, and west of the highway near the west boundary
of the plantation. In addition, individual building locations are located around the periphery of the
plantation. Figure 6.9 provides a detail from the 1941 aerial of the area of the plantation that
contained the farmhouse, barns, commissary, and overseer’s house. Located centrally to the
outlying farms, its location also made good use of U.S. Highway 27’s proximity and its location at
the north end of the plantation closest to Cuthbert, providing good accessibility to the market and
town.
The plantation landscape and building layout by 1948 is shown in Figure 6.9, which is based on
the 1948 aerial view. The plantation had about 40 buildings and the main clusters shown in the
1924 Soil Map are still in evidence. Almost half of the property was terraced and farm roads led
from U.S. Highway 27 to the plantation interior. Woods, rather than fields, surround the northeast
and most southern houses at this point but the historic landscape remained fairly static. The tenant
houses that fronted U.S. Highway 27 were stretched along the corridor with fields behind them, to
the north and south of the plantation center. They appear to have been placed with an eye toward
convenience and economy, particularly where they were clustered to presumably share a well or
equipment. However, the distance between clusters was sufficient enough that it also promoted an
appearance of individual farms, not a unified operation.
Both the houses on the periphery of the plantation and the “Alabama” properties were distant from
the plantation center, signaling the new order within a plantation that had its origins in the 1880s.
As Mrs. Gay acquired surrounding land in the 1890s, some of the buildings may have predated
her acquisition and their more isolated locations may derive from their original ownership.
However, even if that was the case, they were not moved to adjust to the new ownership, but
remained in their original locations. Each has retained a sense of place, even as archaeological
sites, when visited in 2010. While the plantation’s tenants may have shared the same manager
and owner and were economically part of a larger plantation community, these distances or
isolated settings allowed the farmer and his family to possess their own domestic life, a
circumstance that was not permitted for African Americans in the antebellum period.
Comparison between a diagram of a mature New South Plantation (Figure 6.10) drawn by
Woofter et al. (1936) and presented in Aiken (1996) and a similar diagram developed for the L.E.
Gay Plantation based on the 1948 aerial (Figure 6.11) shows how strongly it followed the
78
Figure 6.7
Detail from 1938 County Highway Map Showing Study Plantation Boundary and
Tenant House Locations Only Along Highway
Source: Randolph County Highway Map, 1938, Science Library, University of Georgia Library
WE MADE A DAY 79
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/"/"/"/ "/
"/
"/
"/
"/"/
"/
"/
"/ "/"/ "/ "/"/ "/
"/"/"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/"/"/
"/
"/ "/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/"/
"/
"/"/
"/
"/
"/"/
"/ "/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/ "/
"/"/ "/
"/
"/
0 0.4 0.8 0.2 Kilometers
0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles
L. E. Gay Plantation Boundary
Source: 1941 Aerial Photo
Figure 6.8
Detail from 1941 Aerial Showing Study Plantation
Boundary and Building Locations
Source: 1941 Aerial Photograph
80
Figure 6.9
Close-up of Plantation Center, 1941
0 50 100 200 Meters
0 250 500 1,000 Feet
Source: 1941 Aerial Photo
Tenant House 9
Tenant House 6
Tenant House 5
Tenant House 4
Outbuilding
Unknown Building
Manager/Overseer’s House
Machine Shed
Outbuilding
Farm House
Commissary
Source: 1941 Aerial Photograph
WE MADE A DAY 81
Figure 6.10
Comparative Diagram of a Mature New South Plantation and
Historic Views of Georgia Examples
Source: Aiken 1998
Source: Hargrett Family Papers, Hargett Rare Book and Manuscript
Library, Courtesy University of Georgia Libraries
Source: US Library Of Congress,
FSA Collection, Dorothea Lange
Relationship of
Fields to House
Saddlebag House, Tenant House
Clarke County, Georgia
Diagram of a Clarke County New South Plantation
82
Figure 6.11
Diagram of L. E. Gay Plantation Showing Mature New South
Plantation Layout and Agricultural Features
WE MADE A DAY 83
the New South geographic model with dispersed housing, a nearby church, and schools. To the
tenant community, these were symbols of freedom within the system and social order of the Jim
Crow South that fell far short of equality. Mitchell Grove Baptist Church and school are particularly
important in understanding this landscape as the land was donated by a freedman to the church.
This may have heightened its significance to the black community.
The L.E. Gay Plantation in 1948 is a good example of a mature New South plantation, possessing
the key features of that plantation type: its physical connection to market and developing
agricultural infrastructure, its dispersed settlement pattern and presence of church and school to
serve the community, its use of tenant farmers, and its scale of operation. Moreover, these features
were fairly intact at the close of the tenancy era when the last tenants would move from the
property and mechanized farming, which would only require day labor, would remove the need
for tenant farmers.
GEORGIA’S TENANT ARCHITECTURE
The tenant farm landscape of Georgia grew out of the antebellum plantation tradition. Typically, it
mirrored the physical hierarchy of the slave plantation, with the finest house belonging to the
landowner and located centrally within the plantation or on the most desirable site (generally high
ground). Some tenant houses were once slave quarters but very few of these have survived into the
modern period (Messick et al. 2001:88). Other agricultural buildings, including common
equipment sheds, livestock barns, and – depending on the wealth of the land owner – sometimes
blacksmith shops or cotton gins, were usually located in a central complex near the landowner’s
house (Reinberger 2003:121; Messick et al. 2001). If present, the commissary building, typically
a plantation-based store, was often sited close to the landowner’s house, likely for surveillance and
security reasons.
Among the tenant houses, room number and size remained fairly consistent, with status defined not
only by quality of construction and finish, but also by the proximity to the landowner’s house. The
more financially stable or favored tenants generally occupied houses located on the edges of the
central complex, while the poorest of tenants or wageworkers usually occupied houses (often
former slave quarters) on the fringes of the plantation (Reinberger 2003:120–124). While tenant
farming was generally a hard and impoverished existence regardless of race, whites usually
occupied the slightly better houses, and blacks were often subjected to the worst housing (Raper
2004:63-64).
In Georgia, the most common types of tenant houses were hall and parlor, saddlebag, and central
hall, along with other two-room variations of these types (Reinberger 2003:122; Messick et al.
2001:89, Figure 6.12). Often these plan types were added on to, creating room sizes and layouts
consisting of larger front rooms (approximately 13x10-15 feet in dimension) with smaller rear
rooms (approximately 15x10 feet in dimension). The front rooms were usually the original rooms,
consisting of a kitchen and living room. The kitchen also served as the dining room and as a
bedroom for older children. The living room was the parents’ bedroom, as well as the bedroom for
the younger children (Raper 2004:63). Although room size typically did not distinguish tenant
84
Figure 6.12
Typical Tenant House Floor Plans
Single Pen
Hall and Parlor Saddle Bag
0 6 12 feet
Types Found in Historic District
Central Hall
Double Pen
Floor Plans of Tenant House Types in Georgia
Source: Redrawn from the Georgia Historic Preservation Division's House Types in Georgia (nd)
WE MADE A DAY 85
status, room number may have (Reinberger 2003:122). An oral history interview with Robert
Starling (2008), an area resident, stressed room number and size when he spoke of the houses he
and his nine siblings lived in at one point, “I had five brothers, three sisters… The last time we
stayed at Maddox… It was a big roomy house [with] four rooms and a big hallway. You could put
four beds in each room.”
The interior finish of the house was a significant indicator of the tenant’s status. Only a few of the
very best tenant houses had a plaster finish on the interior walls by the early to mid-twentieth
century. More common, but not typical, was pine board interior sheathing. Most tenant houses
did not have any interior sheathing; interior walls simply consisted of the backside of the exterior
clapboards (Reinberger 2003:122-123). In those unsheathed houses, it was common for tenants
to paste or nail up newspapers and magazines during cold weather in the fall and winter and
remove them again in the warm weather of spring and summer; however, the paper sheathing did
little to stop the damp and cold (Reinberger 2003:129; Raper 2004:63).
In single pen tenant houses, modifications varied from makeshift divisions that were sometimes
made within the house from irregular lumber in the poorest houses, to rear shed additions, to the
addition of a second large room in houses occupied by more financially stable tenants (Reinberger
2003:122; Raper 2004:62-63). Often, a single chimney heated only one room, the kitchen,
leaving the other rooms cold. In Saddlebag houses, the two front rooms shared a common
chimney. Central hall houses usually had chimneys constructed at both ends of the original
structure (Reinberger 2003:122). Overall, construction techniques remained fairly similar from
house to house; however, quality of construction varied greatly, based on the socio-economic status
of the house and its inhabitants (Reinberger 2003:122-123).
Tenant farm layout was in most cases a product of the landholding, its topography, and its
available arable soils. Worthy’s (1983:75) study of farmsteads in the Russell Reservoir on the
Savannah River in northeastern Georgia and northwestern South Carolina shows a general
preference for domestic and service building sites on hilltops and that dwellings tend to be
clustered with their respective well, privy, storage shed, and chicken house. Georgia’s agricultural
context provides further information noting that many farm houses typically face the probable path
of human approach while fields are located following natural topography, making use of the best
available lands and providing good access to the nearby fields (Messick et al. 2001:63-64). In
some Georgia examples, such as the Free Cabin site in Richmond County, tenant houses faced a
road and the fields associated with each house were located to the back of each house (Adams et
al. 2004). In terms of the immediate setting of tenant houses, some have been described with little
or no vegetation, others with swept yards, while others, where an individual tenant or tenant family
have occupied a house and farm for years, may show more defined outdoor spaces and features
that range from gardens to outbuildings (Joseph et al. 1990).
86
Figure 6.13
Historic Views of Tenant Houses, Exterior and Interior, circa 1930
Row of Tenant Farm Houses, Montezuma, Georgia
Detail of Exterior of Tenant House with Electric Meter on
Front, Green County, Georgia
Unfinished Tenant House Interior
and Narrow Shelving, Green
County, Georgia
Tenant Family with Six Children, Green County, Georgia
Courtesy of Library of Congress
WE MADE A DAY 87
L.E. GAY PLANTATION ARCHITECTURE
While a dispersed settlement plan may have symbolized a new social order for African American
tenants in the postbellum period, tenant architecture, like slave quarters before them, were a fierce
reminder of economic status within the agricultural economy. The plantation’s architecture clearly
reflects differing status amongst its inhabitants with Single Pens and small Saddlebags used as
tenant housing, a large Saddlebag with rear ell and porch designated for the manager and his
family, and a more elaborate vernacular farmhouse set aside for family use. The rock wall that
skirted the front of the plantation linked the two high status households, letting passersby as well as
the plantation community know where the plantation center and its authority was located.
While the tenant houses that were documented in the project area will be discussed individually in
the next chapter and Appendix C contains architectural drawings, some general comments about
the tenant architecture at L.E. Gay Plantation are offered here. The tenant houses that were
previously identified within the U.S. Highway 27 corridor were examples of Saddlebag, Double
and Single Pen house types. After inspection of remains at the other additional house sites and
ruins in 2010, it was determined that the Saddlebag, Double and Single Pen house types were also
represented at these sites. No log buildings were identified; all were frame buildings on pier
foundations. Weatherboard and board-and-batten siding were used for exterior cladding and
metal roofs were universal. Some tenant houses bore red exterior paint as did some outbuildings.
At some point, the paint may have been used to denote the family’s ownership. However not all
examples were painted. The narrow chimneys were constructed of brick. Glazing was found on
the windows of a few examples, as were wooden shutters. Porches were identified on some but
not on others. Most had simple rear shed extensions that were small in scale and expediently built
to provide additional space, possibly for bedrooms. The interiors were simple with no interior
partitions for closets and in some the location of the kitchen could not be determined. Most of the
mantles are no longer in place but one example survives suggesting that the mantles were executed
with simplicity in design. An example at the southern end of the plantation had interior paneled
doors while Tenant House 8 had doors made of boards (Figure 6.14).
These house types are well represented historically in Georgia’s agricultural landscapes. Single
Pens are usually square or rectangular buildings containing one room and were typically built
between 1850 and 1900. Double-pen houses have two rooms that are usually square and were
typically built between the 1870s and the 1930s. Tenant House 8, known as Sugar Boy’s Cabin,
is an example of a board-and-batten clad Single Pen house (Figure 6.15).
The Saddlebag is distinctive as it consists of a central chimney flanked by two rooms. Built in three
historic periods, some of the earliest Saddlebags identified within rural agricultural areas date to
the 1830s and 1840s. Later, they were built as modest housing, such as tenant houses, between
1870 and 1900, and then enjoyed a third period of popularity between 1910 and 1930 when
they were used to house mill workers. The L.E. Gay Plantation’s origin in the 1880s is consistent
with the dates for the second period of Saddlebag construction. It appears to have been the
preferred building type for the plantation and similar examples are found at other New South
Plantations (see Figure 6.11). The presence of Single and Double Pens in the plantation’s building
inventory may speak to what was present on the land when it was purchased by Callie Margaret
88
Figure 6.14
Saddle Bag Tenant House, County Road 55
House Front
Back of House
Fireplace, West Room Fireplace, East Room
Building Interior
Window Detail
WE MADE A DAY 89
Figure 6.15
Tenant Houses 1 and 8, U.S. Highway 27
Tenant House 1, Front Tenant House 1, Context View
Tenant House 1, Interior
Tenant House 8 (Sugar Boys Cabin)
Tenant House 8, Door and Mantle Detail Tenant House 8, Interior Finish
90
Gay. For example, Tenant House 8, noted above as a board-and-batten Single Pen, was part of
the 20-acre tract held by the Snells and may have been home to P. B. Hussey or others in his
employ prior to its consolidation into the L.E. Gay Plantation. Other tenant houses on the west side
of the highway within the project area and in the Hussey tract may also date to this earlier tract.
Saddlebags were the predominant house type within the entire plantation’s building inventory
(Figures 6.16 and 6.17). Two doors accessed the building interior, which was split into four
rooms, counting the rear shed addition. A double-sided hearth heated the front rooms.
Southall (2007) noted that only one of the tenant houses identified in the corridor possessed a full
front porch when surveyed in 1994. This house was later identified as the manager’s house that is
described below. Historic views, oral history, and tax records indicate that some of the other
houses did have porches. The tenant house at the southern perimeter of the plantation had a
porch, as did the “Alabama” examples (see Figure 6.16). Tenant House 5 to the north of the
plantation center may have had a porch at one point as a drip line was identified. However, the
Saddlebag houses along U.S. Highway 27 did not.
The setting of the buildings along the highway was typical, with the buildings oriented toward the
road and surrounded by fields. Use of these properties for storage after the 1950s by the Mathews
family took its toll, as did highway improvements and general neglect, leaving few aspects of their
settings preserved. Vegetation disguises much of the original settings of the buildings that were
located off the road but a “square dug” well was noted at the tenant house cluster along County
Road 55 as well as house debris. However, in some cases, vegetation also provided clues to
original plantings. Landscape plants such as daffodils were discerned at some of the sites.
While the farm manager’s house bears the same house plan and building materials as many of its
tenant house counterparts, its size made for a very different living experience. It is an ample frame
Saddlebag with a full rear addition. Situated northeast of the main house, it is slightly angled on a
northeast-southwest axis rather than aligned with the highway (Figure 6.14 and 6.15). Covered in
weatherboards, it sits on fieldstone piers, and has a seamed metal roof. Its full-length front porch
has fallen, making entry difficult. The front has two doors and a window. Windows contain nineover-four-light double-hung sashes. The rear addition is buckling in the center and was unsafe to
enter. Square nails were used in the original building’s construction. Evidence of green paint is on
the front window trim. The building is still standing although the porch and rear addition are in
poor condition.
The building had a two-room plan originally but a large rear full-height addition added two rooms.
The front rooms are rectangular and share a double hearth, which still has its wood mantles intact.
The walls and floors are wood; the southern room was whitewashed while the northern room
appeared stained. Corner closets were built out in each room using the space between the hearth
and the rear wall. The building was not plumbed but had electricity installed at some point. One
of the rear rooms was used as a kitchen and both rooms in the addition were whitewashed. The
building is currently used for storage. Yard features are difficult to distinguish due to overgrown
vegetation but the cobble wall and gate entry remain in the front of the house are well preserved
defining the yard area. Notably, the cobble wall ends in a corner at the north end of the house
and continues westward. How far it went is conjectural as that portion is completely deteriorated.
WE MADE A DAY 91
Figure 6.16
Manager/Overseer’s House, Exterior Views
House Front North Elevation
South Elevation
Back of House
Colored Trim on Front Window
92
Figure 6.17
Manager/Overseer’s House, Interior Views
Whitewash Walls
Fireplace Mantle and Closet Detail of Window
WE MADE A DAY 93
The L.E. Gay Plantation residence was a vernacular frame house with a seamed metal gable roof
and a corbelled brick end chimney on its southern elevation (Figure 6.18). The date of construction
is unknown but Louis E. and Callie Margaret Gay likely constructed it in the 1880s or it may have
been built earlier by the Johnsons and then expanded by the Gay family. Partial historic
photographs give glimpses of the building. Painted weatherboards covered the exterior walls and
small decorative brackets accented the cornice under the eaves. Milled brackets, a decorative
balustrade, and double doors finished the screened recessed porch. Piers with planters lined the
entry stairs. The main entry inside the recessed screened-in porch is barely discernable in the
historic views but a transom and sidelights appear to flank the central front door. Windows
appear to contain nine-over-nine-light double-hung sashes.
A sketch plan, based on the recollection of Mrs. Mathews and not drawn to scale, suggests that the
house could have been a Central Hall house or a Georgian Cottage. Both fit from a chronological
point of view. According to the plan, the house contained a central hall flanked by two bedrooms
on either side. One of the front bedrooms was only accessed from the porch suggesting an
original “preachers room” while the other front room was accessed from the interior. The porch
may have been partially enclosed to create the latter. The photos of the house suggest it may have
originally had the proportions of a Central Hall house instead of a Georgia Cottage, with an
addition constructed on the back of the house at some point, or possibly on the front, adding the
two rooms and porch (this may be evidenced by the porch roofline in Figure 6.18). The
generously sized hall acted as the living room and the back rooms were used as a dining room
and a kitchen. Mrs. Mathews remembers a dinner bell that was located outside the side entry.
Cobblestones like those used in the rock wall were used to accent the front planting beds and
camellias appear as foundation plants. During the early 1940s, the main house was occupied by
the manager’s family. The house was destroyed by fire in the 1950s, and Airport Road now cuts
through the house site.
The architecture reflects definite differences in the status of those families that worked and lived on
the plantation. While the landscape may have contained symbols of freedom during the New
South period, the architecture also spoke to poverty, hard living, and crowded conditions for the
tenants. The manager’s house had a similar room arrangement and interior finishes as the tenant
houses, but its ample size, location, linkage to the main house, and access to the plantation center
set it apart. Trim paint, the gate, full height additions, and other attributes also point to status
differences that indicated that a person of higher status lived there. While the manager’s
Saddlebag was far superior to the tenant’s Saddlebags, it was certainly not equivalent to the main
house, which featured a variety of living spaces, architectural details, and an overall appearance
that clearly indicated it was the main house. This suggests that the study of architecture on New
South Plantations is as important as landscape analysis in parsing out what features define this
plantation type. At least at the L.E. Gay Plantation, it does not appear that there was a major
change in plantation architecture directly attributable to this plantation type. Finally, while the main
house was a substantial building with architectural details that clearly show status differences on
the plantation, it was in no way to comparable to the family’s large, columned, two-story Cuthbert
mansion. Their intown residence appears to be where the New South planting family preferred to
show their status.
94
Dining Room
Bedroom
Bedroom
Bedroom
Bedroom
Living Room
Hall
Porch
Kitchen
Entrance Pantry
Figure 6.18
Plan and Historic Views of
Gay Farm House
House Plan
View of Porch Entry and Stoop
Partial View of House, Showing Rock Wall
WE MADE A DAY 95
VII. DATA RECOVERY RESULTS
INTRODUCTION
This chapter provides the results of intensive investigations at five tenant house sites within Site
9RH41 within the L.E. Gay Plantation: Tenant Houses 2, 4, 5, 6 and 9. As pointed out in this
report’s introduction, while the tenant farm community and plantation are much larger than what
was defined at Site 9RH41, these resources would be adversely affected by the road improvement
project. The investigations looked specifically at these five resources because of these adverse
effects as well as to provide information about tenant life in southwest Georgia and the L.E. Gay
Plantation as a late nineteenth-twentieth-century tenant plantation. Archaeological investigations
were conducted in four stages at Site 9RH41. Prior to any archaeological excavations, the first
phase of investigations involved setting up a grid at a 15-foot interval around each structure and
locus. Once the grid was established, the second stage of fieldwork involved conducting a shovel
testing survey using the 15-foot grid to locate any sheet middens or potential activity areas that
surrounded each of the structures. Once the middens were identified, test units were excavated for
the third phase, and only at Tenant Houses 2, 4, 5, and 6. Test units were placed within the
densest portions of the site or within areas of the structures that had the potential to contain intact
features. The final phase of fieldwork included mechanical stripping at each building site to locate
and excavate features. The results of the fieldwork are presented in Appendix D. This appendix
includes site maps and artifact tables for each of the houses/house sites examined.
This chapter discusses the investigations that occurred at each tenant house/site. Prior to the
discussion of the archaeological investigations at the L.E. Gay Plantation, the next section provides
an overview of previous work at tenant farms in the southeast. At the conclusion of the report,
Appendix A contains the methods used in gathering the data and a full description of the historical
archaeological findings is presented in Appendix D. The findings of the prehistoric component are
presented in Appendix E. A summary account of the historical archaeological investigations is
presented here along with the results of the architectural historical study after the literature review.
The discussion is then organized by tenant structure (Tenant House 2, Tenant House 4, Tenant
House 5, Tenant House 6, and Tenant House 9). The chapter ends with a discussion of the artifact
collection.
SOUTHERN TENANCY ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDIES
In an overview of the historical archaeology of Georgia, Joseph et al. (2004) discussed tenant farm
archaeology and provided guidance for future research. Joseph et al. (2004:89-90)
recommended that the analysis of tenant settlement systems should be performed in conjunction
with oral history in order to develop a deeper appreciation and understanding of tenant life.
During the development of the scope and proposal of work for Site 9RH41, incorporating an oral
history survey as part of the data recovery investigations was important. The data gathered during
the oral history survey has certainly assisted in our interpretation and understanding of tenant life in
southwest Georgia, and has complimented the interpretations of the archaeology.
96
Additionally, Joseph et al. (2004) and Messick et al. (2001:60-91) identified agricultural
landscapes, in particular tenant landscapes, as important topics of investigation. Joseph et al.
(2004:90) also indicated that if labor systems can be determined or interpreted, they should be
applied to the analysis of material culture. Particularly, on sites with multiple tenant households,
they ask, “What evidence does the material culture of squad households and communities provide
about consumer choice and status variations in a tenant community?”
Joseph et al. (2004:90) suggested that refuse disposal patterns be examined to determine if they
reflect ethnic practices, as well as to assess changes in refuse disposal over time. In particular,
they noted the prevalence of swept yards on African American tenant sites. Through yard
sweeping, disposed refuse near the house would have been moved to the yard edge. Evidence of
sweeping would, in theory, be exhibited by dense midden ringing the yard edge. Joseph et al.
(2004:91) indicated that the analysis of subsistence remains from tenant sites should “illuminate the
nature and composition of the tenant diet…. The role of wild food sources in the tenant diet should
be examined as a possible indicator of the relative economic success of various tenant economies
and systems.” Comparisons should be made of the meat cuts and plant remains to determine if
tenant’s spent their income to procure different cuts and qualities of food, as well as to gauge what
foodstuffs were being provided by the owner.
A number of these recommendations strongly relate to the archaeological investigations at 9RH41,
specifically, the importance of: oral history to the interpretation of the tenant settlement system;
examining the relationship between labor systems and materials, culture, and tenants; studying the
refuse disposal patterns and their possible relation to ethnicity; and subsistence studies on tenant
sites.
In addition, a specific overview of the archaeology of tenancy is provided below including
pertinent research that has been conducted at the following sites: Waverly Plantation (Adams
1980); Millwood Plantation (Orser 1988); Savannah River Site (Cabak and Inkrot (1997); May
Plantation (Holland 1990); Strawberry Plains, studied by Weik (SHA Newsletter 2007); Gibson
Plantation (Trinkley et al. 1993); Hickman Cabin (Port et al. 2002); Finch Farm (Joseph et al.
1990); Free Cabin (Adams et al. 2005), and Sites 38RD1249, 38RD1260, and 38RD1262
(Trinkley et al. 2006). All of these studies helped to provide a framework for the site’s
interpretation.
WAVERLY PLANTATION
Perhaps the earliest detailed study of the archaeology of southern tenancy was performed by
William H. Adams and his colleagues, who examined Waverly Plantation tenant sites in
Mississippi, dating from around 1880 to about 1930 (Adams 1980). The project explored
material culture, economic systems, social systems, settlement systems, and settlement patterning.
Whereas geographer Merle Prunty’s (1955) settlement study had suggested distinct settlement
pattern for sharecroppers and for tenants, the work at Waverly suggested that four different
patterns existed: Work Gang Pattern, Squad Pattern, Sharecropper Pattern, and Renter Pattern.
The Work Gang Pattern reflects a continued occupation or reoccupation of slave quarters after the
Civil War. While the economic system changed, the settlement system lagged, reflecting a
persistence of organizing labor similarly to that found during slavery. The Squad residential
WE MADE A DAY 97
settlement pattern was not easily ascertained at Waverly. Several contemporaneous houses built
near each other, but away from central place nodes, were thought to be a representation of the
squad system. This system organized laborers by kin group to collectively work a parcel of land.
Although similar to the work gang, it differs by being organized by the freed slaves rather than by
the planter. The Sharecropper residential settlement pattern reflects the beginning of dispersed
settlement and contains new homes with few to no outbuildings. Since the houses were dispersed
and tools, equipment, and livestock were centralized, each unit had up to 40 acres, a house, and
few if any support buildings. The Renter pattern is similar to the sharecropper pattern in the
location of homesteads. However, there are major differences in the spatial patterning within the
individual units. Because the Renter tenants use their own tools and livestock, there is a need for
barns and sheds.
In examining economic interactions, Adams and his colleagues argued that each archaeological
site possesses a “national market” profile, exhibiting that different areas had different access to
material goods. Their examination of social systems relied on oral history and documentary
history. However, no effort was made to discuss how the different artifact assemblages might
reflect the different social classes present. There was also little attention to the examination of
refuse disposal. The work’s exceptional contribution was its elaborate description of individual
artifacts, providing an excellent artifact identification and dating resource.
MILLWOOD PLANTATION
Another important study was Charles Orser’s and his colleagues’ examination of Millwood
Plantation in Abbeville County, South Carolina and Elberton County, Georgia (Orser 1988).
Orser's biggest complaint about tenant research was that historical archaeologists “write complex
site reports as if their sites were detached from the wider historical and cultural world – as if the
sites’ inhabitants were unaffected by the world in which they moved” (Orser 1988:246). Orser
argued that a better approach was to “determine what the artifacts meant to the people who lived
there" (Orser 1988:247).
In a recent review of this work, Michael Trinkley (Trinkley et al. 2006:6) criticized this thinking,
since he argued that Orser has “difficulty arriving at the lofty goal he sets. For example, he
suggests that owner and tenant saw the plantation differently. The owner saw the plantation as
property to be bought, whereas the tenant saw it as their home. To support this, he compares the
household silver and surveying instruments from the home of the owner and documented from an
inventory with the more folksy remains found archaeologically at a tenant site, such as a
commemorative cup from a nearby town or a medallion from a carnival. Are these artifacts
evidence of a different mind-set or merely evidence of different social status or wealth? Do we
need these artifacts to remind us that owners and tenants had different places in the World?”
(Trinkley et al. 2006:6).
Trinkley did commend Orser on his documentation and exploration of the different houses and
settlements through archaeology and oral history. Rejecting South’s (1977) notion that differences
between people of different status is the result of a “broad cultural process,” he attributes the
differences to “unequal distribution of power and wealth” (Orser 1988:230). For his analysis of
artifacts, he categorized the remains as Foodways, Clothing, Household/Structural, Personal, and
98
Labor. The groupings and statistical analyses indicated that foodways artifacts were most common.
Surprisingly, however, was that while the owner and overseer have similar artifact group
percentages, so do the owner and the tenant – just in different categories. He used the same
method to look at ceramics and found that while the manager, cook, tenant, and wage hand all
had assemblages where storage containers comprised between 20 and 25 percent of the
collection, the owner’s assemblage had only 11 percent storage containers.
SAVANNAH RIVER SITE
Because of the quantity of historical and oral data available, Melanie Cabak and Mary Inkrot’s
(1997) examination of tenancy at the Savannah River Site near Aiken, South Carolina provides
excellent information for the middle Savannah River Valley. In general, a typical tenant farmstead
consisted of a frame hall-and-parlor about 563 square feet in size with a wood or brick foundation.
The average number of outbuildings was 1.5. The most common types of outbuildings that
occurred at tenant sites in the Aiken Plateau of South Carolina consisted of privies (33.9 percent),
chicken houses (26.8 percent), barns (17.9 percent), smoke houses (16.1 percent), and storage
houses (14.3 percent). However, many tenant houses had no outbuildings at all (see Cabak and
Inkrot 1997:117). Refuse disposal tended to be a sheet midden measuring on average 46,324
square feet (4,304 square meters), but ranged from 9,720 to 111,780 square feet in area (Cabak
and Inkrot 1997:148, 154). Sheet middens at owner’s houses tended to be about 38 percent
larger than that of tenants. Based on manufacturing marks, trash dumps containing primarily bottle
glass and tin cans, seemed to have been a post-1920s phenomenon (Cabak and Inkrot
1997:190).
In comparing the tenant farmer and the small landowning yeoman farmer, beyond architecture,
they found that the household material culture of tenant and yeoman differed little. Dwelling size
appeared to be the most sensitive indicator of economic status. Of particular interest, they used a
Consumer Purchase Study and found that tenure groups (e.g. sharecropper, share renter, cash
renter) spent about the same portion of their income on general categories of consumer goods –
operators/owners simply had more income to spend. Therefore, the differences would be largely
invisible in the archaeological record. However, as owners might have spent more money on
gasoline, trips to the hair dresser, and more money on domestic help, archaeologically they might
show up as a greater number of automobile parts, more cosmetics, and more domestic
convenience type items.
Cabak and Inkrot (1997:184-185) also discussed modernization. They relied primarily on
historical data but used archaeology to show that less traditional, more modern houses post dating
1950 have smaller sheet middens and lower artifact densities, which they attributed to families
living more indoors with the prevalence of electricity and plumbing.
In looking at artifacts when placed into Orser’s (1988) functional categories, Cabak and Inkrot
(1997:149) found no difference between the tenure groups. However, there was a correlation
between tenure class and ceramic cost. Owners possessed more expensive ceramics than the
tenants. Tenants, however, had more personal items than owners (Cabak and Inkrot (1997:152).
Since tenants were not investing in the upkeep of owned property, they suggest that tenants may
have had more disposable income.
WE MADE A DAY 99
MAY PLANTATION
One very interesting study was Claudia Holland’s ethnoarchaeological view of tenant farms –
specifically May Plantation in Rapides Parish, Louisiana. Her study focused on the “use of oral
testimonies to develop an interpretive framework for archaeological research on sites inhabited by
tenant farmers.” She chose May Plantation to study for four reasons: “1) it met the definition of a
plantation; 2) wage tenants and share renters were accessible for interview; 3) buildings were
available to map and photograph; and 4) it had been owned and operated by three generations
of a single family since about A.D. 1900" (Holland 1990:62).
Drawing from Gould (1971:175) and White (1977:101-102), she listed three types of
ethnographic data that can be useful for archaeological research (Holland 1990:60):
Practical data, where living people direct the archaeologist to particular sites and
describe current or recent uses of these sites, the age of the sites, who lived there, and
so on;
Specific data, where information about artifact acquisition, manufacture, function, and
classification, as well as site-specific uses are derived; and
General interpretive data, where less concrete aspects of the society or group under
investigation (e.g., social organization and kinship rules) are observed and recorded.
The data can then be used in three general ways for archaeological research: ethnographic
analogy, generating hypotheses or models, and for testing hypotheses (Stiles 1977:94). In order
to create testable hypotheses, the oral information must be available before creating a data
recovery plan and doing the actual excavation. In addition, the oral information should be
archaeologically oriented.
During historical research and oral interviews at May Plantation, Holland found that racial mixture
was common, with white and black families living side by side in an integrated community. The
houses were not restricted to particular races. Whoever needed a house to live in moved into
whatever house was available regardless of their race. The only factor affecting physical
placement of families on May Plantation was the labor arrangement with that particular tenant
(Holland 1990:63).
The settlement pattern changed significantly after the plantation became mechanized, which
gradually reduced the number of hands needed to make the crops. Share tenants were the first to
leave because they had larger fields to cultivate and greater equity in crops. As a result, those
fields became part of the wage crop. As tenants moved out, the houses were abandoned and no
longer needed. Therefore, they were torn down to expand fields. At this point, the tenant
settlements became more fragmented, resulting in what Merle Prunty (1955) referred to as the “neoplantation” which allowed the concentration of agricultural production into large fields.
Holland (1990:64) stated that the most important settlement feature at May Plantation was the
“intraplantation shifting, or movement, of tenants from house to house. The wage hands and
sharecroppers often moved to a different house for more space, better conditions, or because the
100
landlord asked them to move. This shifting of tenants within the plantation has archaeological
ramifications that parallel those associated with tenants moving from plantation to plantation” (see
also Orser 1988:132). Of the individuals interviewed by Holland, three had lived in three
different houses. This movement poses at least two problems for archaeologists. First, using
traditional techniques, they cannot realistically study the material correlates associated with each
labor system. The intraplantation movement is further complicated by shifts in labor arrangements –
e.g., from wage laborer to sharecropper, etc. Simply put, the archaeological study of tenant
economics is not possible unless it is known that only a specific type of tenant lived in particular
houses on the plantation being investigated (Holland 1990:65).
Given the knowledge of intraplantation shifting, a study of material items associated with ethnicity
would be impossible. If the landlord was primarily interested in keeping his houses full and his
labor force complete, then their race probably did not matter nor where they lived, as long as they
did a good job. Using this premise, segregated houses on tenant plantations were probably an
exception rather than normal (Holland 1990:65).
Although Holland issues these serious problems, she also provided some solutions. First, she
advocated thorough primary document research to obtain clues regarding housing, settlement, and
labor arrangements, which can be found in labor contracts, probate inventories, letters, maps,
ledgers, and other documents. Unfortunately, in many instances, such historical documents are not
extant. Second, the archaeologist should talk to present day inhabitants or, if there are none,
contact people who know about the site’s or locality’s history. It is after the historical research and
interviews are completed that the archaeologist should ascertain the best approach to getting the
most out of the archaeological record. As an example, if it were feasible to compare items
recovered from a share tenant’s house to those recovered from a wage tenant/sharecropper’s
house, then questions regarding intraplantation socioeconomics could be approached (Holland
1990:65-66).
If the oral data reveals little or nothing about the lives of the tenants on the plantation, or that a
variety of types of tenants lived there, then she suggested another approach. Once the landlord or
manager’s residence is distinguished from the tenant, they should be grouped into a general
“tenant” category. Despite problems with the interpretation, analysis of these sites may assist
archaeologists in readjusting their assumptions and hypotheses regarding specific sites (Holland
1990:66).
Other avenues of examination that could be identified through oral interviews and history are trash
disposal practices, tenant acquisition of material culture, and food procurement, consumption, and
disposal, which could be compared to the archaeological record (Holland 1990:68).
STRAWBERRY PLAINS
For the past several years, Terrance Weik of the University of South Carolina has been performing
preliminary archaeological research at the Strawberry Plains Audubon Center (SPAC). Located in
north central Mississippi, the 2,500-acre tract operated as an agricultural enterprise from about
1845 to the mid twentieth century. Research themes include “the transition from slavery to
freedom, the construction of landscapes, frameworks of cultural beliefs, exploitive labor systems,
and the dynamics of community transformation" (SHA Newsletter 2007(2):32-33).
WE MADE A DAY 101
Over 40 habitation spaces and activity areas were located during the fieldwork consisting of
artifact scatters, buildings and structures, and ruins. Archaeological testing focused on the owner’s
(Davis family) house complex, which included domestic and work areas; cemeteries; three
slave/tenant houses; and the Davis house dependencies. East of the Davis house complex were
numerous tenant house clusters and sites, as well as former agricultural fields. Artifacts were
consistent with a late antebellum through twentieth-century use of the property. Remote sensing was
used to locate burial shafts in cemeteries, fence lines, and possible structures.
Unfortunately, none of the laborers’ houses still exist. However, Weik suggested that they may
have resembled late nineteenth-century sharecropper houses that were photographed in
surrounding areas. These photos indicate that they were hewn-log cabins with shutters, stick and
clay chimneys, and tree trunk piers. Many of the later tenant houses had two or three rooms,
clapboard or board and batten exteriors, brick chimneys, and corrugated metal roofs.
Also included in this study was the collection of oral histories from former tenants and members of
the nearby Strawberry Missionary Church. David Wharton of the University of Mississippi
collected the oral history. He collected stories on farming, music, herbalism, and family life.
Historical documents examined included a store ledger that provided information on race and
individual customer names. Also examined was a World War II ration book found in a tenant
home that provided a direct link to former residents who lived on the farm as youths, as well as
links to white community members. The book allowed a look into issues such as consumption and
global circumstances of production and conflict. The results of this research are currently being
interpreted and written up (SHA Newsletter 40(2):32-33).
GIBSON PLANTATION
The Gibson Plantation tenant settlement in the Mars Bluff area near Florence, South Carolina
(Trinkley et al. 1993) was examined to look primarily at architectural change and garbage
disposal from slavery to freedom. The site was illustrated on a 1914 soil map as a double row of
seven and eight structures with a central street and was identified on a ridge overlooking the Great
Pee Dee River. The site was occupied from about 1830 to the 1950s. Three of these structures
were examined through hand excavation. The first structure was occupied from about 1860-1930;
the second structure 1830-1920s; and the third structure 1870-1950s. The houses increased in
size through time at construction. Throughout the occupation of the site there was a consistent
pattern of trash disposal, suggesting that yards were swept or otherwise kept clean of large trash.
It was not until late in tenancy that trash middens begin to be seen at the edge of the yard. The
only yard feature identified during the excavation was a possible hog wallow that dated to the
twentieth century. Trinkley et al. (1993) were able to document an increased interest in planting
hardy flowering perennials during the Postbellum period. There appeared to be little change in
material possessions from slavery to freedom. Ceramics, clothing, and toys appeared to be very
similar, reflecting an unchanging poverty.
In examining diet, there was little faunal or ethnobotanical data. Bone was highly fragmented and
much of it was pork jaw and jowl. Diet from slavery to the Postbellum period did not appear to
improve drastically. There still appeared to be little opportunity to supplement the diet with wild
plants and animals.
102
HICKMAN CABIN
Work by David Port of New South Associates at the Hickman Cabin in northern Alabama has
documented African American placement of artifacts during the tenant era rebuilding of the cabin’s
hearth, circa 1930, as well as materials associated with the cabin’s doorway which may reflect the
incorporation of African cosmology (Port et al. 2002). Ethnographic research points to several
aspects of African American cosmology, which could leave remains within house construction.
There are a number of objects that may have been interred under the floorboards, especially near
the doorway, in association with African and African American belief systems. According to Port
(Port et al. 2002:143), unusual items have been found beneath floorboards, above and below the
doorways, and in association with the hearth, which identified in African belief systems as the
thresholds of a structure.
Such ritualistic behavior has yet to be recognized at postebellum tenant sites in Georgia or South
Carolina. However, recent work by Ken Brown of the University of Houston found evidence of
ritualistic behavior at what he believed was an antebellum Prays House on St. Helena Island on the
South Carolina Coast (Brown 2001). Brown had previously found what he believed were ritualistic
materials at a Conjurer’s Cabin at the mid-nineteenth-century Levi Jordon Plantation in Brazoria
County, Texas (Brown and Brown 1998). Both of these contexts are antebellum and both are
believed to have been associated with individuals and buildings that were directly involved with
religious practice – not with rank and file individuals and domestic structures.
FINCH FARM
The Finch farmstead near Spartanburg, South Carolina contained a Victorian farmhouse built in
1896, two tenant houses, outbuildings, and trash dumps (Joseph et al. 1990). Numerous extant
buildings, including the 1896 farmhouse, were present at the site. The owner farmstead and the
tenant occupations were examined. The research focused on three themes: socio-economics,
settlement analysis, and pattern analysis comparing owner and tenant. The interior living space of
the farmhouse was 1,700 square feet, while one of the measurable tenant houses was 970 square
feet. It was determined that socio-economic status was expressed primarily through architecture
rather than other material possessions such as ceramics, glass ware, and clothing.
At Finch Farm a separation of agricultural/male and domestic/female spatial areas was found that
remained into the twentieth century. While the boundaries between house and farm were sharply
defined, the gender relations entailed in each were not so limited. At Finch Farm, men worked in
the domestic sphere and women in the agricultural world when such work was required or
preferred. It is possible that this separation of agricultural and domestic components may be class
based, as the overall position and landscaping of the farm house and yard appears to have been
motivated by social, more than gender, considerations. This pattern was also noted at the tenant
context occupied by the Webb family. The Webbs were a white tenant family who worked for the
Finches from 1929 to 1942 (Joseph et al. 1990:104).
WE MADE A DAY 103
FREE CABIN
Work at the Free Cabin tenant settlement near Hephzibah, Georgia examined two households that
were part of the Rhodes family plantation (Adams et al. 2005; Adams and Swanson 2008). The
settlement appeared to have been occupied from just after the Civil War up through the middle
twentieth century. The two houses appeared to have been hall and parlor design, which was
found to be the most common layout of tenant houses recorded across the river at the Savannah
River Site, where 22 hall and parlor tenant houses averaged 555.1 square feet in size, with a
minimum of 288 square feet and a maximum of 926 square feet (Cabak and Inkrot 1997:104).
The houses at Free Cabin measured 287 and 550 square feet.
While occupants changed over the course of the history of these two houses, some general
information about the lives of the occupants was gleaned. They were fairly self reliant, growing
crops and raising livestock for their personal consumption. They processed and preserved foods
for use throughout the year, relying heavily on locally made stoneware crocks, jugs, and jars.
Reliance on home grown produce appeared to have declined by the mid-twentieth century, as the
agricultural fields located between the two houses went out of production and an outhouse
constructed in the middle of the old field. The reliance on home produced foods indicates that local
markets either did not exist or were financially inaccessible.
The interpretation of the landscape heavily consulted the observations made by Richard
Westmacott (1996) who examined numerous modern African American yards and gardens in the
rural South. The conclusions from Free Cabin mirrored his findings. The yards were used as
extensions of the home, where cooking, washing, and food processing occurred. Yards also
moved from consisting of bare, swept ground to increased use of ornamental plantings in the front
of the house. LeMaistre (1988) found that the rear yard tended to be the focus of activities.
However, the work at Free Cabin found that side yards were also important. Upon mechanical
stripping of the site, a root pit, a multipurpose feature (associated with cooking, clothes washing,
and hog scalding), several small yard hearths, wheel ruts, a small garden space, and old fence
lines were identified. The work enabled the identification of several near yard work spaces.
The arrangement of houses in the community and the historical records indicated that the early
work relationship was probably a sharecropping agreement with the occupant providing only the
physical labor. By 1910, the agreement had changed as the occupants became renters.
SITES 38RD1249, 38RD1260, 38RD1262
Three tenant sites were examined north of Columbia, South Carolina (Trinkley et al. 2006).
Excavations at all three sites were limited to examining three features consisting of a privy at two
sites and a well at the third site. Site 38RD1262 appeared to have been occupied between 1896
and 1930. The privy contained primarily foodways and household/structural remains. The privy
at 38RD1249 provided few artifacts and its major contribution came from an examination of
construction details. At 38RD1260, the artifacts recovered from the well feature indicated that it
dated from about 1935 to 1955. The artifacts were dominated by foodways remains with a low to
moderate amount of household/structural remains. The well also produced a large assemblage of
auto parts, as well as evidence that the house had electricity. According to Trinkley et al. (2006),
unlike 38RD1262, the artifacts exhibited that the tenants had greater disposable income.
104
SUMMARY
A number of these recommendations strongly relate to the archaeological investigations at 9RH41,
significantly the importance of: oral history to the interpretation of the tenant settlement system;
examining the relationship between labor systems and materials, culture, and tenants; studying the
refuse disposal patterns and their possible relation to ethnicity; and subsistence studies on tenant
sites.
One issue that should be pointed out is that, although some similar research themes are often
employed, each study has been quite different – including this study at a portion of L.E. Gay
Plantation. The spatial and/or temporal scope is not the same for any of these studies. Each was
confined, either by project needs or research interests. The research at L.E. Gay Plantation
examines the farm community as a whole, while focusing on only a handful of the houses that were
occupied from about 1880-1950. Our study sample was defined by the parameters of the road
improvement project. In an ideal situation, we would be able to choose from a wider array of
houses that might be easier to compare and contrast, such as owner versus tenant, or a tenant
house in a clustered settlement versus an isolated tenant house. One of the advantages of studying
a cluster of several tenant houses defined only by the road improvement project, was that it
allowed us to more clearly understand the sameness of material culture caused by the blending of
assemblages of ever changing households. It also allowed us to point out differences by
accentuating idiosyncrasies that may have otherwise been overlooked.
Some studies incorporate broader time periods, examining the transition from slavery to freedom.
Our study sought to examine this transition as well, only to find out that all of the buildings dated to
the postbellum era. Other studies only examined one or two houses within a larger tenant
operation or only examine specific artifact bearing features or specific research issues. Regardless,
each study has provided valuable information that has aided our interpretation of tenancy,
providing another facet of understanding.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESULTS
This section discusses the findings at each of the L.E. Gay Plantation tenant houses that were
archaeologically examined.
TENANT HOUSE 2
Description
Tenant House 2 is a Saddlebag house with a two-room shed addition to the rear (east elevation).
The gable roof house, now mostly collapsed, was a frame structure, clad in wooden clapboard,
and roofed with corrugated metal (Figure 7.1). No foundation or piers were visible. The chimney
was brick and was centrally located between the two original rooms. There are two doors located
on the front (west) elevation, and two windows on the north elevation. The interior was sheathed in
rough lumber. The house had no interior plumbing or electricity. Machine-cut nails and or wire
nails were used in its construction. In 2007, it was partially collapsed and overgrown with
vegetation. No intensive interior inspection was undertaken due to the condition of the building but
a floor plan was drawn.
WE MADE A DAY 105
Tenant House 2
East
Addition
Addition
0 6 12 feet
Figure 7.1
Tenant House 2 Photograph, Floorplan, and Site Plan
U.S. Highway 27
0 5 10 Feet
Collapsed Area
of House
N
Tenant House 2
Portion of U-Shaped Drive
106
No historic views of the building were located and no previous tenants were identified for Tenant
House 2. The house was likely built between 1882 and 1895 as part of the newly established L.E.
Gay Plantation. It is part of a cluster of three Saddlebag Houses, identified as Tenant Houses 1-3.
All three most likely shared the same date of construction given their similar house types and their
deliberate grouping. The cluster is visible on the 1941 aerial, which shows the two tenant houses
on the east side of U.S. Highway 27 along with support structures, including a long narrow
building, located between them (see Figure 6.8). A farm road by this building leads to an
unidentified structure to the west, possibly a barn. Tenant House 2 is situated across the highway
but is centered between Tenant Houses 1 and 3, allowing distance between each household but
still maintaining a physically link between the three. Fields surround the plantation cluster on both
sides of U.S. Highway 27. The intentional grouping of Tenant Houses 1, 2, and 3 appears to
facilitate plantation operations in that sector within the larger holding. The location of the support
buildings suggests that they could have been shared space, allowing easy access to stored
equipment.
The collapsed house is encircled by a U-shaped drive and currently sits within a cultivated field. Its
front yard was cleared and grubbed as part of the 1987 improvements. The U-shaped rear drive,
which is unique to this house, is recent. It allowed use of the building for storage or for another
work-related purpose after the house was no longer inhabited (Mathews Family, personal
communication 2010).
Archaeological Results
Shovel testing in the area of Tenant House 2 indicated denser artifact deposits in an area within 60
feet from the house (Figure 7.2). Within this radius, artifact deposits were found between 0.8-1.2
feet deep. The deep depth of the artifact recovery illustrates this area has been under cultivation.
This area represents the primary sheet midden for the occupation.
Three test units (14, 15, and 16) were placed in the side yard of the house, and one (13) was
placed in the rear yard of the house. In general, the test unit excavations documented that the
sheet midden was composed of a dark brown fine sandy loam, overlying a strong brown fine
sandy clay. Only one cultural feature was identified extending into the subsoil.
This 2.5x0.8-foot elongated stain (Feature 20) was identified at the base of Test Unit 15 located in
the side yard of the house. Upon excavation of the feature fill, a small rectangular metal box
measuring 0.75x0.2 feet was recovered (Figure 7.3). The box was very corroded and upon
excavation it fell apart. Artifacts recovered were mainly identified as pieces of the box, although a
small quantity of glass and tin can fragments were also identified, along with three small pieces of
brick and a piece of wire. Flotation of the feature fill yielded botanical remains (three seeds –
dock, goosefoot, and chinaberry) but do not enlighten us on the function of the feature. Some
burned wood fragments were also recovered, but they also did not provide any information that
shed light on the purpose of the feature. Although no animal bones were found, it is possible that
the box was used to bury a child’s small pet, such as a mouse or bird, as old cardboard shoeboxes
might be used in more modern times. Those bones could have disintegrated in the acidic sandy
soil. Another option was that the box was used to hide valuables that had been since retrieved, or
was used as some other type of cache.
WE MADE A DAY 107 Figure 7.2 Map Illustrating the Artifact Distribution at Tenant House 2
Artifact
Density
*Grid is in Feet
108
Figure 7.3
Plan View and Photograph of Feature 20 in Test Unit 15
0 .5 1 foot
1.25 ft. 1.25 ft.
1.25 ft 1.25 ft.
7.5YR 5/8 Yellowish Brown Fine Sandy Clay
Plan View Feature 20
South Profile Feature 20
Figure 6.6.
Plan View and Photograph of Feature 20 in Test Unit 15
North
Metal Box 1.25 ft. bd
Feature 20: 10YR 4/3 Brown Silty Sandy Loam
7.5YR 5/8 Yellowish Brown Silty Sandy Clay
Metal Box
WE MADE A DAY 109
Four backhoe trenches were excavated to expose subsurface features (Figure 7.4). When features
were identified, the area around them was expanded to fully expose the features and investigate
the potential for any other associated features. In areas where vegetation was thick, such as
Trench 1, the trench could not be expanded. We were only able to explore the feature as it was
exposed in the trench. However, we were able to expand Trench 3 where several stains were
identified.
Four cultural features (Features 23, 27, 30, and 31) were identified in the mechanically excavated
areas. Two of these (Features 23 and 31) were small posts that are probably unrelated, given the
distance between them (Figure 7.5). Feature 27 is a rectangular shaped feature with straight sides
and a flat bottom measuring 3.8x1.7 feet and extending 1.86 feet below the base of the plow
zone (Figure 7.6). The artifact contents could not assist in definitively determining its function. The
location of this feature in the rear yard approximately 20 feet behind the house suggests that it is
probably not a privy pit, as privies tend to be located in the far yard area (see Westmacott 1996).
Given its close proximity to the house, the pit may have been used to store root crops or functioned
as an underground cupboard. Storage pits have been found in the yards of other tenant farms in
the Southeast. Work at the Savannah River Site in Aiken County, South Carolina identified a
square pit measuring 4x5.25 feet and extending 1.1 feet below subsoil. At the base were three in
situ graniteware pots and one iron pot (Crass and Brooks 1995). At Free Cabin near Hephzibah,
Georgia, New South Associates identified what was believed to be a root cellar, although it was
much larger than both of these at 11x7 feet in size. There were no in situ pots, but there was an
unusually large quantity of stoneware storage vessel fragments. The feature may have had a
superstructure over top of it, as there was a relatively narrow approach trench leading to the main
part of the feature (Adams et al. 2005).
In Back of the Big House (Vlach 1993:166) John Vlach provides evidence from a former slave who
recalled “making cupboards” and how “women that was smart would make covers for them.”
However, it is not noted how they were constructed or what they were covered with (see Young
2004). Our excavations noted pieces of sheet metal and a large fragment was present in the
profile of the feature. It is possible that the pit was covered with a large piece of sheet metal that
eventually collapsed into the pit.
Food items stored within pits might only leave residual faunal and floral remains. However, if they
were stored in glass or stoneware jars, fragments of these vessels may also be found (Young
2004:26). This feature did contain a large quantity of glassware consisting of nearly 34 percent
of the assemblage. However there was no stoneware or other types of storage vessel fragments.
Only one canning jar lid was found. Archaeobotanical remains included 133 uncharred seeds
and contained the largest and most diverse seed assemblage at the site. Eight seed taxa were
represented including one blackberry/raspberry, two edible herbs (goosefoot and pokeweed), one
vegetable (tomato), one nut (acorn), one ornamental (chinaberry), and two weedy taxa (sida and
spurge). While inconclusive, the most likely function of Feature 27 is as a storage pit for food
items. The presence of blackberry/raspberry and tomato suggests the possibility that canned
goods may have been stored in the pit.
110
Figure 7.4
Areas Mechanically Stripped at Tenant House 2
WE MADE A DAY 111
Figure 7.5
Features 23 and 31 (Posts) Illustrated in Plan View and Profile
Figure 6.9.
Features 23 and 31 (Posts) Illustrated in Plan View and Profile
North
0 0.5 1 foot
NORTH PROFILE FEATURE 23
Post Hole
Trench 3, Block 1
North
0 0.5 1 foot
NORTH PROFILE FEATURE 31
Post Hole
Trench 3, Block 1
10YR 3/2 Very Dark Grayish Brown Silty Sandy Loam
10YR 4/4 Dark Yellowish Brown Silty Sandy Loam
112
Figure 7.6
Feature 27 Illustrated in Plan View and Profile with Photographs
Block 1
Figure 6.10.
Feature 27 Illustrated in Plan View and Profile with Photographs
North
FEATURE 27
Feature 27 Plan View
Feature 27 Plan View at a Depth of 1.30 feet
Metal Objects
Brick
0 .5 1 foot
Feature 27 West Profile
A. 10YR 3/2
B. 10YR 3/3
A. 10YR 3/2
B. 10YR 3/3
A. 10YR 3/2
B. 10YR 3/3
A. 10YR 3/2 Very Dark Grayish Brown Silty Sand
B. 10YR 3/3 Dark Brown Silty Sand
0 0.5 1 foot
Feature 27 Photograph, Pre-excavation
Feature 27 Photograph of West Profile
Unexcavated
WE MADE A DAY 113
Feature 30 is a large rectangular stain measuring 8.1 by 4.9 feet (Figure 7.7). It only extended to
a maximum depth of about 0.35 feet below the base of the plow zone. A post (Feature 31) was
located in the northern half, suggesting the possibility that there was a superstructure over the
feature. As such, the stain may represent a somewhat protected surface that was covered by a
roof. Therefore, the feature could possibly represent the outline of a small shed. This feature is
located between the house and the storage pit. Yard plans in Richard Westmacott’s African
American Gardens and Yards in the Rural South indicate that sheds and utility buildings are often
located very close to the house (Westmacott 1996: Appendix 2). Sheds tended to be
multifunctional buildings. For instance, according to an elderly informant, a shed identified at a
turn-of-the-century farmstead in Davidson County, North Carolina, functioned as a place to store
sweet potatoes while the loft was used for hay storage (Westmacott 1996). Sheds are simply
buildings that cover and sometime secure a variety of items including crops and tools. The feature
did contain several farm tool parts. Some of these parts appear to possibly represent fragments of
an oil can.
Another option is that this might represent a root pit. While this interpretation was also offered for
Feature 27, nineteenth-century publications on root cellaring also illustrate shallow pits referred to
as “clamps” although deeper pits are also described (see Figure 239 in Halsted 1994). Such pits
were shallow with a layer of straw on the bottom. Root crops are heaped on top and then straw
and dirt are used to cover them. In addition, Jones and Melba Brady, in an oral history interview
with New South Associates’ staff members, indicated that "potato hills" were lined with pine
needles and pine straw. They described these features as shallow pits located in the tenant house
yards in which they stored sweet potatoes for the winter. The macrobotanical collection indicated
that wood charcoal was exclusively pine. Interestingly, pine needles were found in flotation
samples.
Both Features 27 and 30 are quite close to the house and both could have been used for the
storage of food items, although in different ways. Feature 27 may have stored preserved foods
such as canned tomatoes and preserves, while Feature 30 could have stored crops such as sweet
potatoes. Alternatively, Feature 30 could represent a shed. However, only one post hole was
found in conjunction with this feature. Although only a few features were uncovered during the
archaeology of Tenant House 2, in comparing artifact densities with feature locations, both
Features 27 and 30 were located in an area of high artifact density (see Figures 7.2 and 7.9).
This indicates that, at least in this particular instance, high artifact density correlates with the
location of features.
TENANT HOUSE 4, CORBETT HOUSE
Description
This remnant of a tenant house is located north of Tenant House 2 across from and slightly below
the plantation center. Once connected via a breezeway to a rectangular building, it served as a
rear ell and may have been a kitchen (Figure 7.8). It is a front gable, single pile, frame building
set on rock piers, clad in board and batten siding, and roofed with corrugated metal. The brick
chimney is placed on the center of the rear (east) elevation and is only partially preserved. There is
114
Figure 7.7
Features 30 and 31 Illustrated in Plan View and Profile with Photograph
Feature 30 and 31 Plan View
Fea.
31
Unexcavated Ledge Area
Metal Cup
Metal Cup
Bisection Line
Feature 30 North Wall Profile
Figure 7.7
Features 30 and 31 Illustrated in Plan View and Profile with Photograph
North
10YR 3/2 Very Dark Grayish Brown Silty Sand
Unexcavated
BLOCK 1 Feature 30 Photograph, Pre-excavation
Unexcavated
0 0.5 1 foot
WE MADE A DAY 115
Figure 7.8
Tenant House 4, Corbett House, Photograph, Floorplan, and Site Plan
U.S. Highway 27
N
Tenant House 4
Brick Rubble
Brick Rubble
0 5 10 Feet
Breezeway
0 6 12 feet
Collapsed
Tenant House 4
116
a single door in the center of the front (west) elevation and another in the center of the south
elevation, and a window in the center of the north elevation. Simple wooden planks serve as
doors and shuttered the windows. The open plan building had no interior sheathing and the
firebox was exposed without a mantle. Machine cut nails were evident in its construction so it is
likely its construction postdates 1870. Noted incorrectly as a shed or store by earlier surveyors, the
building appears to have been a separate building that may have been joined to another to
accommodate the Corbett family.
No historic views were located for this building, however, Red Corbett, a tenant farmer, and his
family, were identified as the last to use the house (Mathews Family, personal communication
2010). The house is shown on Figure 2.5 as an L-shaped building. Mr. Corbett, an elderly tenant,
who appears to have had a long association with the farm stayed on as a resident living in this
house until the 1960s when he moved to the manager’s house. Mr. Corbett died there in a tragic
fire.
The remnant of the building was covered with kudzu, the chimney was partially preserved, and
was in poor condition when recorded.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESULTS
Shovel testing indicated that the densest primary midden was within 60 feet of the house (Figure
7.9). Within this area, artifacts ranged in depth from only 0.2-3.1 feet, although on average,
artifacts were recovered from the top 1.5 feet of soil. Some areas surrounding the building had
once been under cultivation. Most of the dense deposits were found on the south side of the house
remnant, although there was one anomalously dense shovel test about 20 feet behind the building.
Four test units (9, 10, 11, and 12) were placed in the side yards. These units were placed in areas
where there were some denser deposits. In addition, each side contained piles of brick rubble that
appeared to possibly represent collapsed chimneys, either from a previously existing structure or
from portions of the building that had been razed. Also, a partially collapsed brick flue was
located on the rear of the extant building. This flue was clearly associated with the standing
structure. During fieldwork we decided to investigate the southernmost chimney since it was
associated with an area of denser deposits. In addition to these chimney remnants, a large pile of
structural debris existed inside the woods line to the rear of the building about 75 feet away. This
helped to confirm our suspicions that a structure or part of a structure had been razed. After
fieldwork was completed, it was discovered that the front part of this house was demolished and its
front and side yards were cleared and grubbed during a road widening in 1987 (see Figure 2.5).
Therefore, the rubble in the side yards and the structural debris in the woods line are related to this
demolition episode. The soil profiles varied, but the plow zone stratigraphy consisted of 0.5 feet of
very dark grayish brown sandy loam, over another 0.5 feet of brown sandy loam, over brownish
yellow sandy clay subsoil.
WE MADE A DAY 117
Figure 7.9
Map Illustrating the Artifact Distribution at Tenant House 4
Artifact
Density
*Grid is in Feet
118
Three postholes were identified, all in the same unit (Test Unit 10). The posts are of similar size
and are quite possibly related (Figure 7.10). Interestingly in the unit, there was a relatively thin
layer of yellowish gray brown clayey fill, which was also noted in adjacent Test Unit 11. This
clayey layer may be due to an effort to level the ground after structural razing.
Three mechanically excavated trenches were stripped around the house, essentially in a U-shape
(Figure 7.11), located in the side yards and rear yard. A dark stain was noted in the rear of the
house, but not in the side yards. However, the south side yard trench was expanded into a block
in the direction of Test Unit 10, where post holes were identified. Four additional posts were
found, clustered in the southeast corner of the excavation. They are all small (0.5 feet in diameter
or less) and are similar to those found in Test Unit 10 (Figure 7.12). There was no clear pattern to
the posts and, given their size, they may be related to an animal pen or some sort of fenced-in
area.
The area of the dark stain in the rear yard was expanded to better delineate it and to explore its
function. In addition to this stain, four other features were uncovered. One of the features (68) is a
post hole very similar in size to the other posts excavated (see Figure 7.12). There were two
differences in this post from the others. There were numerous charcoal flecks within it as well as a
quantity (6 grams) of corroded unidentifiable metal. All of the posts contained varying quantities of
wood charcoal. In addition, charred and uncharred seed taxa represented included hickory, oak,
and peach, as well as blackberry/raspberry, grape (probably muscadine) and goosefoot. Their
presence in the features is probably related to the overlying yard midden that later settled into these
post holes.
Three features (38-40) are thought to be related to each other. Feature 40 is a large stain
originally encountered in the initial trench excavation, which was expanded to more fully expose
the feature. Features 38 and 39 are part of the same linear stain leading to/away from Feature
40. These were encountered during trench expansion. Based on the materials that were
recovered, the level of ash and charcoal, and the irregular consistence of the soil that has a
swirling effect, Feature 40 is believed to be an outdoor hearth (Figures 7.13 and 7.14). The entire
feature was not exposed, so its complete configuration is not known. Features 38 and 39 are part
of a linear trench that extends from Feature 40 away from the house (Figures 7.15 and 7.16).
Although they are separated by several feet, this is likely due to the shallowness of the feature in
this area, which got stripped away. It is quite possible that the trench extends beyond the
excavated area, farther away from the house. The trench is approximately one foot wide and is at
least 20 feet long.
This complex of features contained 157 grams of wood charcoal, two pieces of charred hickory nut
shell, 30 charred corn cob/kernel fragments, one charred wheat grain, 10 charred seeds and 71
uncharred seeds. The recovery of domesticates including corn, wheat, peach, fig, and
watermelon, strongly suggests that food was prepared here. Other artifacts were not as telling.
The most prominent artifacts in these features were fragments of unidentifiable corroded metal as
well as nails and nail fragments. Much of this may be due to the razing of the front portion of the
house.
WE MADE A DAY 119
Figure 7.10
Plan View and Photograph of Features 15, 16, and 17 in Test Unit 10
0 0.5 1 foot
1.85 ft. 1.90 ft.
1.85 ft. 1.90 ft.
10YR 5/6 Yellowish Brown Fine Sandy Clay
Plan View of Test Unit 10, Middle of Level 8
South Profiles Features 15, 16, and 17
Feature 15/1.86 Ft.
Feature 16/1.87 Ft.
Feature 15/1.93 Ft.
1.90 ft.
Feature 15
10YR 4/2 Dark Grayish Brown
Fine Sandy Loam
10YR 4/3 Brown Fine Sandy Loam
Feature
15 Feature
16
Feature
17
10YR 3/2 Very Dark Grayish
Brown Fine Sandy Loam
Figure 6.16.
Plan View and Photograph of Features 15,16, and 17 in Test Unit 10
North
120
Figure 7.11
Areas Mechanically Stripped at Tenant House 4
WE MADE A DAY 121
Figure 7.12
Features 34, 35, 36, 37, and 68 (Posts) Illustrated in Plan View and Profile
Feature 34 - Post Hole
Plan View
North Profile
2.5Y 3/2
Very Dark
Grayish
Brown
Silty Sandy
Loam
Block 2
Feature 37 - Post Hole
Plan View
North Profile
2.5Y3/3
Dark Olive
Brown Silty
Sandy Loam
Block 2
Nail
Feature 35 - Post Hole
Plan View
North Profile
10YR 2/1
Black Fine
Sandy Loam
Block 2
Nail
Feature 68 - Post Hole
Plan View
North Profile
10YR 4/4
Dark Yellowish
Brown Sandy
Loam
Block 3
Charcoal Flecks
Feature 36 - Post Hole
Plan View
North Profile
2.5Y 3/3
Dark Olive
Brown
Silty Sandy
Loam with
Charcoal
Block 2
Figure 6.21
Features 34, 35, 36, 37 and 68 (Posts) Illustrated in Plan View and Profile
North
0 0.5 1 foot
122
Figure 7.13
Feature 40 Illustrated in Plan View with Photograph
Bisection Line
40B. 10YR 2/2 Very Dark Brown Silty
Sand with Lots of Charcoal
2.5Y 5/4 Yellowish Brown Silty Sand
40A. 2.5Y 5/3 Light Olive Brown
10YR 4/2 Dark Grayish Brown Silty Sand
10YR 4/2 Dark Grayish Brown
2.5Y 6/4 Light Yellowish Brown
with Charcoal Silty Sand
2.5Y 6/4 Light Yellowish Brown Sand
2.5Y 6/4 Light Yellowish Brown Silty Sand
10YR 5/6 Strong Brown Silty Sand
40C. 2.5Y 4/3 Olive Brown Silty Sand
40D. 10YR 2/2 Very Dark Brown Silty
Sand with Charcoal
10YR 4/2 Dark Grayish Brown Silty Sand
2.5Y 4/4 Olive Brown Silty Sand
Figure 6.24.
Feature 40 Illustrated in Plan View with Photograph
North 0 0.5 1 foot
FEATURE 40 PLAN VIEW
Block 3
40A
40C
40B
40D
Feature 40 Photograph, Pre-excavation
WE MADE A DAY 123
Figure 7.14
Feature 40 Illustrated in Profile with Photograph
4OA. 2.5Y 4/3 Olive Brown Silty Sand
10YR 4/2 Dark Grayish Brown Silty Sand (Medium Charcoal)
2.5Y 3/3 Dark Olive Brown Silty Sand
2.5Y 5/4 Light Olive Sand with 2.5Y 7/4 Pale Yellow Sand
Unexcavated
2.5Y 3/2 Very Dark Grayish Brown Silty Sand
2.5Y 4/4 Olive Brown Silty Sand
40 L.2. 2.5Y 5/4 Light Olive Sand with 2.5Y 7/4 Pale Yellow Sand
40 L.1. 10YR 4/2 Dark Grayish Brown Silty Sand (Lots of Charcoal)
10YR 4/4 Dark Yellowish Brown Silty Sand (Medium/Low Charcoal)
10YR 5/6 Yellowish Brown Silty Sand
Unexcavated
40A.
40 L.1
40 L.2
Feature 40 West Profile
Feature 40 South Profile
Metal Object
Feature 40 Photograph of South Profile
0 0.5 1 foot
0 0.5 1 foot
Figure 6.25.
Feature 40 Illustrated in Profile with Photograph
FEATURE 40 South Profile
Block 3
124
Figure 7.15
Feature 38 Illustrated in Plan View and Profile
Line Level
Surface
0 4.0 3.6 2.0 1.0 3.0
0 0 .5 1 foot
7.5YR 5/8 Yellowish Brown Fine Sandy Clay
10YR 2/1 Black Fine Sandy Clay Loam
Artifact
Figure 6.22.
Feature 38 Illustrated in Plan View and Profile
Block 3
Block 3
North
Feature 38 Plan View
Feature 38 South Profile
Unexcavated
Unexcavated
WE MADE A DAY 125 Figure 7.16 Figure 6.23. Feature 39 Illustrated in Plan View and Profile with Photograph Feature 39 Illustrated in Plan and Profile with Photograph
Block 3
Feature 39 Plan View
West Section Feature 40
Feature Crossection
East Section
Heavy Concentration of Corroded Metal
Bisection Line South-West Section Bisection Line East Section
North
Feature 39 South and Southwest Profile
Feature 39 Plan View
0 1 foot
0 1 foot
10YR 2/2 Very Brown Fine Sandy Loam
10YR 4/4 Dark Yellowish Brown Fine Sandy Loam
10YR 3/3 Dark Brown Fine Sandy Loam
7.5YR 5/8 or 10YR 5/8
Strong Brown Fine Sandy Clay (subsoil) Unexcavated
Feature 40
Unexcavated
Feature 39 Photograph, Pre-excavation
126
The Features 38/39 trench may have functioned to direct liquids away from the hearth, work area,
and house. It is possible that, not only cooking was done over the hearth, but also laundry,
canning and preserving, and other work tasks that required the heating of liquids. Heavy pots
filled with water would be difficult to lift and haul away from the house to be dumped. Therefore,
pots may have been tipped in place to allow liquids to be diverted away from the hearth, work
area and house. In fact, due to the elongated configuration of the exposed portion of Feature 40,
this may be the edge of the hearth area where liquids were actually dumped.
Like Features 39-40, Feature 41 contained large quantities of corroded metal. The oval bowlshaped feature measured 1.25x0.9 feet in size (Figure 7.17) and lay immediately adjacent to the
trench. Wood charcoal was relatively dense in this feature and 85 uncharred seeds were
recovered. Amongst the seed remains were blackberry/raspberry, beebalm, goosefoot,
pokeweed, wild bean, chinaberry, and morning glory. Given the similarity of contents
(unidentifiable metal, wood charcoal, and numerous seeds), the feature may be related to the
hearth complex or could have functioned as a nearby temporary hearth that is unrelated to Features
39-40. However, its actual function is unknown and its relationship to the other features is unclear.
As with Tenant House 2, substantial features were found in the areas with the highest artifact
density. It should be noted that relatively few artifacts were found in relation to the brick rubble
piles on each side of the house. Excavations revealed no house-related architectural features in
these locations and it is probable that these areas represent locations where brick from the front
part of the house was piled during demolition.
TENANT HOUSE 5
Description
Tenant House 5 is located to the northeast of Tenant House 4, and is a single pen house with a
side (north) and rear (east) addition (Figure 7.18). The house is a frame structure, set on a rock
pier foundation, clad in wooden clapboards and board and batten siding, and roofed with
corrugated metal. While no physical evidence of a porch was found, a drip line was visible the
length of the front, suggesting it once had a full front porch. The chimney is brick and is located in
the center of the south elevation. There is a door located just west of the chimney, a second in the
west elevation, and a third in the east elevation. There are two small windows in the south
elevation, and a third next to the door in the west elevation. They appear to have been glazed as
glass shards were encountered. There was no interior sheathing, interior doors were plank, and
some interior walls had narrow strips of wood attached for shelving purposes (Figure 7.19). The
fireplace and mantle were intact; the modest mantle was constructed of horizontal planks. The
building had no interior plumbing but showed evidence of electrical wiring suggesting that it had
been modified for electricity. The north elevation has collapsed and overall the building was in a
state of ruin. Spring flowering bulbs around both Tenant Houses 5 and 6 attest to the gardening
efforts of an earlier occupant.
WE MADE A DAY 127
Figure 7.17
Features 41 Illustrated in Plan View and Profile with Photograph
Figure 6.26.
Feature 41 Illustrated in Plan View and Profile with Photograph
North
Feature 41
Block 3
0 .25 .5 feet
10YR 3/2 Very Dark Grayish Brown Silty Sand
10YR 6/6 Brownish Yellow Sand
10YR 3/2 Very Dark Yellow Sand Mottled with
10YR 6/6 Brownish Yellow Sand
Feature 41 South Profile
Feature 41 Plan View
Feature 41 Photograph, Pre-excavation
128
Tenant House 5
North Addition
Collapsed
East
Addition
0 6 12 feet
Figure 7.18
Tenant House 5 Photograph, Floorplan, and Site Plan
U.S. Highway 27
0 5 10 Feet
Collapsed Area
of House
Impression of Porch
No Longer Standing
N
WE MADE A DAY 129
Figure 7.19
Interior Views of Tenant House 5
Original Room
Mantle and Fireplace Interior of Shed Addition
130
This house and Tenant House 6 share a building type and general construction elements. Historic
aerials and the 1987 GDOT map shows there was a third building that was part of this building
cluster that may also have been similar in plan and construction. This similarity suggests a temporal
link that is underscored by their geography and the building’s settings. It is possible that this tenant
house grouping predates the L.E. Gay Plantation and were part of the Weaver Farm on which
seven hands were employed. The 1941 aerial shows the houses situated within a narrow band of
open area that stretched along the east side of the highway (Figure 6.10). Woods then fields lie to
the east of the buildings; their association with fields is less direct than their southern counterparts.
The front yard had been grubbed and cleared as part of the 1987 improvements and the current
side was wooded.
Archaeological Results
Tenant House 5 is the first in a line of three houses (Tenant House 5, 6, and 9), which appear on
the 1941 aerial map (Figure 6.8). The shovel-testing grid in this area incorporated all three
houses. However, tests thought to contain artifacts related to each occupation were examined
separately. The densest deposits associated with Tenant House 5 were in the rear yard area within
about 45 feet of the house (Figure 7.20). Light side yard deposits were also observed within about
20 feet of the house. In general, artifacts were found in the top 1.3 feet of soil. No evidence of
plowing was found in the immediate house area, although locations further away appeared to
have once been under cultivation. In fact, the 1987 (see Figure 2.5) map of road improvements
labels the area south of the house as cultivated.
Four test units (5, 6, 7, and 8) were placed in the near yard area. Three of these (5, 6, and 7)
were excavated in the rear yard, while one (8) was placed in the front/side yard. Generally
speaking, the soil profiles consisted of a thin layer of very dark duff overlying dark gray sandy
loam, over light olive brown, sandy clay, over pale yellow silty sand over sterile olive yellow sandy
clay. Four cultural features were identified during unit excavation.
At about 1.1 feet below surface, two post holes (Features 8 and 9) were identified in Test Unit 6.
They are unrelated as they are morphologically quite different (Figure 7.21). Feature 8 is square,
measuring about 0.7 feet on a side and extending about 0.5 feet below the level it was first
identified. Feature 9 is circular, measuring only about 0.3 feet in diameter and extending about
0.3 feet.
Features 12 and 13 were identified in Test Unit 8 (Figures 7.22 and 7.23). Feature 12 is a large
somewhat amorphous stain that was identified at about 1.05 feet below surface and extended only
another 0.2 feet. It is believed to simply be the base of organic midden soils that extended a little
deeper than the surrounding soils. Upon excavation, Feature 13 became obvious. Feature 13 is
thought to represent a post hole. It is circular, measuring approximately one foot in diameter and
extending about 0.6 feet below the base of the midden. There were relatively few artifacts in these
features and consisted entirely of glass – both bottle and window glass. The archaeobotanical
seed remains were represented by blackberry/raspberry, grape, dock, and goosefoot. Wood was
primarily represented by pine, with some oak as well. This assemblage did not appear to suggest
that any specific activities occurred in this location.
WE MADE A DAY 131 Figure 7.20 Map Illustrating the Artifact Distribution at Tenant House 5
Artifact
Density
*Grid is in Feet
132
Figure 7.21
Plan View and Photograph of Features 8 and 9 in Test Unit 6
0 0.5 1 foot
1.14 ft. 1.12 ft.
1.09 ft. 1.16 ft.
10YR 5/2 Grayish Brown Silty Sandy Loam
Plan View Features 8 and 9
Profile Features 8 and 9
10YR 5/2 Grayish Brown Silty Sandy Loam
Figure 6.33.
Plan View and Photograph of Features 8 and 9 in Test Unit 6
North
10YR 2/1 Black
Silty Sandy Loam
2.5YR 3/6 Dark
Yellowish Brown
Silty Sandy Loam
Feature 8 West Profile Feature 9 South Profile
Test Unit 6 Bottom of Level 3/Top of Level 4
1.10 ft.
WE MADE A DAY 133
Figure 7.22
Plan View and Photograph of Feature 12 in Test Unit 8
0 0.5 1 foot
1.05 ft. 0.98 ft.
0.98 ft. 1.02 ft.
10YR 5/3 Brown Silty Sandy Loam
Plan View Feature 12 - Bottom Level 4
North Wall Profile Feature 12
Figure 6.37.
Plan View and Photograph of Feature 12 in Test Unit 8
North
0.85—
1.05—
1.25—
1.45—
Feet
Feature 12 : 10YR 3/2 Mottled with 10YR 5/4
Shadow Area Around F-12 :10YR 5/4
10YR 3/2 Very Dark Grayish Brown Silty Sandy Loam
10YR 5/4 Yellowish Brown Silty Sandy Loam
1.05 ft.
134
Figure 7.23
Plan View and Photograph of Feature 13 in Test Unit 8
0 0.5 1 foot
1.44 ft. 1.43 ft.
1.44 ft. 1.02 ft.
10YR 5/6 Yellowish Brown Fine Sandy Clay
Plan View Feature 13 - Bottom Level 5
West Profile Feature 13
Figure 6.38.
Plan View and Photograph of Feature 13 in Test Unit 8
North
10YR 3/2 Very Dark Grayish Brown Silty
Sandy Loam
10YR 5/4 Yellowish Brown Fine Sandy Clay
Feature 13
WE MADE A DAY 135
Three backhoe trenches were excavated in the yard (Figure 7.24). Unfortunately, due to the thickly
wooded nature of the yard, the location and extent of these trenches was dictated primarily by the
ability of the heavy equipment to maneuver. In fact, one backhoe operator punctured his radiator
during the excavation. Trench 10 extended from the front door of the house out toward the street,
while Trench 9 extended perpendicularly from Trench 10 to the north. No features were identified
here. Trench 8 extended along the north side of the house into the rear yard. While no features
were identified here, the east end of the trench was expanded into a block behind the house, since
that is where the vast majority of artifacts were found during shovel testing. Unfortunately, we were
unable to expand the block to the west of Test Unit 6, which was the location of the densest
remains.
The block exposed six cultural features, all representing small posts of the same size -
approximately 0.6 feet in diameter (Figure 7.25). While they did not display a pattern, it seems
likely that they all have the same function as fence posts due to their small size.
TENANT HOUSE 6, OUTBUILDING, AND WELL PUMP
Description
Tenant House 6 is located next to Tenant House 5 (to the northeast), and is identical to Tenant
House 5, but in somewhat better condition (Figures 7.26, and see Figure 7.20). The frame single
pen with additions is set on a rock pier foundation, clad in wooden clapboard, and roofed with
corrugated metal. Its exterior was once painted red. The chimney was located in the center of the
south elevation, but has collapsed or been removed. There is a door located just west of the
chimney, two in the west elevation, and a third in the east elevation. There are three small
windows with frame shutters in the south elevation; two flank the chimney. A fourth window that
was once glazed was located just north of the southernmost door in the west elevation.
The interior featured plank floors and plank walls. The wood fireplace surround is still in place but
the firebox and chimney are no longer intact. The ceiling was sheathed with wood laminated
paneling that now hangs in strips. This building was electrified but had no interior plumbing. It
appears to have been occupied later than the other tenant house examples given these updates.
The house also had a frame outbuilding located to the north of the house in a wooded setting. It is
a one-story, open bay building on rock piers with a gable raised seam roof (Figure 7.27). Only
one door accessed the building; a small opening/vent is centered over the door under the gable. It
appears to have been used for crop storage and at the time of documentation was in good
condition. A well pump was located at this site along with spring flowering plantings.
No historic views were found of these buildings and no previous tenants were identified that had
lived in the house. As discussed above, this house and Tenant House 5 share a building type and
construction. This similarity suggests a temporal link that is underscored by their geography and
shared setting. It is possible that this tenant house grouping predates the L.E. Gay Plantation and
was part of an earlier farm operation associated with the Weaver or Hussey tenures.
136
Figure 7.24
Areas Mechanically Stripped at Tenant House 5
WE MADE A DAY 137
Figure 7.25
Features 45, 48, 49, 55, 59, and 60 (Posts) Illustrated in Plan View and Profile
Feature 45 - Post Hole
Plan View
North Profile
2.5Y 3/2
Very Dark
Grayish
Brown Fine
Sandy Clay
Loam
Block 4
Feature 55 - Post Hole
Plan View
North Profile
10YR 3/2
Very Dark
Grayish
Brown Fine
Sandy Clay
Loam
Block 4
Feature 48 - Post Hole
Plan View
South Profile
10YR 3/3
Dark Brown
Fine Sandy
Clay Loam
Block 4
Feature 59 - Post Hole
Plan View
North Profile
Block 4
Feature 49 - Post Hole
Plan View
North Profile
10YR 3/2
Very Dark
Grayish
Brown Fine
Sandy Clay
Loam
Block 4
Feature 60 - Post Hole
Plan View
West Profile
Block 4
Rock
10YR 3/2
Very Dark
Grayish
Brown Fine
Sandy Clay
Loam
Rock
10YR 3/2
Very Dark
Grayish
Brown Fine
Sandy Clay
Loam
Figure 6.40
Features 45, 48, 49, 55, 59 and 60 (Posts) Illustrated in Plan View and Profile
North
0 0.5 1 foot
138
Tenant House 6
North Addition
East
Addition
0 6 12 feet
Figure 7.26
Tenant House 6 Photograph, Floorplan, and Site Plan
U.S. Highway 27
0 5 10 Feet
N
Tenant House 6
Outbuilding
Wellpump
WE MADE A DAY 139
Figure 7.27
Tenant House 6 Outbuilding and Well Pump
South Elevation
West Elevation
East Wall Interior
Water Pump
140
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESULTS
Shovel testing at Tenant House 6 indicated relatively light yard midden, with concentrations in the
rear and side yards within 45 feet of the house (Figure 7.28). It should be noted that there were
two above ground structures in close proximity to the house. The first is a well pump located
approximately 60 feet south of the house along the road, between Tenant House 5 and 6. The
pump was marked with a patent date of April 28, 1918 and a place of manufacture, Ashland,
Ohio. There is a number (1014) on the handle, which is probably its model number. F. E. Myers
and Bro. Company manufactured well pumps in Ashland, Ohio. Founded in 1870 by brothers
Frances and Philip Myers, they began by building farm implements then engineered and
manufactured the first double-acting hand pump. Its location suggests it was a shared source of
water. Artifact density was light in the location of the pump.
The second building is probably a crop storage shed, given its raised foundation. It is located in
the rear side yard, approximately 75 feet to the northeast. This shed may have been used by the
occupants of Tenant House 6 or occupants of now demolished Tenant House 9. It is also possible
that it was a shared building. Artifact density was light in the location of the crop shed.
Four test units (1, 2, 3, and 4) were placed in the yard. Test Unit 1 incorporated the fireplace box
for the house. The chimney is no longer standing. Units 2 and 3 were placed in the rear yard
midden, while Unit 4 was place in the side yard midden, north of the house. Within the yard area,
the soil profile generally consisted of a thin layer of duff overlying a brown clay loam, over strong
brown sandy clay subsoil. Subsoil was found at a depth of about 0.8 feet to 1.0 foot below
ground surface. The test unit excavated within the hearth extended to about 1.2 feet below surface
and mainly consisted of excavating out the hearth interior.
Feature 1 is the fireplace box, while Features 2 and 3 were stains found at the base of excavations
within the fireplace box. It is thought that they represent rodent burrows (Figure 7.29). The
artifacts within the fireplace box and unit were similar to those found elsewhere at the site,
consisting of fragments of container glass, ceramics, nails, window glass, and other items. A 1953
wheat penny was found within the unit. Some faunal material was recovered from the excavations
including one bird bone, one reptile/amphibian bone, and 16 unidentifiable bone fragments. The
flotation samples contained a large amount of rodent droppings and lots of very small
mouse/shrew bones. A number of uncharred seeds were also recovered which were probably
deposited by the rodents nesting in the fireplace after the house was abandoned. Given the type
of bones present and the large amount of rodent droppings, it is quite probable that all the faunal
remains found in Feature 1 are related to nesting animals and not food. Also in the flotation
sample were high densities of resin representing over 80 percent of the carbonized sample. This
probably resulted from hot, fast burning fires. Carbonized wood included a large quantity of poor
fuelwoods, including pine, basswood, pecan, and birch. Hardwoods made up less than 30
percent of the fuelwood assemblage. This indicates that the occupants had poor access to high
quality fuel woods.
WE MADE A DAY 141 Figure 7.28 Map Illustrating the Artifact Distribution at Tenant House 6 Figure 6.42. Surfer Map Illustrating the Artifact Distribution at Tenant House 6
Artifact
Densitiy
Grid Is In Feet *Grid is in Feet
142
Figure 7.29
Photograph and Plan View of Test Unit 1 Illustrating Features 1, 2, and 3
Plan View Features 1, 2, 3 - Bottom Level 3
Feature 1
Feature 2
Feature 3
Interior Floor Joist
Wooden Beam that sits Over Feature 1
South Level Profile - Features 1, 2, 3 - Bottom Level 3
2.57 ft. bd
Floor Joist Beams
are Elevated
Above Test Unit
and Features
Figure 6.45.
Photograph and Plan View Map of Test Unit 1 Illustrating Features 1, 2, and 3
North
10YR 3/4 Dark Yellowish Brown Fine Sandy Clay
0 0.5 1 foot
Feature 3 Feature 2
0 0.25 0.5 foot
Feature 1: 10YR 3/2 Very Dark Grayish
Brown Silty Sandy Loam
Feature 2: 10YR 2/1 Black Silty Sandy
Loam, Oily
Feature 3: 10YR 2/1 Black Silty Sandy
Loam, Oily
Remains of Brick Chimney
Features
Mortar
2.63 ft. bd
2.55 ft. bd
2.19 ft. bd 2.04 ft. bd
WE MADE A DAY 143
Three post holes (Features 5, 6, and 7) and a portion of a rectangular feature (Feature 4) were
identified in Test Units 2 and 3, located in the rear yard (Figure 7.30). All three of the post holes
are roughly the same size and configuration and probably reflect the same (Figure 7.31 and
7.32). They are all round and approximately 0.4 feet in diameter. These are probably fence
posts, and it is possible that they are related. If so, these features are late, as the base of a cola
bottle was recovered from Feature 5 embossed with the date 1959.
Upon identification, Feature 4 was found to be very shallow, extending only about 0.1 feet (Figure
7.33). While one could conclude that it is a low area in the overlying midden, its sharp, angular
plan suggests that it is not. However, its function is not known. Only eight artifacts were recovered
and they include bottle glass, window glass, and nails.
Like Tenant House 5, the area surrounding Tenant House 6 was thickly wooded, making
mechanical stripping a real challenge. As such, no trenching could be performed. However, four
localized blocks were placed in the front and rear yards. Unfortunately, their location was dictated
primarily by the ability of heavy equipment to access the area (Figure 7.34). Five features were
uncovered and excavated.
Feature 61 as located in the rear yard near the northeast corner of the house. It is a large,
rectangular stain measuring 5.3x2.7 feet. It was found to be shallow, extending only about 0.3
feet into the subsoil. Upon excavation of the feature a small circular stain (referred to as Feature
61A) was found on the east end. This stain appears to represent as circular post (Figure 7.35). It
as oval, measuring 0.7x0.4 feet and extending to 0.8 feet below Feature 61. The artifacts from
Feature 61 did not provide any clues as to function. They consisted of bottle glass, ceramics,
window glass, nails, and unidentifiable metal. Only 16 artifacts were recovered. The
archaeobotanical remains were also silent as to function. A very small amount of wood charcoal
was recovered along with four chinaberry seeds. This feature is very similar to Feature 30 found at
Tenant House 2 in the sense that it is rectangular and contained a post at the base. However,
Feature 61 is smaller in comparison, as Feature 30 measured 8.1x4.9 feet. Regardless of the size
difference, these two features may have functioned similarly, particular as the root pit option. It is
probably too small to represent a shed.
Feature 62 is a square brick pad that was found located in the front yard, just beyond the front
door where steps would have landed (Figure 7.36). The bricks were dry laid, making a pad
measuring approximately 2.5 feet square. The relatively large amount of wood charcoal recovered
from the float sample of the surrounding soil matrix suggests the possibility that, on some occasions,
the contents of the fireplace was cleaned out and tossed out the front door.
Features 63 and 64 are linear stains that extend roughly parallel to the back of the house and may
be all part of the same feature. Combined, they measure 11 feet in length and 1.2 feet in width.
Both extended to a depth of 0.5 feet (Figure 7.37). They are similar to the linear features (38 and
39) found at Tenant House 4. Interestingly, over half of the contents were architectural, with quite
a few nails. Also a large quantity of container glass as well as a quantity of unidentifiable
144
Figure 7.30
Areas Mechanically Stripped at Tenant House 6
WE MADE A DAY 145
Figure 7.31
Plan View and Photograph of Feature 7 in Test Unit 2
0 .5 1 foot
Feature 7
Fill: 10YR 5/4 Yellowish
Brown Silty Sandy Loam
Feature 7
2.25 ft. 2.20 ft.
1.91 ft. 1.90 ft.
10YR 5/8 Yellowish Brown Silty Sandy Clay (Subsoil)
Plan View of Test Unit 2, Bottom of Level 7
North Profile Feature 7
2.58 ft.
Figure 6.48.
Plan View and Photograph of Feature 7 in Test Unit 2
North
Feature 7 Photograph
in Test Unit 3
146
Figure 7.32
Plan View and Profile of Features 5 and 6, with Photograph of Feature 6 in Test Unit 3
0 0.5 1 foot
Feature 5
Fill: 10YR 4/3 and 10YR 5/3
Brown Silty Sandy Loam
Feature 5
1.57 ft. 1.58 ft.
1.57 ft. 1.58 ft.
10YR 6/8 Brownish Yellow Fine Sandy Clay
Plan View of Test Unit 3, Bottom of Level 6
North Profiles Features 5 and 6
Feature 6
Feature 6
Fill: 10YR 4/3
Brown Silty Sandy Loam
1.61 ft.
1.59 ft.
Figure 6.51.
Plan View and Photograph of Features 5 and 6 in Test Unit 3
North
Feature 6 Photograph
in Test Unit 3
WE MADE A DAY 147
Figure 7.33
Plan View and Photograph of Feature 4 in Test Unit 3
0 0.5 1 foot
1.24 ft. 1.20 ft.
1.27 ft. 1.21 ft.
Plan View of Test Unit 3, Top of Level 4
Feature 4 West Profile
Feature
4
10YR 3/2 Very Dark Grayish Brown Silty Sandy Loam
10YR 5/3 Brown Fine Sandy Loam
Brick
Feature 4 Photograph in Test Unit 3
North
Figure 6.50.
Plan View and Photograph of Feature 4 in Test Unit 3
148
Figure 7.34 Figure 6.58. Shovel Testing Grid at Tenant House 9 Shovel Testing Grid at Locus 5
Positive Shovel Test
Negative Shovel Test
Not Excavated
Grid is in feet Tenant House Site 9
WE MADE A DAY 149 Figure 6.54. Figure 7.35 Features 61 and 61A in Plan and Profile Features 61 and 61A in Plan View and Profile
0 1 2 feet
Feature 61 and 61A (Post) Plan View
Feature 61 South Profile
5YR 6/8 Reddish Yellow Fine Sandy Clay
10YR 3/2 Very Dark Grayish Brown Fine Sandy Clay Loam (F60 and 61A)
61A
Cross Section
Feature 61A West Profile
0 0.5 1 2 feet
North
BLOCK 6
Unexcavated
Unexcavated
150
Figure 7.36
Feature 62 Illustrated in Plan View and Profile
Feature 62 Cross Section - West Profile
North
Feature 62 Plan View - 21 Bricks
Feature 62 Overhead Plan View
Tenant House 6
Door Frame
Wood Floor
0 0.5 1foot
About 4 feet
Figure 6.55.
Feature 62 Illustrated in Plan View and Profile
Soil: 10YR 2/2 Very Dark
Brown Fine Sandy Loam
BLOCK 8
Feature 62 Photograph of Cross Section
WE MADE A DAY 151 Figure 6.56. Figure 7.37 Features 63 and 64 Illustrated in Plan and Profiles Features 63 and 64 Illustrated in Plan View and Profiles
10YR 2/2 Very Dark Brown Fine Sandy Loam Flecked with Charcoal
10YR 5/3 Brown Fine Sandy Loam
Unexcavated
10YR 3/3 Dark Brown Fine Sandy Loam
10YR 4/4 Dark Yellowish Brown Fine Sandy Loam
Unexcavated
BLOCK 5
0 1 2 feet
Feature 63 Plan View
Feature 64 Plan View
Feature 63 West Profile Feature 64 East Profile
Bisection Line
Bisection Line
0 1 2 feet
North
Unexcavated Unexcavated
152
corroded metal pieces was found within the features. The features contained a large quantity of
wood charcoal, possibly representing spent fuel remains. Also found were 11 carbonized corn
cob fragments, one carbonized blackberry/raspberry seed, and three uncharred
blackberry/raspberry seeds. The recovery of charred food remains suggests that the stain relates
to cooking.
It should be noted that a large quantity of corn cob remains were also found in Features 38 and
39. It could be logically postulated that the features functioned similarly. It may also be possible
that the stain is a builder’s trench or drip line for a building used to store agricultural produce, such
as a corn crib. However, Westmacott’s (1992) yard and garden plans for African American
households strongly suggest that buildings used to store agricultural produce are rarely, if ever, in
such close proximity to the house. In this case, the building is within about 20 feet.
Feature 67 was found about eight feet away from and in line with the linear trench features 62 and
63. It is a squarish stain, measuring 1.2x0.9 feet and extending only 0.26 feet below subsoil. It
appears to be too shallow to be a post hole. Also, the feature contained a lens of soil with a high
charcoal content (Figure 7.38). It is quite possible that this feature represents a truncated hearth.
However, the artifact contents are not revealing, with only 13 pieces of container glass, a brick
fragment, nail, and a piece of unidentifiable corroded iron recovered. The flotation sample
collected from this feature had a large amount of wood charcoal, suggesting that wood was
burned here.
TENANT HOUSE SITE 9
There was no extant structure in this location and no surface indications of a former structure.
However, the 1941 aerial photograph shows that a house once stood in this location and the
1987 highway plan map shows a building that was within the new right of way (Figure 2.5). The
building was denoted as a rectangular frame house. Because the previous archaeology had not
found substantial deposits in this area, shovel testing was the only archaeological investigation that
occurred. The extent of the shovel testing was based on previous finding regarding the site
boundary. The artifact density map (Figure 7.39) shows one major peak, which likely represents a
side yard midden. Limited shovel testing was performed further to the north, and it appears that the
grid did not capture the entirety of the midden deposits surrounding the house.
DISCUSSION OF ARTIFACTS
The historic materials recovered from the tenant houses were classified into six artifact groups that
help to organize data and discussion. The groups were based primarily on Orser’s Postbellum
tenant plantation artifact groups (1988), which are based in theory on South’s artifact pattern
groups (1977). New South Associates slightly modified Orser’s (1988) artifact groups to best
service the artifacts recovered from Site 9RH41 (see analysis methods – Appendix A). The artifact
group totals are listed in the table below. Detailed lists of artifacts from individual proveniences as
well as a summary of all artifacts by Tenant House are provided in Appendix D.
WE MADE A DAY 153
Figure 7.38
Feature 67 Illustrated in Plan View and Profile
0 0.5 1 foot
Feature 67 Plan View
Feature 67 North Profile
Feature 67 Photograph, Pre-excavation
BLOCK 5
Figure 6.57.
Feature 67 Illustrated in Plan and Profile
North
5YR 6/8 Reddish Yellow Fine
Sandy Clay (Subsoil)
10YR 3/2 Very Dark
Grayish Brown
Gley2-2.5/5B
Bluish Black Charcoal
Unexcavated
Unexcavated
154
Figure 7.39 Figure 6.59.
Map Illustrating the Artifact Distribution at Tenant House 9 Surfer Map Illustrating the Artifact Distribution at Locus 5
Artifact
Density
Grid Is In Feet
Grid is in Feet
*Grid is in Feet
WE MADE A DAY 155
Table 7.1 Summary of Artifact Group Classification from Tenant Houses at Site 9RH41
Functional Group Tenant House 2 Tenant House 4 Tenant House 5 Tenant House 6 Tenant House 9
Foodways 71.9% 41.6% 59.2% 68.5% 73.9%
Clothing 0.3% 0.8% 0.6% 0.8% 1.1%
Household/
Structural 18.5% 42.9% 39.8% 24.1% 13.5%
Personal 0.2% 0.6% 0.5% 0.8% 0.7%
Agricultural/
Labor 0.7% 0.7% 0.8% 0.5% 0.0%
Other 8.4% 13.3% 8.0% 5.3% 10.8%
Total # of Artifacts 5765 6145 7053 4146 437
The resulting percentages are influenced by a number of sampling and collection factors. For
instance, sample size and location probably had an effect on the assemblage profile of Tenant
House 9 where only shovel testing occurred and where it appears that the entire footprint of the
occupation was probably not captured by the shovel test grid. However, the proportions of
different types of artifacts is not dissimilar to Tenant Houses 2 and 6, which had buildings while
Tenant House 9 did not. In the case of Tenant House 4, which had the highest percentage of
household/structural remains, this may be partially due to the fact that the front of the building was
removed and it is possible that architectural debris made its way into the yard deposits as materials
were possibly being stockpiled and salvaged. Having stated that, the household/structural
percentage is not that much higher than found at Tenant House 5.
Clearly Foodways and Household/Structural artifacts are the primary categories. The Other
category mostly contains unrecognizable or unclassifiable artifacts. Groups such as Clothing,
Personal, and Agricultural – while small – often contain activity specific items, which can reveal
interesting and perhaps idiosyncratic information about the occupants.
FOODWAYS
Foodways related artifacts represented anywhere from 41.6 to 73.9 percent of the overall artifact
collection (Table 7.1). The vast majority of food-related artifacts was container glass representing
over 87 percent of this category, with nearly or over half of the artifact represented by clear
container glass. Overall, clear container glass represented 54 percent of the foodways collection.
It is believed that much of this glass is related to canning. While most of the clear glass did not
have diagnostic features making it clearly related to canning jars, some threaded wide mouth jars
and embossed glass (Mason or Ball) was recovered, along with milk glass canning seals and clear
glass lids that were probably used in conjunction with lightning closures.
156
Oral interviews support canning and preserving of foods. Ms. Melba Brady (resident of Randolph
County) stated: “Now my mother always canned everything that we had in the garden, in the
summer, what we couldn’t eat, she canned. I mean she would can 50-60 quart jars of peas.
Canned in the summer to carry us through the winter. Just any vegetable that we had…“. On the
other hand, another informant, Ms. Ellen Hudson, indicated that her family did not can very much:
“We didn’t can. We canned a few vegetables and peas… cause it took jars to can… we dried
peaches and peas. We put it on a piece of tin and lay it out in the sun” (personnel communication
Melba Brady, 2010) Evidence of drying foods may not appear in the archaeological record.
Therefore, how widespread drying was is difficult to say.
The Foodways group contained little evidence for the prolific use of food from tin cans. However,
the Other category contained large quantities of unidentifiable metal fragments, some or many of
which may be related to the use of foods purchased in cans. Given the cost of purchasing food,
other than staples such as flour, sugar, and coffee, it seems reasonable to conclude that most tenant
farmers would have canned or preserved their own food before buying from the commissary or a
store. Thus, tin can fragments would not likely be as common as canning jar glass.
Amber colored glass was the second most common bottle glass color recovered at each tenant
house representing anywhere from 15-26 percent of the Foodways assemblage. These quite
possibly represent beer bottles, although some fragments could be associated with medicine
bottles, tobacco/snuff jars, or Clorox bottles (realizing that none of these are Foodways related).
Of particular interest was the small presence of olive green bottle glass, which was very uncommon
after about 1880 (McKearin and Wilson 1978:229-232). Therefore, these are clearly nineteenthcentury wares. Given the sparsity of this glass color, it is likely that it was probably deposited
during the terminal period of manufacture (i.e. the 1870s). Another temporally sensitive bottle
color was represented by a quantity of amethyst glass. The amethyst color comes from the
presence of manganese in the glass, which solarizes upon prolonged sun exposure. Manganese
was used in glass between the 1880s and the beginning of World War I (Kendrick 1963). Only a
few pieces of bottle glass clearly associated with soda were recovered. These fragments were
clear glass and included Coca Cola, Nehi, and Royal Crown along with a few crown cap closures.
The second largest category of artifacts within this group is ceramics. Out of 1,318 ceramic
artifacts recovered overall, 957 were either plain whiteware or plain ironstone. The proportion of
plain wares to other types of ceramics was similar from one tenant house to the next, with relatively
few decorated whiteware/ironstone fragments found (n=112). In distant second place is
stoneware (n=97) – including Albany and Bristol slipped, brown and gray salt glazed, alkaline
glazed, and stoneware (Ginger Beer) bottles. Many of the stonewares were probably used in
conjunction with preserving meats, or making kraut or pickles. Minor amounts of porcelain (n=42)
and other earthenwares (n=22) were encountered. In addition, several fragments of yellow ware
bowls were found (n=25). The remaining ceramics were unidentifiable.
Other tableware items included glass tumblers, glass plates and serving bowl fragments as well as
knives, forks and spoons. One food processing item was found consisting of a box grater (Figures
7.40 and 7.41).
WE MADE A DAY 157
Figure 7.40
Foodways Group Artifacts from Site 9RH41, 1 of 2
Figure 9.1
Foodways Group Artifacts from Site 9RH41
334
A. Canning Seal, Milk Glass; B. Canning Jar Glass, Mason Screw Cap; C. Crown Cap;
D. Key to a Vacuum Packed Can; E. Metal Lid; F. Metal Lid
A
B
C
D
E
F
158
Figure 7.41
Foodways Group Artifacts from Site 9RH41, 2 of 2
D
E
A C B
WE MADE A DAY 159
Also included in the Foodways category are firearms related artifacts such as shotgun shells, bullet
casings, and gun parts. Gun related items were found at every tenant house, indicating the
importance of hunting not only to the tenant diet, but also probably as sport. Hunting would have
given the farmer greater control over the quality of their diet, providing fresh meat for the table
within their limited financial means. It gave them some economic independence.
CLOTHING GROUP
Clothing group artifacts represented anywhere from 0.3-0.8 percent of the assemblages from
houses that were excavated Table 7.1). A little over one percent of artifacts from Tenant House 9
were clothing related, but since this house was only shovel tested the higher proportion is probably
due to sample size.
Fifty-four buttons were recovered with eight materials represented, including Bakelite (n=2), glass
(n=4), brass (n=10), ceramic (n=2), iron/steel (n=14), white metal (n=6), plastic (n=2), and shell
(n=1). There were several buttons where materials could not be determined. Buttons included
Prosser style buttons (named after the inventor), with the small ones commonly found on underwear.
Also known as “little chinas” these buttons are actually porcelain, although they have a milk glass
appearance. Prosser buttons were made after 1840 and continued to be made until around 1900
(Peacock 1972:98).
Several Olsen Type I/South Type 16 buttons (n=5) were recovered, which post date the Civil War.
Marks include “Washington Dee Cee”, “O’Bryan Bros.” and “Head Light.” “Head Light” was a
button found on work clothes and the stamp is found between 1887 and 1940 (Psota 2002).
Another work clothes related button type was labeled “Nunnally’s Engineer” (n=4), although no
date could be found. “HAPGRADE” was also found (n=1), with no temporal information. An
overalls type button was found stamped “CONES BOSS” with two stars (n=1). As can be seen
from the identifiable buttons, there are a number of buttons (“Head Light”, “Nunnally’s Engineer”,
“HAPGRADE”, and “CONES BOSS”) that are associated with work related clothes such as overalls
(see Psota 2002). Given that the occupants were tenant farmer, such a function is logical.
Other clothing items included grommets, rivets, snaps, and zippers that would be found on a
variety of clothing types (n=44). A few shoe parts were also recovered (n=37). Buckles related to
shoes as well as belts and clothing were also found (n=10). Two safety pins were also found
(Figure 7.42).
Based on personal histories from oral interviews, tenants did not have a large clothing selection.
Ms. Ellen Hudson remembered that she had three dresses and in the fall of very year, her father
would take the family shopping for supplies. She explained that was when she would also get her
pair of shoes for the year. Another information, Ms. Lola Merle stated that her mother made her
clothes after shopping for fabric in town. In T. J. Woofter’s (1936) monograph, Landlord and
Tenant on the Cotton Plantation, he stated that in the months when the crops were cultivated
(usually the fall), one third of the tenants income would end up going to clothing and incidentals.
He went on to state ”Clothing, usually purchased once a year, is of the poorest quality. Often the
children do not have sufficient warm clothing to go to school” (Woofter 1936: xxviii).
160
Figure 9.3
Clothing Group Artifacts From Site 9RH41
336
D
B
C
A
E
F
G
H I
A. Glass Button, four hole; B. Shell Button, Large, two hole; C. Brass Button, “Cones” and “Boss”;
D. Brass Button; E. Iron/Steel Button; F. Brass Eyelet; G. Iron/Steel Zipper; H. Iron/Steel Belt Buckle;
I. Iron/Steel Belt Buckle.
Figure 7.42
Clothing Group Artifacts from Site 9RH41
WE MADE A DAY 161
HOUSEHOLD/STRUCTURAL GROUP
Household/Structural related artifacts represented anywhere from 13.5-42.9 percent of the overall
artifact collection. Because of the fact that there were buildings at most of the house sites
examined, characterization of the architecture need not rely on the kinds and size of nails
recovered, the presence or absence of window glass, or other categories of materials often
analyzed to interpret the architecture at historic sites. However, there are other items in this
collection that help provide some information on household furnishings and accessories.
Nails, by far, were the largest type of household/structural artifact encountered, consisting of over
64 percent of this group. Of identifiable nails, wire nails dominated, accounting for 77 percent.
Square shanked/cut nails accounted for the remainder, although one possibly wrought nail was
recovered from Tenant House 6. Because machine cut nails have a long history, from 1810-
present, they do not aid us in dating the initial construction of any of the buildings. While wire
nails were manufactured as early as the 1850s, they did not become the dominant type until the
1890s. However, some builders preferred to continue using cut nails because of their greater
holding power (Nelson 1967).
The next most common artifact in this group was window glass, making up anywhere from 16-32
percent of the collections recovered from Tenant Houses 2, 4, 5, and 6. Only two fragments were
recovered from Tenant House 9 where only shovel testing occurred. Architectural hardware
included items such as architectural brackets with bolts, a lever style door handle, butt hinges, a
Norfolk latch, and window hardware (Figure 7.43).
Furnishings included chimney lamp glass, which was recovered from three of the four standing
houses where excavations occurred. No chimney lamp glass was found at Tenant House 2. All
four of the houses had archaeological evidence of having electricity. Electrical items included
electrical wire, a lamp chain pull, electrical plug fragments, insulators, and light bulb fragments. In
addition to electricity, two (Houses 5 and 6) may have had some form of running water, as
evidenced by part of a water pipe and a lead pipe cap. However, there was no evidence of
plumbing in either of the houses. There was the hand pump out by the road between Tenant
Houses 6 and 9.
Melba Brady stated that “we lived over in the field between here and 27 [U.S. Highway 27] in an
old house, probably a half a mile from the main road, with no electricity, no running water, no
indoor plumbing.” After her father became a landowner, they moved into a house with a
bathroom, running water, and electricity. Jones Brady noted that his family got a radio when he
was nine or 10 years old, but it was battery operated as his family didn’t have electricity. He
indicated that you did not use it often, but that Saturday evenings was when they listened to the
radio. Electrical battery parts were found in the excavations at Tenant Houses 2, 4, and 5. These
references and the archaeological data indicate that tenants lived in a variety of situations. Some
had electricity and some not. Some had running water and others not. It is quite likely that as rural
electrification came to the area, more and more tenant homes were electrified. Indoor plumbing,
particularly bathrooms, may have been rare for tenants. None of the houses examined at L.E. Gay
Plantation had indoor bathrooms.
Figure 9.4
Household/Structural Group Artifacts From Site 9RH41
339
D
B
C
A
E
F
A. Metal Lap Chain Pull; B. Ceramic Tile Fragment; C. Norfolk Door Latch, Brass Receiver for Latch;
D. Butt Hinge; E. Window Hardware; F. Lever Style Doorknob.
WE MADE A DAY
Figure 7.43
Household/Structural Group Artifacts from Site 9RH41
162
WE MADE A DAY 163
Other artifacts in this category included masonry fragments (cement, mortar, and brick), wood
screws, drawer pulls and knobs, as well as upholstery tacks.
PERSONAL GROUP
Personal artifacts are those that were likely used by one individual and could include medicine,
cosmetics, recreational items, money, and decorative (Figures 7.44 and 7.45). Recreational type
artifacts were present at all of the houses. In particular, marbles were found in each yard (see
Figure 7.45 E). Playing marbles was a popular pastime at the farm (Richard Matthews, Jr.
personal communication). Fragments of phonographic records were found at Tenant Houses 4, 5,
and 6 (Figure 7.45 A). One of the fragments from Tenant House 4 was stamped with the number
22812. It is a 78 RPM double sided shellac record pressed between October 6-12, 1929. On
one side is “If You’re In Love, You’ll Waltz” performed by Roger Wolfe Kahn and his orchestra.
The second side contains the song “Following the Sun Around” by Jacques Renard and his
orchestra. Portions of porcelain dolls were found at Tenant House 2, 4, and 6, and are probably
related to female children. Plastic jewelry parts were also found at Tenant House 2, again most
likely related to female children.
Items likely associated with women at the tenant houses include jewelry parts, beads, cosmetic jars,
perfume bottles, and metal purse parts (see Figure 7.44). Only one jewelry item was found to be
associated with men. Recovered from Tenant House 5, it was a Mother of Pearl pin with an Order
of Odd Fellows symbol on it (see Figure 8.1). However, other personal adornments included watch
parts found at Tenant House 4.
The “FLT” exhibited on the pin stands for “Friendship, Love, and Truth.” The Order of the Odd
Fellows originated in the 1450s in England. In smaller towns and villages, there were too few
individuals from the same trade to set up a local guild, so fellows from a number of trades banded
together to form a local Guild of Fellows from an odd assortment of trades. Over time, the purpose
of banding together people from various trades became unnecessary, but the name “Odd Fellows”
stuck. It is now known as the Independent Order of the Odd Fellows, which aims at providing a
framework that will promote personal and social development. Lodge degrees and activities aimed
“to improve and elevate every person to a higher, nobler plane; to extend sympathy and aid to
those in need, making their burdens lighter, relieving the darkness of despair; to war against vice
in every form, and to be a great moral power and influence for the good of humanity”
(Independent Order of Odd Fellows homepage; http://www.ioof.org. Accessed June 7, 2011).
Free blacks in the United States began organizing Odd Fellows lodges in the 1840s and paralleled
white lodges. During reconstruction, African American Fraternal Orders began to multiply and in
1870 the Grand United Order of the Odd Fellows convened in Wilmington, Delaware with
representatives from 80 lodges in 10 states. Harriet McBride refers to the period 1870-1910 as the
“Golden Age of Fraternalism”. During this period, these organizations dominated the social lives
of some twenty percent of American males (McBride 2005). In regions where blacks lived in
significant numbers, African Americans often created more fraternal lodges per capita than whites
(Skocpol and Oser 2004). Fraternal orders provided many benefits to the African American
community. Services such as burial insurance, donations to the needy, and support to other groups
were provided by some organizations. They were also self-help groups that emphasized thrift,
Figure 9.5
Personal Group Artifacts From Site 9RH41
341
A. 1943 Mercury Dime; B. Milk Glass Cosmetic Jar; C. Brass Jewelry Pin,
Half Moon Shape with Inlaid Glass; D. Brass Jewelry Pin, Basket of Flowers;
E. Metal Purse Clasp
E
A B C D
WE MADE A DAY
Figure 7.44
Personal Group Artifacts from Site 9RH41, 1 of 2
164
WE MADE A DAY 165
Figure 9.6
Personal Group Artifacts from Site 9RH41
342
A. Phonograph Record Fragments, One stamped 22182, A1-78 RPM Double Sided Shellac Record
Pressed Between October 6, 1929 and October 12, 1929. Title Song, “If You’re In Love You’ll Wait”
and “Following the Sun Around.” Performed by Roger Wolfe Kahn and His Orchestra and Jacques
Renard and His Orchestra; B. Pipe Bowl Fragment, Gray Salt Glazed Stoneware;
C. Pharmaceutical Bottle, Owens-Illinois Glass Company Trademark (1929-1954);
D. Dog License, Stamped “Dept. of Public Heath” “Georgia – 1947”; E. Glass Marbles.
A
B
C
D E
Figure 7.45
Personal Group Artifacts from Site 9RH41, 2 of 2
166
industry, and morality, as well as provided leadership training. These groups provided an
environment where members could actively use their talents and abilities. As a result, African
American fraternal orders multiplied rapidly in the South after the Civil War. The lodges offered
recreation, companionship, recognition, and talent development, which made life in a segregated
world more bearable (Franklin 1982). African American fraternal organizations were relatively
common in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries and continue to function today.
Therefore, the presence of a lodge pin in the archaeological assemblage, while unusual, does not
necessarily suggest that this population had a greater participation in fraternal organizations.
Evidence of smoking included fragments of an ashtray, clay/ceramic pipe bowl or stem fragments,
and fragments of tobacco and snuff jars. They accounted for 19 items. The amber glass tobacco
and snuff jar fragments were embossed with P. Lorillard Co. The Lorillard Tobacco Company is the
oldest in the United States. It was founded in New York City in 1760 by Pierre Abraham Lorillard.
A patent date of 1872 appeared on one jar fragment and the mark dates to as late as the 1890s.
The actual terminal date of these jars is unknown.
In 1883 a machine was invented that could roll cigarettes and produce thousands per day. The
mechanized production of cigarettes widely increased the popularity of smoking, and made
cigarettes much more accessible to those who wanted to smoke (www.tobacco.org). It also made
the use of the tobacco pipe less necessary as a tobacco delivery mechanism. As such, many
smoking items, particularly the clay/ceramic pipe fragments and tobacco/snuff jars, probably
represent the early end of the occupation of these houses. Smoking could have been much more
popular than is represented in the archaeological record since remnants of cigarettes would decay
and disappear.
Other personal artifacts included metal parts from pens and pencils, pencil lead, mirror glass, a
comb, pharmaceutical bottles, a brass key, a dog license, and several coins. The dog license was
stamped “Dept. Of Public Heath/Georgia – 1947” (see Figure 7.45). The scarcity of
pharmaceutical glass was somewhat surprising, as only 23 fragments were recovered from all five
houses. However, almost all of the oral informants interviewed talked about making home
remedies and rarely went to the expense of visiting a doctor or buying medicine. The coins
recovered all dated to the twentieth century and included a 1943 Mercury dime (see Figure 7.44),
a 1950 penny, and a 1953 penny.
AGRICULTURAL/LABOR GROUP
This artifact group includes items used in agriculture, home maintenance, or other work related
activities (Figure 7.46). Items directly related to agriculture include a horseshoe, a hoe blade, plow
parts, tractor parts, a machine gear, machine pin, and a pitch fork tine. Of the tractor parts,
clearly identifiable parts included a guide spring, and two mechanical rake parts. Each of the rake
parts was labeled “John Deere” “AE-12156-E” “Pat. Pending”. One of them contained the
alphanumeric label FK-3-5 and the other FK-2-2. Other items probably related to agriculture
included a number of oil can fragments, a rivet, tool handle, a large pulley, and large hooks.
Hand tools included a saw blade, nail puller, and hammer head, while hardware included nuts,
bolts, washers, barbed wire, chain, and a gasket. Only one item related to household labor, a flat
iron, was recovered.
WE MADE A DAY 167
Figure 9.7
Argricultural/Labor Group Artifacts From Site 9RH41
343
D B
C
A
A. Four Tine Wrought/Cast Iron Pitch Fork; B. John Deere Tractor Part, Hay Rake;
C. Plow Tooth; D. Plow Part.
WE MADE A DAY
Figure 7.46
Agricultural/Labor Group Artifacts from Site 9RH41
A
B
C
D
A
168
In a recent examination of tenant farms in the Georgia Piedmont, James Wettstaedt (2010) used
the idea of presence/absence of agricultural tools as a way to differentiate between a cropper and
a renter. His idea was that tools would be present at a renter’s house, but not at a cropper’s since
the landlord supplied the cropper’s tools. Tools were present at all nine of the sites he examined.
Unless all of the occupants were renters, he concluded this assumption does not hold up. At the
tenant houses examined along U.S. Highway 27 as a part of this study, all of those excavated had
agricultural tools.
OTHER GROUP
Other artifacts essentially consist of items that were unrecognizable, such as corroded iron, or did
not fall within any of the other group classifications. Included in this group were automobile parts,
which were found at all four of the excavated tenant houses.
WE MADE A DAY 169
VIII. CONCLUSIONS
The research design for this study was based upon learning about tenant culture, particularly
through archaeological investigation. As the review of the literature on tenancy notes, relatively
few tenant sites have been intensively documented at the data recovery level. Also, the studies that
have been completed cover a range of contexts scattered over multiple states. Due to the
impoverished conditions that tenant farmers lived in, as well as the transient nature of their lifestyle,
tenant archaeology offers many interpretive challenges. While researchers such as Claudia
Holland (1990) and Charles Orser, Jr. (1990) have pointed to the difficult issues surrounding the
excavation of tenant sites in the past and have offered suggestions for future research,
archaeologists either tend to reject the sites entirely because of those issues or approach a data
recovery as they would the data recovery of a long-term stable owner-occupied farmstead. Holland
has recognized the obstacles surrounding the analysis of tenant occupations, but does not think
they are insurmountable. Despite problems with their interpretation, analysis of these sites may
assist archaeologists in readjusting their assumptions and hypotheses regarding specific sites in the
future (Holland 1990:66).
For this study, a roster of questions based on previous research was initially developed to focus our
efforts. By the close of the research and fieldwork, we found that questions diminished in
importance while others grew in research potential. Questions concerning the plantation’s
antebellum beginnings and its potential to have preserved buildings and associated remains from
that era were initially seen as paramount. While the material environment had antebellum
beginnings, that layer of the plantation’s history was not identified in the archaeology.
Comparisons between white and African American tenant circumstances and the potential for
looking at long-term tenant settlement and other potential lines of research used at other sites were
also envisaged. While we do not know the ethnicity of every person that lived in the tenant houses
at 9RI41, the census data strongly indicated that the vast majority of tenants (if not all) were African
American. It was likely that the tenant houses had been lived in by scores of families between
1882 and the 1950s. Some of the houses may have been built by the Gay family while others
may have been acquired as part of the land consolidation. No previous tenants were identified to
provide us with a sense of life there. These facts negated comparisons between white and African
American tenant circumstances, antebellum versus postbellum plantations, and the potential for
looking at long-term settlement and other potential lines of research used at other sites.
Orser and Holland’s warnings concerning tenant occupations are well grounded; interpretive
challenges do abound at tenant sites, however, so do opportunities. Historical research and
landscape analysis provided a compelling postbellum narrative that lead to the comparison of the
findings at L.E. Gay Plantation with Aiken’s New South Plantation, defined in his study of
plantations after the Civil War. Conceived and established in the 1880s and 1890s under wholly
different circumstances than its antebellum counterpart, the New South plantation was operated
and organized with business acumen and a keen sense of the “big picture” that was developing in
late nineteenth-century agriculture and its infrastructure, labor and community development, and
commerce. Only a few large plantations would survive the challenges that the early twentieth
170
century would bring. Plantations evolved over time, as Aiken and others have demonstrated, and a
case could be made that the L.E. Gay Plantation is in a new stage of development shaped by late
twentieth-century events. However, it is the L.E. Gay Plantation's genesis and character as a New
South Plantation, evidenced in its fields, archaeological sites, tenant houses, farm roads, extant
buildings, and cemeteries, that correctly draws our attention.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
LANDSCAPE AND ARCHITECTURE
Is settlement organization tied to the tenant labor system in which tenants
worked collaboratively in the fields? The labor system of the New South Plantation appears
to be based on share-cropping versus renting and oral interviews support this interpretation of labor
organization. Our research did not recognize a gang system of tenant labor although it is likely
that various tenant families would have collaborated at times and for certain tasks. The New South
plantation system, as applied to the L.E. Gay Plantation, consisted of clusters of three to four tenant
homes primarily located on existing roads, and connected by secondary, plantation-based, road
and tracks. These clusters appear to have contained agricultural outbuildings, such as sheds, as
well as wells and other features that were collectively used by the tenants residing in the homes in
each cluster. Individual fields were likely those directly adjacent to (and most often behind) each
house.
Does the distance between Tenant House 2 from Tenant House 4, 5, 6, and Tenant
House 9 represent a difference in social position or temporal differences? The fairly
rapid acquisition of tracts by L.E and Callie Margaret Gay and their consolidation into a New
South plantation likely led to new construction as well as the reuse of buildings that were already
there. There is the possibility that the tenant houses east of U.S. Highway 27 and above the
plantation center may be older than the houses built to the south. Once acquired, they acted as a
cluster within the spatial organization of the L.E. Gay Plantation.
Were the agricultural buildings associated with these tenant houses grouped in a
single area or dispersed among the tenant households? Historic aerial research on the
overall plantation suggests that some agricultural buildings may have been associated with each
cluster of residences, so these resources were dispersed throughout the plantation and at the same
time shared by communities of tenant farmer families working in a particular area and cluster of
houses. The proximity of the study buildings to the plantation center made outbuildings
unnecessary. However Tenant House 6 did have an associated outbuilding, which may have been
used communally.
At a secondary level, house variations in the lay-out and structure of individual
Loci may reflect choices made by each tenant farmer and family. The archaeology of
the L.E. Gay Plantation tenant homes suggests that yardscapes were dominated by agricultural
features such as storage cellars, hearths, etc. but variations in the size and placement of these
suggests each yard was the product of individual tenant farmer families, all working from a
common vocabulary of yard features. No evidence of highly individualized landscaping was
identified although some sites did contain bulb plantings.
WE MADE A DAY 171
Are differences in the site architecture the product of temporal differences, social
differences, race, ethnicity or other factors? Differences in site tenant house architecture
may in part reflect differences in property histories/ownership, and possibly reflect tenant homes
built at earlier times and by different plantation owners that were subsequently incorporated into
the L.E. Gay Plantation settlement system. The real differences in site architecture were evident
when comparing the manager’s house and main house to the tenant houses. The Plantation
manager's home, although same in house type and building materials as its tenant counterparts,
was greatly distinguished in size and landscaping, with a surrounding stone wall that clearly
identified it as a more socially prominent/important dwelling. The wall further connected the
Manager’s house with the main house, a substantial vernacular dwelling, linking the two high status
buildings. The L.E. Gay Plantation architecture clearly showed a hierarchical social and economic
organization.
How do differences in site layout and the placement of roads, drives, and
outbuildings vary and what do these variations signify? The use of secondary roads
and the placement of interior drives as well as the lay-out of the plantation in a series of clusters
suggests that the existing road network was used by the Gays in their acquisition, organization,
and design of the plantation. Others were created later. For example, a U-shaped drive around
Tenant House 2 was created by the Gay family to access the building more fully for storage
purposes.
Can archaeobotanical data be collected to address differences in yard plantings
and landscaping, and if so, what do these data indicate about the site
inhabitants? Very limited data resulted from the archaeological excavations. However, other
types of information did enlighten the topic of yard plantings. Five fragments of terracotta
flowerpot were recovered from Tenant Houses 2 and 5. Additionally, the oral history data showed
varying responses when asked if they remembered flowers being planted around their houses.
Some informants said there just was no time, but several remembered their mother or father
planting flowers around the house. In one interview with Mr. Hollis Taylor, he remembered his
mother planting flowers. He states, “Well, in some areas, she did. She would plant the most
beautiful bunch of flowers we ever had was down here where he rented his first rent.” He and his
wife go on to describe the zinnias and petunias that were planted, “…we planted them in rows.
And they’d come up all different colors and everything. They was really beautiful.” In another
interview with Ms. Ellen Hudson she stated, “We didn’t have time to plant flowers (laughs)… We
had to grow food.”
A single morning glory seed was recovered from Tenant House 9 and is the only flower type
represented at 9RH41 from an archaeological context. Westmacott (1992) stated that prior to
1980, decoration and display was the least important function of the yard, although it increasingly
became more important. Obviously, 1980 post-dates the occupation of these tenant houses
suggesting that ornamental plantings were not considered to be that important by the occupants. It
should also be remembered that tenants often moved every few years, so planting and caring for
flowers may have been thought to be a waste of time and energy by some inhabitants. Although
the archaeobotanical analysis was not enlightening, after the conclusion of our fieldwork GDOT
172
personnel visited the area several times including during the spring. They witnessed Cherokee
roses, daffodils, and gladiolas blooming at Tenant Houses 5 and 6. Daffodils were also seen at
Tenant House 2.
Evidence of Chinaberry was found at each of the buildings. As previously discussed, they are
historically known for being a shade tree of preference at sharecropper residences because of their
fast growing nature (McGuire 1975). Some fruit trees may have also been grown in the yards,
given evidence for fig and peach. A single fig seed was found at Tenant House 4, as well as
several fragments of peach pits. Whether or not they were grown at the house sites is impossible
to say. Tenant House 9 is also the only location where grapes (probably muscadines) and
watermelon were found.
In short, evidence of Chinaberry as an ornamental shade tree, was found at each of the structures.
The only ornamental flower was a morning glory seed from Tenant House 9. Other flowering
plants were found to be in bloom during spring visits by GDOT. Given this limited data, we were
unable to address the question of differences in landscaping and planting and what it may have
meant for the site inhabitants. However, it is clear that the planting of Chinaberry trees was
common in household yards.
CONSUMER CHOICE AND STATUS
What evidence does the material culture of squad households and communities
provide about consumer choices and status variation in a tenant community? The
tenant system used at the L.E. Gay Plantation was sharecropping. Due to the transient nature of
tenancy, as well as the fairly compressed time span of 1880 to 1950 (70 years), there was a
blending of material culture that created an overall pattern of consumption. This is particularly true
for the Foodways related artifacts where ceramics and glassware assemblages were nearly
identical and consisted primarily of undecorated whiteware/ironstone and generic glass. Glass
was the largest artifact type in the Foodways category. The percentage of glass that came from
excavation units composed between 84 and 97 percent of the group, and clear glass was between
47 and 57 percent of the group. While we were often unable to determine if the glass came from
bottles or canning jars, it is likely that jars were highly represented in the assemblages. This
indicates that people probably preferred canning their own foods rather than having to buy tin can
goods from the commissary. Alternatively, there may have simply not been the variety of foods
available at the commissary and so canning was more appealing. Also, canning was cheaper
than buying.
Charles Orser used statistical formulas to measure similarity and differences in the archaeological
assemblage between five squad structures at Millwood Plantation in South Carolina. He found that
the results were ambiguous. However he concluded that were it not for the clustered settlement
form, the identification of the squad system through purely archaeological means would be
impossible (Orser 1990:55). It is likely that unless circumstances are highly unusual (historical
documents indicate that only one race of people lived in a particular house and/or a particular
type of tenant system was used for the occupants of that house) teasing out the answers to
consumer choice and status questions could be impossible relying on material culture alone.
WE MADE A DAY 173
Most of the oral histories offered some information about consumer choice and support the
interpretation that the artifacts from Site 9RH41 reflect a general lack of consumer choice and the
low economic status of all tenant farmers. Since most, if not all, inhabitants of 9RH41 were African
American, there was no way to determine if race had any impact on consumer choice or status.
Mr. Jones Brady referred to the tenant system as “economic slavery”.
REFUSE DISPOSAL
Does the presence of rear yard middens at the tenant houses indicate that the
tenants were European-American? Historical research indicates that the vast majority of
occupants, if not all, were African American. There was no clear evidence of ethnicity indicated
by looking at midden locations, which tended to be densest in the rear yard with side yards also
containing middens. That said, these middens begin to get dense within about 10 to 15 meters
from the house, although some were farther flung (see Figures 7.2, 7.9, 7.20, and 7.28). This
could indicate the African American practice of sweeping house yards. However, we also saw a
correlation between dense midden deposits and subsurface features. Therefore, it is more likely to
be related to work areas associated with those features. It could also be a combination of both.
Is there any evidence of trash disposal in pit or shaft features on the site,
particularly from earlier occupations? There was no evidence for trash being purposefully
disposed of in pits or shaft features. This does not mean that these pits didn’t occur; only that we
did not identify any features that were used for trash disposal.
SUBSISTENCE
Are there subsistence remains at the tenant houses and do they give evidence to
the composition of the tenant diet? Faunal remains were very sparse at 9RH41, but
included turtle, armadillo, cow, bird, deer, pig, and fox, but the majority of the faunal assemblage
was unidentified fragments of bone. Ethnobotanical remains of fruits included cherries, grapes,
blackberries/raspberries, fig, maypop, peach, strawberry, and watermelon. Remains of
vegetables and grains included corn, wheat, and tomato.
The faunal remains indicate a reliance on both domesticated and wild species. Turtle and
armadillo could have been taken in traps, while deer would have been hunted and taken with a
firearm. The fox was not likely a food source and may have been shot when it attempted to kill a
tenant’s chickens. The domesticated plant remains that were identified reflect that the tenants had
access to fruits and vegetables from their gardens and fruit trees, as well as from the wild. Variety
in foods from the garden and fruit trees was surely greater than represented in the archaeological
record.
Is there evidence of wild food sources in the tenant farmer diet found at the
Tenant Houses? The ethnobotanical data indicate that residents of the Site 9RH41 tenant farmer
community exploited naturally occurring wild plants for food and herbs. Evidence of wild edibles
and herbs included beebalm, goosefoot, wild bean, wood sorrel, and blackberries/raspberries.
As previously mentioned, a number of wild animals were used for food sources.
174
Can it be determined from the subsistence remains at the tenant houses the size
of the tenant’s income? And can that evidence reveal the meat cuts used and
plant remains to determine if the tenants spent their income to procure different
cuts and qualities of food, as well as to gauge what foodstuffs were being
provided by the owner? The relatively poor recovery of domesticated field crops, garden
vegetables, and domesticated animal bone is likely due to preservation issues. However, the
subsistence remains do suggest that the tenants may have had access to a variety of wild and
domestic foods, but the range of that variety is unknown. Unfortunately, because the faunal
collection was so small, no real statement can be made regarding the cuts of meat normally used.
It is difficult to say what, if any form of subsistence was being provided from the landowner based
on the remains gathered. The oral history data does not support the idea that the landowner
provided food to his tenants. In short, the sparsity of subsistence remains did not allow us to
address this question.
BUILDING PREFERENCES AND ETHNIC INFLUENCES
Is there any structural evidence to indicate or reflect African American or
European-American building preferences, construction techniques, and building
practices? Examination of the tenant houses did not disclose any apparent ethnic influences on
the architecture. Instead they spoke volumes about economic level. Modest in size, spare in their
execution, and lacking in interior amenities, tenant houses barely provided adequate shelter.
Raper's study noted that in his two Georgia study counties, tenant houses built by landlords for
tenant use typically had two or three rooms and croppers and wage hands of both races lived in
the fewest rooms. Overall, white owners and renters had better houses than black owners and
renters. “There is a greater difference between the dwellings of whites and Negroes within the
same tenure class than there is between the tenure classes within the same race.” Half of the
houses within his study group that sheltered black tenant families were “unceiled,” meaning, “a
house with no interior finish and the removal of a plank from the outer wall lets in sunshine or rain”
(Raper 2004 [1936]:63). However, he cautioned that many white tenants also lived in unceiled
houses as well.
Tenant House 2 was originally a two-room building that was expanded with two rear additions into
a four-room house. Both original rooms are roughly 15x18 feet. The interior was finished with
rough lumber. If more rooms and the existence of an interior finish are indicative of a higher status
dwelling, then Tenant House 2 fits the bill. Enclosed by a U-shaped drive, it was sited by itself at
the southern end of the project area.. Tenant Houses 5 and 6 were constructed as single pens and
later expanded into three-room buildings. However, the plan of the original houses was roughly a
single room about 15x16 feet. When built, this was probably considered a lower status house
than Tenant House 2 in terms of room size alone. Even when expanded, it had fewer rooms.
Tenant House 6 was occupied later than its counterparts and thus has interior finishes that are not
shared by Tenant House 5, which would have been considered by Raper to be an unceiled
building. These differences indicate that the information in these spare houses is more indicative of
the tenant’s economic status than their race or ethnic background. Finally, the remnant structure
associated with the Corbett Family shows an architecture of necessity. It appears that this may
have been a stand alone building once connected to a rectangular house, to create living space.
WE MADE A DAY 175
Is there any evidence to indicate African American tenants at any of the houses,
such as sub-floor pits below the fireplace hearths or entryways? No subfloor pits
were identified during our investigations. However, it should be noted that due to the condition of
the houses, we could not investigate the interior of the houses as freely as we would have liked.
However, we were able to investigate the hearth area of Tenant House 6. No such evidence was
found.
Was there any evidence of slavery components at the tenant occupations within
Site 9RH41? The earliest occupation was probably in the 1870s or 1880s. However, the general
land may have been part of an earlier farm or plantation as noted in the deed research.
Can the excavation of individual sites contribute to our knowledge of this
plantation type? Would an overall survey have provided better information about
the whole? A survey of every house site within a single plantation would have provided
opportunities for comparison between the owner, manager, and tenant farmer. This study only
allowed for comparisons between dwellings occupied by tenants and this focus is its contribution.
Until we have more opportunities to survey every house, or at least a larger sample, and pick and
choose which to excavate, we won't really know the answer to this question. However, it is likely
that more comprehensive studies of all plantation elements will lead to a better overall
understanding of the plantation type. For the most part, archaeologists were able to choose which
houses to investigate at Waverly Plantation (Adams 1980) and Millwood Plantation (Orser 1988),
but Waverly was one of the earliest studies of a tenant farm and, given more recent experience
with tenant site archaeology, we might now approach it differently with different analytical
techniques, assumptions, and questions. Orser was able to compare owner, overseer, and tenant
at Millwood. As Claudia Holland pointed out, if no clear difference can be determined between
the occupants of the tenant houses, they should be simply categories as “tenant” since the
archaeological study of tenant economics is not possible unless it is known that only a specific type
of tenant lived in particular houses on the plantation being investigated (Holland 1990:65). Given
her conclusions, questions regarding economics could better be addressed by examining sites
occupied by people who had clearly different roles (i.e. owner, overseer, tenant). This could allow
us to look at how status is displayed in various sub-regions of the South: e.g. coastal versus
piedmont regions; Upland South versus Lower South; wealthier owners versus less wealthy owners,
etc. Consideration of the tenant plantation landscape, through review of historic aerial
photography as well as field reconnaissance, if possible, should be completed at the site evaluation
stage to better understand the place of tenant sites within plantation landscapes.
There is need for a context and general research design for examining tenant
sites. Also it would be worthwhile to enumerate the kinds of research questions
we can ask under different constraints and situations. First, a context for tenancy in the
southeastern United States would be useful. From an archaeological standpoint, taking Holland’s
(1990) advice would be a good step. Her study of May Plantation focused on the “use of oral
testimonies to develop an interpretive framework for archaeological research on sites inhabited by
tenant farmers.” She chose the plantation to study for four reasons: “1) it met the definition of a
plantation; 2) wage tenants and share renters were accessible for interview; 3) buildings were
available to map and photograph; and 4) it had been owned and operated by three generations
of a single family since about A.D. 1900" (Holland 1990:62).
176
L.E. Gay Plantation met all these criteria except one. We were unable to identify anyone who was
a tenant farmer who actually worked on the plantation. Instead, a number of Randolph County
residents who grew up on tenant farms were interviewed to provide general context. Notably, the
words of the interviewees did not directly change the research questions nor the interpretations.
They helped inform some of the archaeological interpretations but mostly they provided a strong
window into a culture and a time not shared by the investigators.
Holland recommends interviewing knowledgeable individuals before the data recovery plan is
developed. In the world of compliance archaeology, that would mean identifying and interviewing
these individuals during Phase II evaluation. The absence of informants would not necessarily
negate the eligibility of the site. However, it would change the research questions and could likely
affect the clarity of interpretation. It should also be noted that the opportunities to identify African
American tenant farmers in Georgia (as well as elsewhere in the South) has been impacted by the
Great Migration, which saw the departure of more than six million African Americans from the
region.
Finally, there are Section 106 constraints placed upon research of tenant sites. In most cases, we
only have access to a small part of a larger plantation within a project’s area of potential effects or
APE. In the case of the L.E. Gay Plantation, the APE limited what we could investigate
archaeologically; comparative data from the owner and manager’s houses was not available nor
could we choose alternate tenant house sites to compare based on chronology or their state of
preservation. The transportation project defined our APE and consequently our research focus.
Future Section 106 projects involving large properties would benefit from the completion of
research, landscape analysis, and field reconnaissance prior to developing the archaeological
research design. The results of these studies should be shared with landowners and other
stakeholders so that all involved understand the project objectives and the value of the work. These
studies would help target the areas fruitful for research and could provide a strong case for
approaching the land owner for permission for limited testing/study or simply recording other
culturally significant areas that are not located within the APE but that are integral to the study’s
research design. Without the Mathews family permission to visit the historic plantation, the full
extent of the resources associated with the property could not have been catalogued and
considered in this analysis. While Section 106 projects do not and can not always unfold in this
manner, it is worth noting so that project planners can take these issues into account in their future
project planning when and where possible.
SUMMARY
In studying the L.E. Gay Plantation, we essentially had two lenses. The first was archaeological.
We looked closely at five tenant household sites, defining individual site plans, locating and
analyzing features, measuring and photographing buildings. This lens was site specific and
immediate. It involved a project area that was defined by a transportation corridor. The second
approach involved larger landscape analysis of the geography of the plantation and its environs
and historical research. This approach became feasible after a rapport was established with the
landowner. Some of the components that typify a New South Plantation were nowhere near the
project area nor even within the plantation itself. The L .E. Gay Plantation was part of a larger
landscape and a macro lens was needed to identify the key features that characterized that
WE MADE A DAY 177
landscape. In the following discussion, we will show how both approaches contribute to our
knowledge of this significant property in very different ways: one provides a much needed
understanding of the tenant community geography and the information it holds while the other
takes you inside the tenant house door.
Analysis of historic aerials and maps and input from the owners provide a larger view of the
plantation and show its interior layout. The area investigated archaeologically lies in the northeast
section of the plantation. Figure 6.9 shows the fully developed plantation in 1948. Over 40
buildings were present. A plantation center that included the Gay Family’s farmhouse, the
manager/overseer’s house, a commissary, and support buildings was located in the northern
reaches of the plantation on U.S. Highway 27. A four-foot high rock wall that stretched across the
plantation “front” announced the plantation center’s presence and historic views show a well-kept
appearance despite having an in-town owner.
Of the over 40 buildings shown on the 1948 aerial, at least 25-30 were tenant houses. The
remainder were outbuildings and other support structures. Most of the tenant houses were grouped
along the county roads and highway that bounded or ran through the plantation, but others were
located in the plantation interior where they were linked by a network of plantation roads. Fields
in the western portion of the plantation were terraced while those along U.S. Highway 27 and the
county roads were fairly level. Study of the house types and their distribution show that Saddlebag
houses were favored as a tenant house type by the Gay family. Even the manager/overseer’s
house is a Saddlebag, albeit larger than the Saddlebag tenant houses. Other types occur in the
northeast sector of the plantation, which was once part of other farms that were consolidated into
the L.E. Gay Plantation, suggesting that these may have been in place earlier.
The setting of the tenant houses studied archaeologically is different than the other tenant houses.
This suggests that the buildings and the almost plot-like rectangular spaces that surround them are
remnants of an earlier landscape. The wooded areas between them and the fields may be
exhausted fields that are no longer cultivated. Tax records suggest that these may predate L.E. Gay
Plantation as some or all of Land Lot 123 was owned by Nicholas Weaver in 1879 who had “8
hands.” It is possible that these tenant houses were constructed during Weaver’s ownership and
that they became part of the L.E. Gay Plantation in the 1880s. This might explain the differences in
house types within the plantation’s tenant house architecture.
Clearly the L.E. Gay Plantation was a big business with a plantation center, a manager, and
multiple tenant farms. It was a consolidated tract, drawing together land from five or more
adjacent properties, thoughtfully designed to take advantage of its physical assets as well as
Cuthbert’s square and business section. A church and school that served the African American
community during segregation abuts the plantation border’s northern edge and a farm road that is
still extant connects the plantation property with the church, school, and cemetery. Bass’ Store was
a commercial hub at the southern perimeter and the commissary and rolling store were also well
used by the community. The plantation with its many small houses and fields was a well-defined
agricultural landscape along the road between Cuthbert and Blakely.
178
This type of analysis delivers the geography that the owner, tenant, and manager shared and
operated. It expresses social relations as well as business management as plantation agriculture
moved into a new phase in its evolution in the twentieth century. Derived from new labor
arrangements, arable soil, and a burgeoning agricultural infrastructure, the New South Plantation is
an agricultural property type that lasted until the 1950s. As important as it is to understand this
larger picture, it only provides some of the story. The archaeological study of five of the tenant
houses provides more intimate information as does oral history.
At the gross scale of the archaeological lens, the deposits at each tenant house had a similarity
reflecting the basic necessities of life: food, water/beverage, and shelter. There were large
amounts of bottle and canning glass, undecorated whiteware and ironstones, wire nails, some cut
nails, and window glass. These basic necessities are also reflected in the types of features
identified. Obviously, we have the houses themselves, but also features related to the cooking,
preservation, and storage of food. The well pump, which appears to have been shared amongst
houses, served to supply the families with water for drinking, cooking, bathing, and washing.
These items illustrate the cadence of everyday life. The artifact patterns reflected shared economic
conditions among the tenant households. Features identified in the tenant house yard were
predominantly related to agriculture and subsistence, such as sheds, potato hills, and cold frames,
and almost no archaeological evidence of decorative landscaping was revealed. However,
seasonal bulb plants were found on site after the fieldwork was completed. While sheet midden
was found in the tenant yards, it was typically located at a short distance from the house,
suggesting the possibility that immediate house yards could have been swept or that the middens
were related to work areas.
While grouping artifacts into functional categories can be helpful for organizing data and
discussions, details often get lost in the noise of the other rather mundane aspects of life. Multiple
individuals and families used these households over about a 70-year period. This situation caused
a blurring of the material culture, making it difficult to ask meaningful questions comparing status,
race, ethnicity and other issues.
It is the idiosyncrasies, which distinguished either individuals or peers within the community that
were best reflected in minor artifact categories or through very specific artifacts. It is in finding
these idiosyncrasies that you get to know the people that lived inside the houses (Figure 8.1). They
had a pet dog. As Feature 20 shows, someone buried items or possibly a small pet in a small
metal box in the backyard. They liked to listen to music as the presence of records with songs from
Rio Rita – a musical romance movie show. Playing marbles was a favorite past time (marbles were
found at every house). They dipped snuff, chewed tobacco, and smoked pipes or cigarettes (P.
Lorillard Co. tobacco and snuff jars). They were members of fraternal organizations as the
presence of an Order of the Odd Fellow lapel pin indicates. These types of artifacts allow one to
get beyond the concept of the site as a cluster of tenant houses where large groups of artifacts are
discussed as percentages of the whole. They become even more important when the artifact
patterns are so homogenous in what they inform us about the poverty of tenant life. Studying
tenant material culture using both what is common as well as the idiosyncratic artifact may be the
best way to get to know some of the people living in those houses. Recovery of these artifacts
makes the tenant farmers that once lived in those houses more real.
E. Glass Marbles
Figure 8.1
Artifacts Representing Idiosyncratic Behaviors
F. Order of the Odd Fellows Pin
A. Phonographic Record Fragments
B. Dog License, Stamped “Dept. of Public
Health” “Georgia - 1947”
C. Stoneware Pipe Bowl Fragment
D. Pharmaceutical Bottle, Owens - Illinois Glass
Company Trademark (1929 - 1954)
A
C
B
D
WE MADE A DAY 179
180
Oral history with Randolph County descendants of tenant farmers also provided essential
information. From the interviewees, we learned about the everyday life of tenants, much of which
had relevance for the tenants at the L.E. Gay Plantation. Gender differences in interviewee’s
memories were apparent as well as differences in how individuals process their past. From hog
scalding to picking cotton to fruit jars full of hot water to making very little for your labor, these
conversations show how individuals dealt with hardship and made their days.
Geographical analysis, historical research, archaeology, and oral history provide insights into the
rural historic landscape that today typifies Gay Farm. L.E. Gay and his wife, Callie Margaret,
established the plantation and expanded it using its physical assets – proximity to Cuthbert, the
existence of public roads that would link farms to the market, sufficient spacing of tenant homes to
provide privacy but clustered to provide economy, reuse of existing infrastructure – to make the
plantation successful. Callie Margaret would manage the plantation with help from her son-in-law
until her death in 1931. Her great granddaughter’s husband, Mr. Richard Mathews, Jr. would
play a similar role in the late 1950s. The plantation today is a rural historic landscape that
contains important information about how plantation agriculture evolved after the Civil War and
rural community growth during the early twentieth century (Figure 8.2). The well-traveled road that
leads from the plantation to the Mitchell School Baptist Church has been traversed over time by the
plantation community as families worshipped, attended school, or were laid to rest. The church,
school and cemetery are part of that historic L.E. Gay Plantation landscape and need to be
considered in future studies.
The L.E. Gay Plantation has been designated a Centennial Farm by the Georgia Department of
Natural Resources, Historic Preservation Division, and its history and landscape bear the marks of
the vicissitudes of the twentieth century. The early airstrip grew from a grassy field to a county
airport. This is another layer in the plantation’s history, showing twentieth-century changes.
Timbering has left its mark and highway improvements have also had an impact on the plantation
property. The last tenants were there in the 1950s, replaced by mechanized labor and changing
agricultural regimens. Farm equipment arranged in a row today behind the vacant and
deteriorating Tenant House 1 tells the story of that change. The plantation center with its rock wall,
main house and manager’s house, and outbuildings is not well preserved. Only the manager’s
house stands with some outbuildings and a remnant of the wall. Despite all these changes, the
historic agricultural landscape still bears the impress of the labor of both tenants and owners who
created the historic plantation within the New South era. Its fields, roads, tenant houses and
archaeological sites, church, school, and cemeteries continue to create a sense of place.
181 WE MADE A DAY Figure 8.2 L.E. Gay Plantation Bird’s Eye View of Rural Historic Landscape
U.S. Highway 27
County Road 33
County Road 55
Plantation
U.S. Highway 27
nter Ce

WE MADE A DAY 183
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adair, James
1930 Adair’s History of the American Indians. Edited by S. C. Williams. Promontory Press,
New York.
Adams, Natalie P. and Mark Swanson
2008 Archaeology of a Tenant Farming Landscape: The Free Cabin Site, Hephzibah, Georgia.
New South Associates, Stone Mountain, in press.
Adams, Natalie P., Mark Swanson, Leslie Raymer, Lisa D. O’Steen, J. W. Joseph and Arthur Cohen.
2004 The Free Cabin Site (9Ri1036): Archaeological Examination of a Postbellum Tenant
Occupation near Hephzibah, Richmond County, Georgia. New South Associates
Technical Report 1207. Report submitted to EarthTech and GDOT.
Adams, Natalie P., Jennifer Langdale, Leslie E. Raymer, Mason Sheffield, and Kate McKinley.
2005 Archaeological Investigations at Yourhaney Plantation (38GE18), Yauhannah Bluff.
Waccamaw Wildlife Refuge, Georgetown County, South Carolina. New South Associates
Technical Report 1314. Report submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Savannah,
Georgia.
Adams, William H. (editor)
1980 Waverly Plantation: Ethnoarchaeology of a Tenant Farming Community. Heritage
Conservation and Recreation Service, Atlanta, Georgia.
Agee, James and Walker Evans
1988 Let Us Now Praise Famous Men. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston.
Aiken, Charles S.
1998 The Cotton Plantation South Since the Civil War. Johns Hopkins University Press,
Baltimore.
Anderson, David G.
1996 Approaches to Modeling Regional Settlement in the Archaic Period Southeast. In
Archaeology of the Mid-Holocene Southeast, edited by Kenneth E. Sassaman and David
G. Anderson, pp. 157-176. Gainesville, Florida.
184
Anderson David G., J. W. Joseph, James E. Cobb, Mary Beth Reed, and Joseph Schuldenrein
1988 Prehistory and History Along the Upper Savannah River: Technical Synthesis of Cltural
Resource Investigations, Richard B. Russel Multiple Resource Are; Volume II. Prepared for
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Savannah District. Prepared by Garrow & Associates,
Inc.
Andrefsky, William Jr.
1998 Lithics: Macroscopic Approaches to Analysis. Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Andrew College
2007 Facts About Andrew College. Electronic Document,
http://www.andrewcollege.edu/facts.html, accessed July 30, 2007.
Angier, Bradford
1974 Field Guide to Edible Wild Plants. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
1978 Field Guide to Medicinal Wild Plants. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
Avto, Eric G.
1994 Clay Tobacco Pipes. Shire Publications, Ltd. London, England.
Bailey, Linerty H.
1949 Manual of Cultivated Plants. Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc.
Banguilan, Alvin J., John S. Cable, Charles E. Cantley, Leslie Raymer, and Victoria Dabir-Banguilan
2005 Phase I and II Archaeological Investigations at Shaw Air Force Base and the Poinsett
Electronic Combat Range in Sumter County, South Carolina. Prepared for the United
States Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth District. Prepared by New South Associates,
Stone Mountain.
Bartovics, Albert F.
1981 The Archaeology of Daniels Village: An Experiment in Settlement Archaeology.
Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Brown University.
Baugher-Perlin, Sherene
1982 Analyzing Glass Bottles for Chronology, Function, and Trade Networks. In Archaeology of
Urban America, the Search for Pattern and Process, edited by Roy S. Dickens, Jr., pp.259-
273. Academic Press, New York.
WE MADE A DAY 185
Bense, Judith A. (editor)
1987 Midden Mound Project. Reports of Investigations No. 6, Office of Cultural and
Archaeological Research, University of West Florida, Pensacola.
1994 Archaeology of the Southeastern United States, Paleoindian to World War i. Academic
Press, San Diego.
Beverley, Robert
1968 The History and Present State of Virginia, edited by L. B. Wright. Originally Published in
1705. Dominian Books, University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville.
Blanton, Dennis B., Christopher T. Espenshade, and Paul E. Brockington
1986 An Archaeological Study of 38SU83: A Yadkin Phase Site in the Upper Coastal Plain of
South Carolina. Report prepared for the South Carolina Department of Highways and
Public Transportation, Columbia. Report prepared by Garrow & Associates, Inc., Atlanta.
Bode, Frederick A. and Donald E. Ginter
1986 Farm Tenancy and the Census in the Antebellum Georgia. University of Georgia Press,
Athens.
Braley, Chad O.
1995 Historic Indian Period Archaeology of the Georgia Coastal Plain. Georgia Archaeological
Research Design Paper No. 10. University of Georgia Laboratory of Archaeology Series
Report No. 34. University of Georgia, Athens.
Braun, Emma L.
1950 Deciduous Forests of Eastern North America. Hafner Publishing Company, New York.
Britton, Nathaniel L. and Addison Brown
1970 An Illustrated Flora of the Northern United States and Canada. 3 Volumes. Reprinted.
Dover Publications, New York. Originally published 1913, Charles Scribner's Sons, New
York.
Brook, George A.
1981 Geoarchaeology of the Oconee Reservoir Site: Some Early Results. Manuscript on file,
Laboratory of Archaeology, Department of Anthropology, University of Georgia, Athens.
Brown, Kenneth L.
2001 The Archaeology of Ritual on South Carolina Plantation Sites: Artifacts and Contexts.
Paper presented at the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Chattanooga, Tennessee.
Brown, Kristine N. and Kenneth L. Brown
1998 Archaeology and Spirituality: the Conjurer/Midwife and the Praise House/Church at the
Levi Jordon Plantation. Paper Presented at the Society for Historical Archaeology
Conference, Atlanta, Georgia.
186
Bureau of the Census
1913 Thirteenth Census of the United States, taken in the Year 1910. Volume VI; Agriculture
1909 and 1910. Reports by State with Statistics for Counties, Alabama to Montana.
Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce and Labor. Government Printing Office,
Washington. On file, Emory University Library.
Cabak, Melanie A. and Mary M. Inkrot
1997 Old Farm, New Farm: An Archaeology of Rural Mechanization in the Aiken Plateau,
1875-1950. Savannah River Archaeological Research Papers 9. South Carolina Institue
of Archaeology and Anthropology, Columbia.
Cambron. James W. and David Hulse
1975 Handbook of Alabama Archaeology: Part I: Point Types. Archaeology Research Center
Association of Alabama, Birmingham.
Cantley, Charles E. and J. W. Joseph
1991 Prehistory of the Middle Chattahoochee River Valley: Findings of the 1989-1990 West
Point Lake Archaeological Survey and Site Testing Project. Technical Report submitted by
New South Associates to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile.
Cantley, Charles E., Leslie E. Raymer, Johannes H. N. Loubser, and Mary Beth Reed
1996 Phase III Data Recovery at Four Prehistoric Sites in the Horton Creek Reservoir Project Area,
Fayette County, Georgia. Submitted to Mallett and Associates. Copies available from
New South Associates, Stone Mountain, Georgia.
Chamblee, John F.
2004 Regional Survey and Intra-site Patterns in the Chickasawhatchee Swamp, Georgia. Paper
presented at the 61st Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, St.
Louis.
2005 Regional and Intra-Site Settlement Patterns in the Chickaswatchee Swamp, Georgia. Paper
presented at the 70th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Salt Lake
City.
2006 Periods, Patches, and Places: A New Look at Eastern Woodlands Settlement Patterns and
Mound Building in the Lower Southeast. Unpublished Paper presented at the 63rd
Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Little Rock.
Clarke, William Z., Jr. and Arnold C. Zisa
1976 Physiographic Map of Georgia. U.S. Department of Natural Resources. Atlanta.
Coffey, Timothy
1993 The History and Folklore of North American Wildflowers. Houghton Mifflin Company,
Boston.
WE MADE A DAY 187
Condit, Ira J.
1947 The Fig. Chronica Botanica, Waltham, Massachusetts.
Cooke, Charles W.
1943 Geology of the Coastal Plain of Georgia. Geologic Survey Bulletin 941. Department of
the Interior. Washington.
Coon, Nelson
1963 Using Plants for Healing. Hearthside Press, Inc.
Cox, Donald D.
1985 Common Flowering Plants of the Northeast. State University of New York Press, Albany.
Crass, David C. and Mark J. Brooks (editors)
1995 Cotton and Black Draught: Consumer Behavior on a Postbellum Farm. Savannah River
Archaeological Research Papers 5. South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and
Anthropology, University of South Carolina.
Crellin, John K. and Jane Philpott
1989 Herbal Medicine Past and Present. Volume II: A Reference Guide to Medicinal Plants,
Duke University Press, Durham, North Carolina.
Cyriaque, Jeanne, Keith Hebert, and Steven Moffson
2009 Rosenwald Schools in Georgia, 1912-1937. National Register of Historic Places Multiple
Property Documentation Form. On deposit, Georgia Historic Preservation Division,
Department of Natural Resources, Atlanta, Georgia.
Delcourt, Hazel R.
1979 Late Quaternary Vegetation History of the Eastern Highland Rim and Adjacent Cumberland
Plateau of Tennessee. Ecological Monographs 49:255-280.
Delcourt, Paul A. and Hazel R. Delcourt
1987 Long-term Forest Dynamics of the Temperate Zone: A Case Study of Late-Quaternary
Forests in Eastern North America. Ecological Studies 63. Springer-Verlag, New York.
Drucker, L.eslie, Woody C. Meiszner, and James B. Legg
1983 The Banister Allen Plantation and Thomas B. Clinkscale Farm: Data Recovery in the
Richland B. Russell Multiple Resource Area, Abbeville County, South Carolina. Russell
Papers 1983. Submitted to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Savannah District,
Archaeological Services, National Park Service, Atlanta, Georgia. Prepared by Carolina
Archaeological Services, Columbia.
Duke, James A.
1992 Handbook of Medicinal Herbs. CRC Press, Inc., Boca Rotan, Florida.
188
Elliott, Daniel T.
2004 Southwest Georgia Archaeological Survey, 2001-2004. Lamar Institute Publication 60,
Box Springs.
Elliot, Daniel T. and Kenneth E. Sassaman
1995 Archaic Period Archaeology of the Georgia Coastal Plain and Coastal Zone. Georgia
Archaeological Research Design Paper No. 11. University of Georgia Laboratory of
Archaeology Series Report Number 35, Athens.
Espenshade, Christopher T.
1986 CRM: Vogtle-Effingham-Thalmann 500 KV Electric Transmission Line: GP-SN-13: Data
Recovery. Garrow & Associates, Inc., Atlanta.
Favretti, Rudy J. and Joy P. Favretti
1990 For Every House a Garden. University Press of New England, Hanover.
Federal Census
1930 United States Federal Census [database on-line]. Retrieved in November 2010 from
Ancestry.com Operations
1940 United States Federal Census [database on-line]. Retrieved in November 2010 from
Ancestry.com Operations
1950 United States Federal Census [database on-line]. Retrieved in November 2010 from
Ancestry.com Operations
Fernald, Lyndon F., and Alfred C. Kinsey
1958 Edible Wild Plants of Eastern North America. Harper and Brothers, New York.
Florida Geologic Society (FSG)
2006 Florida Geologic Society. Electronic document, http://www.dep.state.fl.us/geology/
geologytopics/rocks/suwanee_limestone.htm, accessed July 2006.
Franklin, Jimmie L.
1982 Journey Toward Hope: A History of Blacks in Oklahoma University of Oklahoma Press,
Norman
Friedman, Janet L., Stephen G. Del Sordo, and L. Jones
1993 Historic Resources Survey for the U.S. 27 Improvement in Miller, Early, Clay, Randolph
and Stewart Counties, Georgia. Dames & Moore Eastern Division Cultural Resource
Services. Bethesda, Maryland.
Fritz, Gayle
1993 Early and Middle Period Paleoethnobotany. In Foraging and Farming in the Eastern
Woodlands, edited by M. Scarry, pp. 39-56. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
WE MADE A DAY 189
Foster, Steven and James A. Duke
1990 A Field Guide to Medicinal Plants, Eastern and Central North America. The Peterson Field
Guide Series. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston.
GDNR (Georgia Department of Natural Resources)
2005 A Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy for Georgia. Georgia Department of
Natural Resources Wildlife Resources Division. Electronic document, http://www.gadnr.
org/cwcs/Documents/strategy.html, accessed July 2007.
Georgia Department of Transportation
n.d. Request for Determination of Eligibility, Archaeological Site 9RH41. Compiled by D. Reed
and A. Kissane. On file at the Georgia Department of Transportation.
2005 Scope of Work. Archaeological Mitigation of National Register Eligible Sites 9RH41 (Gay
Farms) and 9RH27, U.S. Highway 27, Randolph County, Georgia. On file at the Georgia
Department of Transportation, Atlanta.
GSSU (Georgia Southwestern State University)
2006 Georgia Southwestern State University. Electronic document, http://itc.gsw.edu/faculty/
bcarter/natres/timscl/ocala.htm, accessed May 25, 2006.
Gibson, John L. and Phillip J. Carr (editors)
2004 Signs of Power: The Rise of Cultural Complexity in the Southeast. The University of
Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Gillespie, William H.
1959 A Compilation of the Edible Wild Plants of West Virginia. Scholar's Library, New York.
Goad, Sharon I.
1979 Chert Resources in Georgia: Archaeological and Geological Perspectives. University of
Georgia, Laboratory of Archaeology Series Report 21, Athens.
Goldenweiser, Emanuel A. and Leon E. Truesdell
1924 Farm Tenancy in the United States: An Analysis of the Results of the 1920 Census Relative
to Farms Classified by Tenure Supplemented by Pertinent Data from Other Sources.
Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Census Monographs IV. Government
Printing Office, Washington. On file, Emory University Library.
Golley, Frank B.
1962 Mammals of Georgia: A Study of Distribution and Functional Role in the Ecosystem.
University of Georgia, Athens.
Goolsby, Iva P., Florence T. Moye, and Cornelia M. Mattox
1977 Randolph County, Georgia Volume I: A Compilation of Facts, Recollections, and Family
Histories. Randolph County Historical Society, Cuthbert.
190
Gould, Richard A.
1971 The Archaeologist as Ethnographer: A Case from the Western Desert of Australia. World
Archaeology 3:143-177.
Grieve, Margaret
1931 A Modern Herbal: The Medicinal, Culinary, Cosmetic, and Economic Properties,
Cultivation and Folk-Lore of Herbs, Grasses, Fungi, Shrubs, and Trees with all Their
Modern Scientific Uses. 2 Volumes. Harcourt, Brace, and Company.
Griffin, James B. and William H. Sears
1950 Certain Sand-Tempered Pottery Types of the Southeast. In Prehistoric Pottery of the Eastern
United States, edited by J.B. Griffin. University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology. Ann
Arbor.
Griffith, Robert E.
1847 Medical Botany. Lea and Blanchard, Philadelphia.
Griffith, Glenn E., J. M. Omernik, J. Comstock, A. Lawrence, and T. Foster
2001 Ecoregions of Alabama and Georgia. Color Poster with Map, Descriptive Text, Summary
Tables, and Photographs. Mape Scale 1:1,700,000 U.S. Geographic Survey, Reston
Virginia.
Hall, Alan
1976 The Wild Food Trail Guide. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York.
Hall, Robert L.
1991 Savoring Africa in the New World. In Seeds of Change: A Quincentennial
Commemoration. Edited by H. J. Viola and C. Margolis, pp. 161-171. Smithsonian
Institution Press, Washington, D. C.
Hally, David J. and Mark Williams
1994 Macon Plateau Site Community Pattern. In Ocmulgee Archaeology, 1936-1986, edited by
David J. Hally, pp. 84-95. University of Georgia Press, Athens.
Halstead, Byron D. (editor)
1994 Barns, Sheds & Outbuildings: Placement, Design, and Construction. Alan C. Hood &
Company, Brattleboro, Vermont. Originally published in 1881.
Hedrick, U.P.
1972 Sturtevant's Edible Plants of the World. Reprinted. Dover Publications, New York.
Originally published 1919, Lyon Press, Albany.
Historical Data Systems
1999 American Civil War Soldiers [database on-line]. Retrieved in November 2010 from
Ancestry.com Operations Inc, 2002
WE MADE A DAY 191
Historical Census Browser
2007 University of Virginia, Geospatial and Statistical Data Center:
http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/collections/stats/histcensus/index.html. Retrieved on
December 30, 2007.
Historic Preservation Division
1991 Georgia's Living Places: Historic Houses in Their Landscaped Settings. Accessed online on
February 14, 2012 at
http://www.gashpo.org/content/displaycontent.asp?txtDocument=244
Hodler, Thomas W. and David R. Schretter
1986 The Atlas of Georgia. The Institute of Community and Area Development, University of
Georgia, Athens.
Holland, Claudia C.
1990 Tenant Farms of the Past, Present, and Future: An Ethnoarchaeological View. Society for
Historical Archaeology 24(4):60-69.
Johannessen, Sissel J.
1993 Farmers of the Late Woodland. In Foraging and Farming in the Eastern Woodlands,
edited by C. M. Scarry, pp. 39-56. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Johnson, John H.
1983 Soil Survey of Muscogee County, Georgia. United States Department of Agricultures, Soil
Conservation Service.
Jones, Joseph W.
2003 Ecological Research Center at Ichauway. Electronic document, http://www.jonesctr.org/
research/aquatics_research/wetland_research.html, accessed March 27, 2006.
Jones, Olive and Catherine Sullivan
1989 The Parks Canada Glass Glossary. Studies in Archaeology, Architecture and History.
National Historic Parks and Sites, Canadian Parks Service, Quebec, Canada.
Joseph, J.W., Theresa M. Hamby, and Chad S. Long
2004 Historical Archaeology in Georgia. Georgia Archaeological Research Design Paper No.
14, University of Georgia Laboratory Archaeology Series Report No. 39, University of
Georgia, Athens.
Joseph, J. W., Mary Beth Reed, and Charles E. Cantley
1990 Agrarian Life, Romantic Death: Archaeological and Historical Testing and Data Recovery
for the I-85 Northern Alternative, Spartanburg, South Carolina. Technical Report 39, New
South Associates, Stone Mountain, Georgia.
192
Jurney, David H., Susan A. Lebo, and Melissa M. Green
1988 Historic Farming on the Hogwallow Prairies, Ethnoarchaeological Investigations of the
Mountain Creek Area, North Central Texas. Report prepared for the U.S. Army Coprs of
Engineers, Fort Worth District. Archaeological Research Program, Southern Methodist
University, Dallas.
Kendrick, Grace
1963 The Antique Bottle Collector: Secrets Revealed to Date and Evaluate Bottles of the
Nineteenth Century. Sparks, Nevada.
Ketchum, William C., Jr.
1983 Pottery and Porcelain. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.
Krochmal, Arnold and Connie Krochmal
1973 A Guide to the Medicinal Plants of the United States. Quadrangle/The New York Times
Book Company, New York, New York.
Kuchler, A. William
1964 Potential Natural Vegetation of the Coterminous United States. American Geographical
Society Special Publication Vol. 36.
Ledbetter, R. Jerald
1995 Archaeological Investigations at Mill Branch Sites 9Wr4 and 9Wr11, Warren County,
Georgia. Technical Reports No. 3, Interagency Archaeological Services Division, Atlanta.
Ledbetter, R. Jerald, David G. Anderson, Lisa D. O'Steen, and Daniel T. Elliott
1996 Paleoindian and Early Archaic Research in Georgia. In The Paleoindian and Early Archaic
Southeast, edited by David G. Anderson and Kenneth E. Sassaman, pp. 270-287.
University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa.
LeMaistre, Elise
1988 In Search of a Garden: African Americans and the Land in the Piedmont Georgia.
Master’s Thesis, University of Georgia, Athens.
Leighton, Ann
1986 American Gardens in the Eighteenth Century, "For Use or for Delight," University of
Massachusetts, Amherst.
1987 American Gardens of the Nineteenth Century, for Comfort and Affluence. University of
Massachusetts, Amherst.
Loettler, Gretchen and Judy L. Meyer
2006 River Basins Center, Institute of Ecology, University of Georgia. Electronic Document,
http://www.rivercenter.uga.edu/education/k12resources/basinsofga2.htm, accessed
March 28, 2006.
WE MADE A DAY 193
Lopinot, Neal H., and David E. Brussell
1982 Assessing Uncarbonized Seeds from Open-Air Sites in Mesic Environments: An Example
from Southern Illinois. Journal of Archaeological Science 9:95-108.
Maguire, Jane
1975 On Shares: Ed Brown’s Story. Norton, New York.
Markewich, H. W. and William Markewich
1994 An Overview of Pleistocene and Holocene Inland Dunes in Georgia and the CarolinasMorphology, Distribution, Age, and Paleoclimate. U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 2069,
Washington D.C.
Martin, Alexander C., and William D. Barkley
1961 Seed Identification Manual. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Massey, A. B.
1942 Medicinal Plants. Bulletin of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute XXXV (13):5-51.
McBride, Harriett W.
2005 The Golden Age of Fraternalism:1870-1910. Heredom 13:1-31.
McDowel, Robin J.
2007 Groundwater. Electronic document, http://georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/Article.jsp?id
=h-1181&h1=y, accessed August 2007. New Georgia Encyclopedia.
McKearin, Helen and Kenneth M. Wilson
1978 American Bottles & Flasks and their Ancestry. M. Wilson Crown Publishers, New York
Medve, Richard J. and Mary C. Medve
1990 Edible Wild Plants of Pennsylvania and Neighboring States. Pennsylvania State University,
University Park.
Messick, Denise P., Johannes Loubser, Theresa M. Hamby, J. W. Joseph, Mary Beth Reed, and Leslie
Raymer
2001 Tilling the Earth: Georgia’s Historic Agricultural Heritage – A Context. Georgia Historic
Preservation Division and Georgia Department of Transportation. New South Associates,
Stone Mountain.
Miksicek, Charles H.
1987 Formation Processes of the Archaeobotanical Record. Advances in Archaeological
Method and Theory 10: 211-247.
Milanich, Jerald T.
1971 The Deptford Phase: An Archaeological Reconstruction. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of
Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville.
194
Miller, George L.
1991 A Revised Set of CC Index Values for Classification and Economic Scaling of English
Ceramics from 1787 to 1880. Historical Archaeology, 25(1):195-228.
Miller, George L. and Catherine Sullivan
1981 Machine-Made Glass Containers and the End of Production for Mouth-Blown Bottles.
Research Bulletin #171. Parks Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Miller, George L., Pamela Samford, Eleen Shlasko, and Andrew Madsen
2000 Telling Time for Archaeologists. Northeast Historical Archaeology 29:1-22.
Miller, Naomi F.
1989 What Mean These Seeds: A Comparative Approach to Archaeological Seed Analysis.
Historical Archaeology 23(2):50-59.
Millspaugh, Charles F.
1884 American Medicinal Plants: An Illustrated and Descriptive Guide to the American Plants
Used as Homeopathic Remedies, Their History, Preparation, Chemistry, and Physiological
Effects. Boericke and Tafel, New York.
Minnis, Paul E.
1981 Seeds in Archaeological Sites: Sources and Some Interpretive Problems. American
Antiquity 46:143-152.
Moerman, Daniel E.
1998 Native American Ethnobotany. Timber Press, Portland.
Moir, Randall W.
1982 Sheet Refuse: An Indicator of Past Lifeways. In Settlement of the Prairie Margin:
Archaeology of the Richland Creek Reservoir, Navarro and Freestone Counties, Texas,
1980-1981: A Research Synopsis, edited by Mark L. Raab, pp. 139-152. Report
prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth District. Archaeological
Research Laboratory, Southern Methodist University, Dallas.
Moir, Randall W. and David H. Jurney
1987 Richland Creek Farmsteads: Summary and Conclusions. In Historic Buildings, Material
Cultures, and People of the Prairie Margin: Architectures, Artifacts, an Synthesis of Historic
Archaeology, edited by D. H. Jurney and R. W. Moir, pp. 239-245. Archaeology
Research Program, Institute for the Study of Earth and Man, Southern Methodist University,
Dallas.
Monroe, K. W.
2007 Soil Survey of Randolph County. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural
Resources Conservation Service.
WE MADE A DAY 195
Montgomery, Frederick H.
1977 Seeds and Fruits of Plants of Eastern Canada and Northeastern United States. University
of Toronto Press, Toronto and Buffalo.
Mugerauer, Robert
1985 Midwestern Yards. Places 2(2):31-39).
Munsey, Cecil
1970 The Illustrated Guide to Collection Bottles. Hawthorne Books, Inc., New York.
Myer, William E.
1928 Indian Trails of the Southeast. Forty-second Annual Report of the Bureau of American
Ethnology to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, 1924-25. U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Myers, J. E. and J. L. Friedman
1994 Archaeological Resources Survey for U.S. 27 Improvements, Miller, Early, Clay, Randolph,
and Stewart Counties, Georgia. Prepared for the Georgia Department of Transportation.
Prepared by Dames and Moore, Atlanta.
Nelson, Lee
1968 Nail Chronology as an Aid to Dating Old Buidlings. Technical Leaflet 48. American
Association for State and Local History, Nashville.
Nesbitt, R. T.
1895 Georgia: Her Resources and Possibilities. Franklin Printing and Publishing Company,
Atlanta.
Noel Hume, Ivor
1970 A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.
Orser, Charles E. Jr.
1988 The Material Basis of the Postbellum Tenant Plantation: Historical Archaeology in the South
Carolina Piedmont. University of Georgia Press, Athens.
1990 The Archaeological Recognition of the Squad System on Postbellum Cotton Plantations, pp.
45-58. In Archaeological Perspectives on Farm Tenancy in the Southeastern United States,
edited by William H. Adams and Stephanie H. Rodeffer. Unpublished Manuscript
Orser, Charles E. and Annette M. Nekola
1985 Plantation Settlement from Slavery to Tenancy: An Example from a Piedmont Plantation in
South Carolina, pp. 67-96. In The Archaeology of Slavery and Plantation Life, edited by
Theresa A. Singleton. Academic Press, New York.
196
Orser, Charles E., Annette M. Nekola, and James L. Roark
1987 Exploring the Rustic Life: Multidisciplinary Research at Millwood Plantation, A Large
Piedmont Plantation in Abbeville County, South Carolina and Elbert County, Georgia.
Russell Papers. National Park Service, Interagency Archeological Services. Loyola
University, Chicago.
Ottesen, Annette I. and T. B. Riordan
1986 Report of Investigations Phase I Research and Recovery Program for Historic Resources,
Cultural Resources Mitigation Effects Plan, Rocky Mountain Pumped Storage, Floyd County,
Georgia. Georgia Power Company, Atlanta.
Peacock, Primrose
1972 Antique Buttons, Their History and How to Collect Them. Drake Publications, New York.
Pearsall, Deborah
1989 Paleoethnobotany: A Handbook of Procedures. Academic Press, San Diego.
Peterson, Lee A.
1977 A Field Guide to Edible Wild Plants, Eastern and Central North America. The Peterson
Field Guide Series. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston.
Phillips, S. W., Earl D. Fowler, E. W. Knobel, and J. W. Moon
1928 Soil Survey Randolph County, Georgia. United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau of
Chemistry and Soils, United States Government Printing Office, Washington.
Pluckhahn, Thomas J.
2003 Kolomoki: Settlement, Ceremony, and Status in the Deep South, AD 350 to 750. The
University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Port, David E., Mel Umberger, and M. Taliaferro
2002 An African American Presence: Archaeological Investigations at the 1818 Hickman Log
Cabin and the Cook’s House at Pond Spring Plantation (1LA336), Lawrence County,
Alabama. New South Associates, Stone Mountain, Georgia.
Psota, Sunshine
2002 Boss of the Road: Early-20th-Century Consumer Selections of Work Clothing from Alabama
Gates Work Camp, Owens Valley, California in Historical Archaeology Vol. 36 No. 4 pp.
111-128.
Prunty, Merle
1955 The Renaissance of the Southern Plantation. The Geographical Review 45:456-491.
Radford, Albert E., Henry E. Ahles, and C. Ritchie Bell
1968 Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel
Hill.
WE MADE A DAY 197
Randolph County Land Records
1830-1940 Randolph County Land Records. Records on file at the Randolph County Probate
Office, Cuthbert.
Randolph County Historical Society
1997 Randolph County, History Volume II. Wolfe Publishing, Fernandina Beach.
Randolph County Tax Records
1880-1935 Randolph County Tax Records. Records on File at the Dept of Archives and History,
Atlanta.
Range, Williard
1954 A Century of Georgia Architecture,1850-1950. University of Georgia Press, Athens.
Raper, Arthur F.
2004 [1936] Preface to Peasantry: A Tale of Two Black Belt Counties. Originally Published
1936, University of South Carolina Press, Columbia.
Raymer, Leslie E.
1996 Macroplant Remains from the Jefferson's Poplar Forest Slave Quarter: A Study of African
American Subsistence Practices. Report prepared for Corporation for Jefferson's Poplar
Forest, Forest, Virginia. New South Associates Technical Report 402.
1997 Macroplant Remains from Six Nineteenth-Century Cabins at the Hermitage, Tennessee: A
Study of Antebellum and Early Emancipation Period African American Subsistence Patterns.
Report submitted to the Hermitage, Hermitage, Tennessee. New South Associates
Technical Report 376.
1998 Archaeobotanical, Palynological, Phytolith, and Soil Chemistry Analysis, Abingdon
Plantation Site, Arlington County, Virginia. Report submitted to Greenhorne & O’Mara,
Inc., Greenbelt, Maryland. New South Associates Technical Report 568.
2000 Macroplant Remains from Eighteenth-Century Occupations at New Windsor Township,
South Carolina. Report prepared for the Savannah River Archaeological Research
Program, New Ellenton, South Carolina. New South Associates Technical Report 636.
2003 Archaeobotanical Analysis from 1999 Excavations at the North Hill and Quarter
Sites, Jefferson’s Poplar Forest: A Study of Enslaved African American Subsistence
Practices. New South Associates Technical Report 781. Report prepared for the
Corporation for Jefferson’s Poplar Forest.
2007 Foraging and Farming in the City: Archaeobotanical Investigations Associated with the
Charleston Judicial Center Data Recovery. South Carolina Antiquities 39:34-51.
198
Raymer, Leslie E., and Barbara J. Heath.
2001 African American Foraging Strategies at a Virginia Plantation. Paper presented at the
66th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, New Orleans, Louisiana.
Raymer, Leslie E., and Lisa O'Steen
1994 Chapter 5.3, Subsistence Remains. In Phase III Data Recovery, Mechanic Street Site
(18AG206), Station Square Project, Cumberland, Maryland, by C.D. Cheek, R. Yamin,
D.B. Heck, L.E. Raymer, and L.D. O'Steen, pp. 112-170. John Milner Associates,
Alexandria, Virginia. Prepared for Maryland State Highway Administration.
Reid, Dawn, Marion D. Roberts, Joseph Sanders, John B. O’Donnell, and Barbara G. Southerlin
1996 Phase I and Phase II Cultural Resources Investigations of the Proposed Reconstruction
Segments Along U.S. Highway 27 in Early, Clay, and Randolph Counties, Georgia.
Prepared for Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. Prepared by Brockington & Associates,
Inc., Atlanta.
Reinberger, Mark
2003 The Architecture of Sharecropping” Extended Garms of the Georgia Piedmont. In
Constructing Image, Identity, and Place, IX: Perspectives in Vernacular Architecture. The
University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.
Root, Waverly
1980 Food: An Authoritative and Visual History and Dictionary of the Foods of the World.
Simon and Shuster, Inc., New York, New York.
Russo, Michael
1994 Archaic Mounds in the Southeast. Southeastern Archaeology 3(2):89-109.
Sassaman, Kenneth E.
1993 Early Woodland Settlement in the Aiken Plateau: Archaeological Investigations at
38Ak157, Savannah River Site, Aiken County, South Carolina. Savannah River
Archaeological Research Paper 3. Occasional Papers of the Savannah Archaeological
Research Program, South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University
of South Carolina, Columbia.
1997 Refining Soapstone Vessel Chronology in the Southeast. Early Georgia 25(10:1-20.
Sassaman, Kenneth E. and Mark J. Brooks
1988 Raw Material Procurement and the Reduction of Hunter-gatherer Range in the Savannah
River Valley. Southeastern Archaeology 7:79-94.
WE MADE A DAY 199
Sassaman, Kenneth E., Mark J. Brooks, Glen T. Hanson, and David G. Anderson.
1990 Native American Prehistory of the Middle Savannah River Valley: A Synthesis of
Archaeological Investigations on the Savannah River Site, Aiken and Barnwell Counties,
South Carolina. Savannah River Archaeological Research Papers 1, South Carolina
Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia.
Scarry, John F.
1980 The Chronology of Fort Walton Development in the Upper Apalachicola Valley, Florida.
Southeastern Archaeological Conference Bulletin 22:38-45.
SCDAH (South Carolina Department of Archives and History)
2007a Allendale Chert Quarries Archaeological District, Allendale County. Electronic document
http://nationalregister.sc.gov/allendale/S10817703001/index.htm. Accessed October
2007.
2007b Red Bluff Flint Quarries, Allendale Count. Electronic document
http://www.nationalregister.sc. gov/Allendale/S10817703008/index.htm. Accessed
October 2007.
Schnell, Frank T. and Newell O. Wright
1993 Mississippian Period Archaeology of the Georgia Coastal Plain. Georgia Archaeological
Research Design Papers No. 3. University of Georgia Laboratory of Archaeology Series
Report No. 26. University of Georgia, Athens.
Schroedl, Gerald F.
1998 Mississippian Towns in the Eastern Tennessee Valley. In Mississippian Towns and Sacred
Spaces: Searching for and Architectural Grammar, edited by R. B. Lewis and C. Stout, pp.
64-92. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Skocpol, Theda and Jennifer L. Oser
2004 Organization Despite Adversity: The Origins and Development of African American
Fraternal Organizations. Social Science History 28(3):367-437.
Sheehan, Mark C., D. R. Whitehead, and Scott T. Jackson
1985 Late Quaternary Environmental History of the Richard B. Russell Multiple Resource Area.
Report submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Savannah District, Savannah,
Georgia.
Smith, Bruce D.
1986 The Archeology of the Southeastern United States: from Dalton to de Soto. Advances in
World Archaeology 5:1-91.
1994 The Emergence of Agriculture. Scientific American Library, New York.
200
Smith, Craig S., and Lance M. McNees
1999 Facilities and Hunter-Gatherer Long-Term Land Use Patterns: An Example from Southwest
Wyoming. American Antiquity 64(1):117-136.
Snow, Frankie
1998 Swift Creek Design Investigations: The Hartford Site. In A World Engraved: Archaeology
of the Swift Creek Culture. Edited by M. Williams and D. T. Elliot, pp. 61-98. The
University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Society for Historical Archaeology (SHA) Newsletter
2007 African American Life from Slavery to Tenancy at Strawberry Plains. Article placed by K.
Cande and T. Weik. University of West Florida, Pensacola.
South, Stanley A.
1977 Method and Theory in Historical Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.
Southall, Sharman
2007 Gay Farm Historic District. Manuscript on file at the Georgia Department of
Transportation, Atlanta.
Steinen, Karl T.
1995 Woodland Period Archaeology of the Georgia Coastal Plain. Georgia Archaeological
Research Design Paper No. 12. University of Georgia Laboratory of Archaeology Series
Report No. 36. University of Georgia, Athens.
1998 Kolomoki and the Development of Sociopolitical Organization on the Gulf Coast Plain. In
A World Engraved: Archaeology of the Swift Creek Culture. Edited by Mark Williams and
Daniel T Elliott, pp.181-196. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Stiles, Daniel
1977 Ethnoarchaeology: A Discussion of Methods and Applications. Man 12:87-103
Swanton, John R.
1911 Indian Tribes of the Lower Mississippi Valley and Adjacent Coast of the Gulf of Mexico.
Bulletin 43, Bureau of American Ethnology, Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.
1946 The Indians of the Southeastern United States. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington
D.C.
Thomas, Prentice M., Jr., and L. Janice Campbell
1993 Eglin Air Force Base; Historic Preservation Plan; Technical Synthesis of Cultural Resources
Investigations at Eglin; Santa Rosa, Okaloosa and Walton Counties, Florida. New World
Research, Inc., Report of Investigations No. 192. Prepared for the National Park Service,
Southeast Region, Atlanta. Contract No. CX5000-2-0497.
WE MADE A DAY 201
Trinkley, Michael, Debbie Hacker, and Natalie Adams
1993 Life in the Pee Dee: Prehistoric and Historic Research on the Roche Carolina Tract,
Florence County, South Carolina. Research Series 39. Chicora Foundation, Inc.,
Columbia.
Trinkley, Michael, Debbie Hacker, Nichole Southerland, and Julie Poppell.
2006 Data Recovery at 38RD1249, 38RD1260 and 38RD1262: Tenancy in Richland County,
South Carolina. Research Series 68. Chicora Foundation.
United States Department of Agriculture
1974 Seeds of Woody Plants in the United States. USDA Forest Service, Agriculture Handbook
450. United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA NRCS)
2007a Web Soil Survey. Electronic document,
http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx, accessed April 24, 2007.
2007b Soil Series Classification Database, Soil Series Name Search, Faceville Soil Series.
Electronic document, http://www2.ftw.nrcs.usda.gov/osd/dat/F/FACEVILLE.html,
accessed April 24, 2007.
USGS (United States Geological Survey)
2004 Description of the ACF River Basin Study Area. Electronic document,
http://ga.water.usgs.gov/nawqa/basin0.html, accessed August 2007.
Veach, Jethro O. and Lloyd W. Stephenson
1911 Preliminary Report of the Geology of the Coastal Plain of Georgia. Geological Survey of
Georgia, Bulletin 26.
Vlach, John M.
1993 Back of the Big House: The Architecture of Plantation Slavery. UNC Press, Chapel Hill.
Waggoner, J. C.
2003 Gum Ponds and Cypress Swamps: Late Archaic Use of Upland Interriverine Resources in
the Dougherty Plain of Southwest Georgia. Paper presented at the 60th Southeastern
Archaeological Conference, Charlotte.
Ward, Artenis
1941 The Encyclopedia of Food. Reprinted. Peter Smith, New York. Originally
published,1923, Baker and Taylor Co., Inc.
Watson, Patty J.
1976 In Pursuit of Prehistoric Subsistence: A Comparative Account of Some Contemporary
Flotation Techniques. Mid-Continental Journal of Archaeology 1(1):77-100.
202
Wandsnider, Luann
1992 The Spatial Dimension of Time. In Space, Time, and Archaeological Landscapes, edited
by J. Rossignol and L. Wandsnider, pp. 257-282. Plenum Press, New York.
Warhop, Jennifer R., Leslie Raymer, R. Jeannine Windham, and Jennifer Azzarello
2008 The Early and Late Archaic in Southwest Georgia: Phase III Archaeological Data Recovery
of 9RH27, Little House Site, Randolph County, Georgia. Prepared for the Georgia
Department of Transportation, Atlanta. Prepared by New South Associates, Stone
Mountain.
Waselkov, Gregory A.
1997 Changing Strategies of Indian Field Location in the Early Historic Southeast. In People,
Plant, and Landscape Studies in Paleoethnobotony, edited by K. J. Gremillion, pp. 179-
194. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Waselkov, Gregory A. and Kathryn E. H. Braund (editors)
1995 William Bartram on the Southeastern Indians. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.
Watts, W.A.
1980 Late Quaternary Vegetation History at White Pond on the Inner Coastal Plain of South
Carolina. Quaternary Research 13:187–99
Webb, Thompson, Patrick J. Bartlein, S. P. Harrison, and K. H. Anderson
1993 Vegetation, Lake Levels, and Climate in eastern North America for the Past 18,000 years.
In Global Climate Since the Last Glacial Maximum, edited by H. E. Wright, J. E. Kutzbach,
Thompson Webb, William F. Ruddiman, F. Alayne Street-Perrott, and Patrick J. Bartlein,
pp. 415-467. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.
Westmacott, Richard
1996 African American Gardens and Yards in the Rural South. University of Tennessee Press,
Knoxville.
Wettstaedt, James
2010 Investigations at Site 9OG373, A Passport in Time Project, Oglethorpe County, Oconee
Ranger District, Chattahoochie-Oconee National Forests, Georgia
Wharton, Charles H.
1978 The Natural Environments of Georgia. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Atlanta.
Whatley, John S.
1992 A Proposed South Georgia Projectile Point Chronology. In The Profile Papers. Society of
Georgia Archaeology Special Publication Number 1.
2002 An Overview of Georgia Projectile Points and Selected Cutting Tools. Early Georgia
30(1):7-133.
WE MADE A DAY 203
Wheaton, Thomas R., Mary Beth Reed, Rita Folse Elliott, Marc S. Frank, and Leslie E. Raymer.
1990 James City, North Carolina, Archeological and Historical Study of an African American
Urban Village. New South Associates Technical Report No. 6. Report submitted to Bridge
Pointe Development.
White, George
1854 Historical Collections of Georgia: Containing the Most Interesting Facts, Traditions,
Biographical Sketches, Anecdotes, Etc. Pudney & Russell, Publishers, New York.
White, J. R.
1977 Ethnoarchaeology, Ethnohistory, Ethnographic Analogy, and the Direct-Historical
Approach: Four Methodological Entities Commonly Misconstrued. Conference on Historic
Sites Archaeology Papers 1976, 11:98-110.
Williams, S. and J. P. Brain
1983 Excavations at the Lake George Site, Yazoo County, Mississippi, 1958-1960Papers of the
Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 74, Harvard University, Cambridge,
Massachusetts.
Williams, Mark and Vanessa Thompson
1999 A Guide to Georgia Indian Pottery Types. Early Georgia 27(1):1-167.
Windham, R. Jeannine, Johannes H. N. Loubser, and Jennifer Langdale
2007 Archaeological Survey of the Plum Creek Wetland Mitigation Site, Miller County, Georgia.
Prepared for Georgia Department of Transportation. Prepared by New South Associates,
Stone Mountain, Georgia.
Woofter, Thomas J. Jr.
1936 Landlord and Tenant on the Cotton Platntation. Research Monograph No. V. Works
Progress Administration, Division of Social Research, Washington.
Worthy, Linda
1983 All That Remains: The Traditional Architecture and Historic Engineering Structures in the
Richard B. Russell Multiple Resource Area, Georgia and South Carolina. Russell papers
1983Prepared for and by the Archaeological Services Branch, NPS, Atlanta.
Wright, Gavin
1978 The Political Economy of the Cotton South, Households, Markets and Wealth in the
Nineteenth Century, Norton and Company, New York
Yohe, R. M., II
1996 Chapter 4: Analysis of Flaked Stone Artifacts. In Archaeological Laboratory Methods: An
Introduction, edited by Mark Q. Sutton and Brooke S. Arkush, pp. 39-68. Kendall/Hunt
Publishing Company, Dubuque.
204
Young, Stacey L.
2004 Sub-Floor Pits and What Their Use Implies about Slave Lifeways and African American
Culture. M.A. Thesis. University of Southern Mississippi.