USVI Public Records

Document text

N A T I O N A L P A R K S E R V I C E U . S . V I R G I N I S L A N D S FACULTY OF HUMANITIES UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN THE PASQUEREAU ESTATE 1721 - 1848 A historical documentation of the inhabitants, production , and cultural life of a St. John sugar and cotton plantation . Prepared for the National Parks Service, U.S. Virgin Islands by Anne -Kristine Sind vald Larsen & Charlie Emil Krautwald Decem ber 2014 1 Table  of  content  (GS)   Figures and tables Preface Introduction (CEK) Focus and research questions The frame of the project Methods Definitions Part I: Archival research 1. Historical introduction (AKSL) 1.1. The colonization of St. John 1.2. The planters 1.3. Plantation system and production on St. John 2. Establishment and early production: 1721-1790 (CEK 2.1. Pieter and Maria Pasquereau 2.2. A family tragedy 2.3. Lieven Kierving 2.4. Early life on the estate 2.5. Jürgen Kierving 2.6. Diderich and Diderich 3. Rise and fall of sugar production: 1790-1848 (AKSL) 3.1. Johan Sevein Weyle 3.2. Inhabitants 3.3. Sugar production and a new factory 3.4. The Hassel Family 3.5. Louis Michel and the Weimars Part II: On-site archeological research 4. Structures and historical geography (CEK) 4.1. Investigating the sites 4.2. Site A: The main Pasquereau site 4.3. Structures 4.3.1. The great house 4.3.2. Servants’ quarters 4.3.3. Cook house and bake oven 4.3.4. Structures 12-14 4.3.5. Slave village 4.3.6. Possible early production facilities 5 6 7 13 14 16 27 31 32 2 4.4. Site B: The Jossie Gut factory 4.5. Structures 4.5.1. The boiling, burning and still house 4.5.2. Animal mill 4.5.3. Hill complex 4.5.4. Storage buildings and animal pens 4.6. Historical geography 5. Historical archeology and material culture (AKSL) 5.1. Dating through ceramics 5.2. Classification of artifacts 5.3. The surface collection 5.4. Provenience 5.5. The general artifacts 5.6. Types of ceramics found on the estate 5.7. Artifacts at Jossie Gut factory 6. Sites and artifacts (AKSL) 6.1. The main house, kitchen and servants’ area 6.1.1. The ceramics on the down slope 6.1.2. Between the main house and servants’ quarters 6.1.3. Glass 6.1.4. The kitchen and the metal 6.1.5. Production? 6.2. The Jossie Gut factory 6.2.1. Ceramics 6.2.2. Development in the glass 6.3. Artifacts in the slave village 6.3.1. Ceramics 6.3.2. Artifacts from enslaved workers 6.3.3. The slave kitchen 6.4. The pipe fragment: a precise way of dating 6.4.1. The artifacts and occupation 6.4.2. Habitation in the slave village 6.4.3. Occupation and abandonment of the slave village Part III: Life on Pasquereau 7. A difference in wealth: The household effects of the owners 7.1. A slave hierarchy 7.2. Ceramics from the owners 7.3. Porcelain 7.4. Artifacts for decorating the house 7.5. Stylish clothes and fabrics 7.6. Furniture, silver, and artifacts for everyday use 7.7. The animals of the Pasquereau estate 7.8. General remarks on the material culture Conclusion and perspectives 53 57 69 79 3 Sources Archival sources Articles Unpublished sources Maps Appendixes Appendix A: The owners of the Pasquereau 1721-1917 Appendix B: Inhabitants 1728-1827 Appendix C: Photo documentation, main site Appendix D: Photo, documentation, Jossie Gut Appendix 1.0: Drawing of Johan Severin Weyle Appendix 1.1 – 2.3: Documentation of located artifacts 82 84 4 Figures and tables Figures Fig. 1: The location of the Pasquereau estate on St. John .......................... 15 Fig. 2: GIS -map of the main Pasquereau site ................................ ............. 28 Fig. 3: GIS -map of the Jossie Gut factory s ite ................................ ............ 35 Fig. 4: Map showing the location and boundarie s of Pasquereau estate ..... 44 Fig. 5: The road net of the Pasquereau estate ................................ ............. 4 6 5 PrefaceThis report is the outcome of the 2014 spring internship program arranged by the Saxo Institute of the University of Copenhagen and the National Park Service (NPS) in the U.S. Virgin Islands. The aim of the internship was to present new insight into the history of St. John in the historical period when the island was under Danish rule by documenting the history of the Pasquereau estate . The research was conducted by combining written sources from the Danish National Archives with on - site fieldwork on the investi gated estate sites on St. John. This report is the final product of the internship and presents the analysis and conclusions from our research. Furthermore, the report shows how the disciplines of history and archaeology can benefit from each other. The internship program is made possible by help and funding from the Saxo Institute, the NPS , and the Friends of th e Virgin Islands National Park, who were very help ful during our stay on St. John and made it financially possible for us to travel to the Virgin Islands. Within these institutions there are certain individuals who have helped us and whom we would like to thank. First of all ,our supervisor from the Saxo I nstitute, Gunvor Simonsen who has been very helpful throughout the internship. Furthermore she guided us through the archive material prior to the archaeological fieldwork on St. John, as well as after our return to Denmark. As for the fieldwork we did on St. John, we have to thank the two archaeologists of t he NPS Cultural Resource Management Department: Ken neth Wild and Kourtney Donohue. They set the scenery for us on St. John and helped us conduct the a rchaeological fieldwork and analysis of the artifacts found. We would also like to thank archaeology student interns Sheila Oberreuter and Matt Schlicksup for helping us with our on -site investigations and the following cataloging of the artifacts. Last ly we would like to thank Linda Benne tt of the National Park Ser vice’ s Office of International Affairs, who helped us with all the formalities prior to our trip to the U .S. Vir gin Islands. Copenhagen, d e cember 2014 Anne -Kristine Sindvald Larsen og Charlie E mil Krautwald 6 Introduction FOCUS AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS The Pasquereau estate was established in 1721 by a Franco -Caribbean planter of presumed Huguenot o rigin. Situated for the most part on a steep hillside in the upper Reef Bay V alley near the Center Line, the estate was not the most ideal place for agricultural production and it was somewhat secluded. That might be the reason why a production , initially of cotton and later sugarcane, was not established on Pasquereau until the last three decades of th e 18 th century. After a brief golden era of sugar and rum production in the early 19 th century, the plantation was entirely aban doned after 1826 and has been uncultivated ever since. During this century of habitation and cultivation, the history of the Pas quereau estate offers a wealth of good stories and exciting trends reflecting the general development of the St. John planter community. This report documents the story of the Pasquereau estate from the establishment of the plantation in 1721 and until the emancipation year of 1848. The focus of this project has from the beginning been this single estate and the aim has been to uncover as many relevant aspects of the economical, cultural, and social developments of the estate as possible in order to documen t the history of Pasquereau. In order for us to direct our investigation and especially this documentation report, we formulated three fields of research or ‘goals’ for our project that should be covered by our investigation: 1. To document and tell the story about the ownership, demographics, production, and other economical factors of the Pasquereau estate based on the hard facts of the archival sources uncovered during the first stage of our research, the archival investigation. This should produce a compre hensive, precise and still readable story about the estate designed to establish the basic narrative about the Pasquereau estate . 2. To examine the material cultural remains of the estate and map the remains of structures and artifacts as well as the basic ge ography of the estate based on the second stage of our research, the archaeological on -site investigation at Pasquereau. This should add more knowledge about the material 7 circumstances on the plantation and provide empirical data for use in the description of the material cultur e there besides that given by the written records. 3. One the basis of the above mentioned research fields to try to describe the cultural and social life of the Pasquereau estate by including details of the demography, production, mate rial cultural remains, and general knowledge about the plantation society on St. John.Our approach to the research - both the archival and the on - site archaeological - has been somewhat of a ‘find all’ -approach in order for us to get a much of the facts about the estate as possible so that we could piece together a comprehensive and detailed story .On the other hand we have been aware of the huge amount of material available to us and the many ways that this material can be used to tell about different pe rspectives. The structure of this report reflects these three fields of research. The first part of the report, Archaeological research , contains the main results of our archival research describing the basic history of the estate. The second part, On - sit e archaeological research contains the results of our archaeological field work describing the historical geography, structures, and artifacts found on -site and what we can say about the material culture of the estate. The third and last part of this repor t, Life on Pasquereau , describes on the basis of the first two parts the cultura l and social life of the owners and enslaved workers as well as the production on Pasquereau. THE FRAMEWORK FOR THE PROJECT The subject and overall frame of our investigation was defined from the beginning by our supervisor s while the focus of the research more or less was for us to define. However, the research has for obvious reasons to a great extent been defined by the availability of the archival and archaeological source material . The historical time frame of the investigation given to us at the beginning of the project was defined in one end by the estab lishment of the estate in 1721 - for obvious reasons -and in the other end by the year of emancipation of the enslaved workers in the Danish West Indies in 1848. The latter of cause marks a huge turning point of the plantation 8 system, not only for the enslaved workers but also for the economical system on St. John. As it turned out during our investigation, the year 1848 i s however something of an anachronism compared to the Pasquerea u estate since production seized in 1826 and the estate was abandoned . We have never the less chosen to use the year 1848 as a fixed end point for our archival research in order to set a limita tion on how much we would dwell on the changes in ownership during the later years. On the other hand we have included the basic information about the owners after 1848 i n the list of owners (Appendix A ) since the information was available to us. It is tho ugh rather limited, how much relevant data we have on the plantation after its abandonment in 1826 and the main focus is therefore on the period up until that time. The geographical frame of our research was as mentioned before from the beginning of the pr oject mainly the Pasquereau estate. Considering however at an early stage of our investigation the possibility to include some of the surrounding estates yet to be documented by the Danish - American intern program, we decided that we would confine ourselves to focusing mainly on the Pasquereau estate, especially due to the shear amount and quality of the archival sources on this specific estate that we were finding in the Danish National Archives . A comparative analysis of the estates of the upper eastern Re ef Bay valley area - Pasquerea u, Hope, Misgunst and Parforce -could have given us the basis of illuminating some interesting trends of this specific area of St. John like similarities or differences in production development, habitation, or material cultu re. On the other hand, working with several estates at the same time would have drastically reduced o ur ability to go deeper into the various aspe cts of the history of Pasquereau . T he focus of the report would have then been quantitatively rather than qual itatively. We have in our investigation taken into account the surrounding plantations as far as it made sense for the documentation of the Pasquereau estate, for example in connection with periods of joint ownership where one can talk about a conglomerati on of Pasquereau and the surrounding estates into a combined production apparatus . During our fie ldwork on St. John in April, archaeologist Ken Wild led our attention to the ne arby factory complex at Jossie Gut, located in the valley immediately below Pasq uereau on the Reef Bay Trail. When we studied a sales ad for Pasquereau from 1799, we discovered that the newly build corresponding sugar factory at that time was described as an 9 L -shaped factory bui lding with close -lying rum cellar, water supply and an an imal m ill located “down by the water.” Coupled with the fact that we at Pasquereau found no trace s of a factory build ing or animal mill, let alone that the plantation is located far from the coastline or any kind of water , we were aware of the possibility that the Jossie Gut factory and the mentioned sugar factory on Pasquereau c ould be identical to each other since there is a small stream in Jossie Gut during rainy season. A visit to Jossie G ut and subsequent discovery of more sources confirmed this relat ionship and our investigation was immediately extended to deal with the Jossie Gut complex, which up until this point has not been identified in popular opinion as part of the Pasquereau estate . Adding Jossie Gut to the project opened whole new areas of pl antation history and was especially interesting due to the fact that the factory complex is rather large, relatively w ell -preserved and placed practically on the Ree f Bay Trail, a path much used by the tourists leading down to th e Reef Bay Sugar Factory an d the prehistoric petroglyphs. METHODSIn our investigation s into the history of Pasquereau we have been working interdisciplinary with the methods of both our own scientific subject, history, and with archaeology, a profession new to both of us. Through basic archival research and source studies we gathered all the information about the Pasquereau estate we could find. Our research was done al most entirely in the West Indian archives at Rigsarkivet, the Danish National Archive s and to help guiding us thro ugh the immense amount of archival material we had the source inventories of previous years’ internship reports . After collecting the sources we analyzed the documents, gathered quantified data from them and interpreted the meaning of the information in th em using source criticism . In that process we chose to focus more on certain key sources and only to include sources of more peripheral importance when relevant to the central narrative about the estate and its inhabitants. Two difficulties regarding the h istorical method when a pplied to this investigation have firstly been the question of how to interpret the sources using certain concepts or contexts of that place in time that we may not understand today and secondly the shear difficulty of reading the so urces written in the gothic alphabet and with the usage of words or 10 abbreviations not known to us . We have managed to get around these problems by not asserting things that we could not say anything conclusive about and to make our doubt visible in the rep ort. As for the archaeological methods used by us during our field work, we did not receive any formal training or education in the discipline of historical archaeology but we were under the close guidance of archaeologists on St. John teaching us in the d ifferent methods. We worked primarily with ground collections on the sites parting the area s into Field Specimen numbers (FS) collecting all artifacts found in each FS and afterwards cataloging them . We also worked with Geographic Information System or GIS where we with the use of GPS mapped all structures, FS -numbers and cultural features in the landscape and the sites. Combined with measurements of structures and information about which kinds of artifacts we found at each FS -number, we where afterwards ab le to make detailed maps of the sites. DEFINITIONSThroughout the report, we have chosen to use a certain terminology and definitions of central concepts. One of these is the term estate versus plantation. The first meaning a property of land, the latter a specific function of a piece of land. We use the term estate throughout the report to describe Pasquereau so to denote that we are talking about the property independent of whether it was run as a plantation at a certain time or not. It is the specific p iece of land defined by geography and ownership, and not its use that we have worked on the basis of. We use the word site to describe both a delimited area of the estate and the place for our field work investigations. The Pasquereau estate had two sites both part of the same estate and operating with different functions as part of a single plantation. Regarding the word slave , have we tried largely to use the words enslaved laborers or enslaved since those words have different connotations that do not to the same degree constitute an objectification of these human beings but instead denotes their role as forced labor and unfree. The names of the people owning the estate in some cases changes over time in the sources. The main example is the Kierving - family who later on consequently is called Kervinck or similar spellings. We have chosen to stick to a single way of spelling a name unless we directly cite sources spelling the name in a different way. 11 When the owners of the estate, out of purely sentiment for the pioneering days of the colonization of St. John, in the late 1780’s began naming the estate after its initial founder, Pieter Pasquereau , it was under the name Pakkeroe. The name varied through time, with variations like Pasquerou, Pacquerau, Pacquere au, Pasquerau, Bakkeroe and perhaps even “Bakers”. We have, regardless of the misspellings and mispronunciations of later days, chosen consequently to use only the original name of the first owner. We use it as a way of mentioning the estate, also way befo re any people historically used the name for the estate. This might be an anachronism but it makes it more easily talking about the estate in the report. When using the name in the historic part, we use the term “the Pasquereau estate” or Pasquereau in ita lics, when used solely as a name. 12 PART I : ARCHIVAL RESEARCH 13 1. Historical introduction (Anne-Kristine) In 1671 the Danish West India Company received authority from the Danish government to colonize St. Thomas and other islands in the Caribbean. In 1672 they claimed St. Thomas. The first attempt to colonize St. John was in 1675, but due to bad conditions on St. Thomas; impoverishment of the land, and the increasing amount of people living there combined with persistent threats from the Spanish and English, the settlement on St. John had to be abandoned for some time.1 1.1 The colonization of St. John The second attempt to colonize St. John succeeded in 1718 when an expedition headed by Governor Bredal planted the Danish flag on the island. Officially making a claim for the island and expanding the already existing plantation system on the neighbouring island of St. Thomas. The main aim for the island from the beginning was that is was to be a place for sugar producing plantations and qualified people could get a piece of land free of charge, if they were willing to work hard and risk their lives. The new planters were exempted from taxes for a seven-year period, except for the crops they were harvesting on their land. They could take as much wood and lime as they wanted so they could build houses and production buildings and get their new life on the island started. In return for the privileges, the planters should help to defend St. John, have at least one white man living on the plantation within three months, and within five years there had to be a completed sugar work on the plantation estate. Were these claims not fulfilled the planter could loose the right to the plantation.2 1.2 The planters The Danish government was in the beginning happy to see planters from St. Thomas acquire land on St. John. This was because of the circumstances on the island. 3 In the beginning the Governor was asked to give the plots to the poor and idle people, but it would require greater investments to get them established on the island. The Company would therefore be better off if they got the more wealthy people, who could live permanently on the island, to establish plantations. People with Dutch origin were the dominating group on St. John, but there were also people of Danish, French and English nationality4. According to George F. Tyson there was a change of the social hierarchy between 1770 and 1800. Before 1770 the dominating group had been influential individuals and families who had started and consolidated the 1 Leif Calundann Larsen, "Den Danske Kolonisation Af St. Jan 1718-1733" (Københavns Universitet, 1980).,19,20,26. 2 George F. Tyson, "A History of Land Use on St. John 1718-1950," (St. John: National Park Service, 1984).,12-14, Larsen, "Den Danske Kolonisation ".,49,50. 3 Larsen, "Den Danske Kolonisation "., 20.   4  Ibid.,  71-­‐73,  76-­‐77.   14   plantation system. After 1770, newcomers were influencing the social hierarchy and the production powers on St. John. They were often financing their St. John plantations with their profits as merchants.5 1.3 The plantation system and production on St. John It took about ten years to divide St. John into plantation plots, but owning a piece of land on the island was not the same as having a plantation. For the new planters on St. John the acquirement of the piece of land just made it possible for them to create a plantation through money, hard work and technology. The main goal for the planters was to transform the piece of land into a productive unit, where the production of sugar was the main purpose. 6 According to Tyson, the St. John plantation system evolved through a development cycle consisting of four steps: The Foundation (1718-1739), Consolidation (1740-1765), Sugar Monoculture (1765-1850) and the Decline and Diversification (1850-1950).7 As mentioned above the main goal for production in the beginning of the establishment of St. John was sugar. Therefore the planters preferred to plant sugar wherever possible. But the soil on St. John was poorer than first expected, and only half of the island was capable of supporting profitable sugar cultivation. By 1728, all the plantations that were capable of growing sugar were doing so. The sugar estates did not dominate the island, however, and the non-sugar plantations on St. John outnumbered the sugar plantations in 1739. The non-sugar plantations mainly focused on cotton cultivation, but livestock, provisions, coffee and perhaps even tobacco and indigo were also grown on the island. 8 In the consolidation period, there was a trend towards plantation merger to increase the area of both sugar and non-sugar plantations. The non-sugar plantations still operated all over the island and the primary crop was still cotton. The period between 1730-1765 has been called the “Golden Era” of the St. John cotton plantations. In this period a lot of estates had also begun cultivating coffee, but often it was grown alongside cotton or sugar. 9 In the third phase, production of sugar became more dominant between 1765 and 1800. The high production of sugar lasted until the 1830s when the sugar economy began suffering from failing prices and expensive production costs. Especially between 1760-1800 the sugar sector expanded either through acquisitions by ambitious planters or by conversion of crops. During this period the estates that grew cotton or coffee gradually disappeared.10                                                                                                                 5 Tyson, "A History of Land Use "., 32-33. 6 Ibid.,14-15. 7 Ibid.,12. 8 Ibid.,18-21. 9 Ibid., 24-29.   10 Ibid.29, 35. 15 2. Establishment and early production 1721 - 1790 2.1 .PIETER AND MARIA PASQUEREAUMany of the planters who colonized and cultivated St. John came to the island from St. Thomas. T his was also true for merchant Pieter Pasquereau ,the founder and name originator of the Pasquereau estate , established on St. John in 1721. It is very limited what we know about the previous history of this St. Thomas merchant and planter of presumable Fr ench Huguenot origin. The first time Pieter Pasquereau appears in the archiv al records is in the 1710 St. Thomas Land list e - the tax assessment roll. At that time, he was living with his wife, Maria Letry , 1 in Diderich Magen ’s house with their seven enslav ed African house laborers . He wa s a merch ant by trade but in 1711 he bought fro m Daniel Roger a sugar plantation 1200 feet wide and including a sugar mill on St. Thomas . The plantation wa s located near the Charlotte Amalie harbor in the 15 th Quarter and th e work force consisted of 30 enslaved laborers . Two years later, in 1713, the production on the plantation was converted to cotton 2 . Meanwhile Maria Pasquereau had given birth to a daughter in 1712 and during th at same year the Pasquereau s bought a house i n Charlotte Amalie and moved there with their household. 3 In 1718, a new member was added to the Pasquereau family with the birth of a boy and they move d from their town house to the plantation. From this year forward, Piet er i s no longer mentioned as a me rchant by trade in the land lists and the family does not seem to have h ad a permanent residence in Charlotte Amalie . This indicates that Pieter had given up his merchant career in favo r of that of a planter’s. 4 The production did seem to have been quite g ood if we are to believe the tax assessment roll s. In 1721, the Pasquereaus paid more than 61 Rdl. in taxes, which were in the h igh end compared to other planters and during that same year , Pieter and Maria expanded their production apparatus with the addi tion of an estate on the neighboring island of St. John . 5 1The name is also spelled ‘List ri’ in the records. 2 VGK 446:731 -732 (1710, 1711, 1713). 3 VGK 446:731 -732 (1712). 4 VGK 446:731 -732, (1718). 5 VGK 446:731 -732 (1721). 16 Pieter and Maria Pasquereau’s estate on St. John was established in July 1721 in northernmost corner of Reef Bay Quarter . Measuring 3000 by 2100 feet in size , 6 it was situated on the steep hillsi des at the top of the Reef Bay Valley neighboring Lucas van Beverhoudt’s estate to the north and Jacob Magen’s to the west. A land letter for the estate was registered two years later on February 5th 1723. 7 Not much is known abo ut the first years of the St . Joh n estate due to the lack of archival sources . We have no details about production or inhabitants but we know from the St. Thomas land lists that the Pasquereau family continued to live on the ir St. Thomas estate . It is also easily assumed that an init ial sugar production was prepared on the Pasquereau estate during the early years, since the planting of sugar and construction of a sugar works was a general condition for the tax exemption of newly established St. Johnian estates. Whether or not that sug ar production was actually established is more uncertain. It is not until the 1728 St. John land l ist that the Pasquereau plantation is mentioned in the land list as estate number 52 located “east of Jacob Magens and south of Madam Beverhoudt’s, now Willi am 6Equivalent of 942 x 659 meters = 620.778 m2 = 153 acres. 7 VGK 446:750 (1728). Fig. 1: The location of the Pasquereau estate on St. John (marked in red). Section of Oxholm’s 1800 map. 17 Vessup’s, Plantation” 8 . At this time, seven years after the establishment of the estate, both sugar and cotton wa s said to be pla nted on Pasquereau but a sugar mill had yet to be built. The land list does n ot state how much of each crop wa s produced. Th e sole population and wor kforce of the estate consisted of a total of six enslaved : four men and two women. 9 But a t that time, the Pasquereaus were already history on the estate . 2.2. A FAMILY TRAGEDYThe addition of the new estate on St. John in 1721 was a short lived momentu m for Pieter Pasquereau. He died the following year leaving behind him his wife and two small c hildren. M aria on the other hand did not have the time for a long period of mourning. The same year of her husband’ s early death, she bough t yet another cotton plantation on St. Thomas on an auction f rom planter Jan de Wevers. The plantation was located in Frenchman’s Bay Quarter right nex t to her other estate. 10 The years following the d eath of Pieter, she also expanded the labor force with t he addition of seven new enslaved laborers . All this despite the fact, that she is listed on governor Bredahl’s 1722 capita list The Character of the Inhabitants on the Island of St. John as “A widow living here, whose living expenses is given her from the French, since she is reformed.” 11 With two cotton plantations, 40 enslaved laborers with 13 small children and another plantation under cultivation on St. John, Maria Pasquereau surely seems to be fairly well off in 1724. She paid more than 66 Rdl. in taxe s that year, more than her late husband did three years previously.Unfortunately for th e little family, tragedy struck again. In 1725 Maria died of unknown causes leaving behind her a daughter , age 13 and son , age 7. The girl wa s send to the British Carib bean isl and of St. Christopher (nowadays’ St. Kitts) while the boy wa s taken under the guardianship of neighboring planter and bailiff , Gerhard Moll who also served as their guardian hereditary trustee. 12 That Maria Pasquereau might after all have been in e conomical troubles after the death of her husband is mirrored by the huge debt to the company that she left behind her. In 1728, the heirs of Pieter Pasquereau owed the company more than 1 ,524 Rdl. The following year 8 VGK 446:750 (1728). 9 VGK 446:750 (1 728). 10 VGK 446:736 -737 (1722). 11 VGK 446:95. 12 VGK 446:736 -737 (1725, 1726). 18 this amount had increased to 1 ,672 Rdl. due to added interests and taxes for the three plantations and 52 slaves that the children still owned. As late as in 1733, the Pasquereau heirs were still debited more than 84 Rdl. a year for land and head taxes for their St. Thomas estates. 13 At that tim e, the St. John estate was no longer a part of the family’s holdings . At the time of the first St. John land list in 1728, h ereditary trustee Gerhard Moll wa s already in the process of selling the Pasquereau estate on behalf of Pieter and Marias children. The land list of 1729 lists both Pieter and neighboring planter Willum Vessup as previous owners which indicate that Vessup might have bought the plantation only to sell it again after a brief ownership. 2.3. LIEVEN KIERVINGWhether Willum Vessup bought t he Pasquereau estate for the pur pose of continuing a sugar and cotton production or just for the chance of making a quick profit, is not possible to say. All we know is that in 1729 the plantation had a new owner: Lieven Kierving 14 , a St. Thomas planter of dutch origin. According to Hugo Ryberg’s list of West Indian inhabitants, Lieven Kierving, the son of Jac ob Kierving and Anna Sorgeloos, was baptized on March 2 2, 1705 on St Thomas. 15 On June 1 2, 1728 Lieven Kierving was granted permission by governor Hend rich Suhm to “engage in marriage to virgin Gertrud Magens ” 16 of the D anish Magens family and together they eventually had at least six children: Diderich , Adrian, and Jürge n, Jochum , Maria and Anna. 17 The family lived on a St. Thomas estate at the time of th e purchase and con tinued to do so during the 1730 s. They most likely have had a sugar production running there for in 1729, Lieven had a 230 Rdl. debt to the Company which he promised to pay off a portion with sugar no later than July. 18 Lieven Kierving als o seems to have had the intention of continue to plant sug ar and cotton on the St. John estate since it wa s occupied by seven enslaved labo rers i n 1729. But something seems to have gone wrong. A lready the following year, Lieven failed to report anything to the 13 VGK 446:711 (1728, 1729, 1735). 14 The name is spelled K iervink or Kerv in c k in the sources after 1755 . 15 Ryberg, “ A List”: 296. 16 VGK 446:516 (1727). 17 STSJG 712:35.40.7 (fol. 1 30). 18 VGK 446:711 (1729). 19 bookkeeper for his tax return and the same happens in 1731. He wa s therefore debited by th e land list of 1729 and in 1731 it wa s noted that “It is not precisely known, what is planted here . ” 19 The following year no production is mentioned on the land l ist but three capable enslaved workers and five children is living on the estate . In a note an explanation for the lack of tax returns the recent years is provided: ”That this bill come s in at the previous year is due to the following : 1 negro man, capable , named Little Cronie died in the year 1731 […] So has 2 become m a n queron s 20 since last year, which accounted for 2 capable of 2 ½ Rd …” 21 Lieven Kierving gets the 7 Rd and 3 M ark he paid the previous year in taxes for the dead Cronie and the two sick manquer ons refunded from his taxes. In 1733, the enslaved laborers of Kierving’s estate are listed on the St. Thomas land list and still no production is mentioned. 22 This probably means that the workers were used on Kierving’s St. Thomas estate and that the St. J ohn estate was abandoned in 1733, the year of the great slave rebellion. This is actually supported by a remark in the governor’s Order Book in September 1733, two months prior to the rebel lion, which notes that maroons we re found to be living on Kierving’ s plantation in Reef Bay. 23 On December 2 i t wa s reported that the Rebels were said to be using a plantation on the hill as a store for supplies. According to anthropologist Holly Norton in her doctorate on the slave rebellion, this was probably the Kiervin g estate. As a reaction to the report, Governor Gardelin ordered Captain Øttingen to find the rebels’ stores. 24 It has not been possible to ver ify Norton’s identification of the Pasquereau estate as a possible maroon camp during this investigation but since the estate was abandoned prior to the rebellion, it is a possibility.2.4. EARLY LIFE ON THE ESTATEThe years following the rebellion are left in the dark since no land lists were kept until 1736. That year, seven enslaved persons were living on Kierving ’s St. John estate: two men, two women, of whom one was manqueron (not able to work) and three girls. No production is specified 19 VGK 446:750 (1729, 1730, 1731) . 20 Manquerons : the impaired, ill or elderly enslaved workers; were tax deductable. 21 VGK 446:750 (1732) . 22 VGK 446:750 (1733) . 23 Norton, “ Estate By Estate”: 67. 24 Norton, “ Estate By Estate”: 74. 20 but it is noted that no whites live d there and had not done so for a long time . 25 The following couple of years, the land list n otes that only “kvast” is produced, possibly provisions or some sort of plant material. No owners or overseers were living there and the number of enslaved people was reduced to four by 1737, three capable slaves and a child, and to one capable man, one ma nqueron and one child in 1738. 26 What was life on Pasquereau like in the 1730s? The enslaved workers were living alone on the desolate and remote estate, likely in some sort of family constellation. We do not know whether the three children mentioned in the land list of 1736 were the children of any of the adult slaves, or why two children and an adult disappeared the following year. Since the production must have been limited and no overseer or owner had residence on the estate as far as the sources tells u s, the daily work of the enslaved must have been to some degree left to them to organize. The Kiervings were living on St. Thomas but mu st regularly have been visiting the estate or had some on St. John do so. In 1739, ten years after buying the estate, Ki erving had failed to establish a sugar or even a cotton production on Pasquereau and only a little family of enslaved workers were living there by themselves . That year, Kierving once again failed to report anything on the estate to the bookkeeper. In the 1730’s, he continued to have a fairly large dept to the Company: 306 Rigsdaler in 1735 of which more than 250 Rigsdaler was to by paid with sugar or with cotton. 27 Two years later, the dept had increased to 654 Rigsdaler but he paid the company t wo lots of cotton and a large amount of sugar showing that his St. Thomas production must have been running fairly well . 28 And Lieven Kierving was not more indebted than he was able to buy the old Vessup estate on St. John on May 2 7, 1739. 29 Willum Vessup was the large st land owner on St. John but was forced to flee the Danish Vest I ndies in 1732 after he stabbed fellow planter, Karl Heinrich Kuhlmann, to death over a land dispute on St. Thomas. 30 The Vessup estate was located in Maho Bay Quarter bordering 25 VGK 446:751 -753 (1736) . 26 VGK 446:751 -753 (1737, 1738). 27 VGK 446:711 ( 1735 ) . 28 VGK 446:711 (1737). The amounts were 605 units of cotton and 6143 units of sugar but the measuring units unclear . 29 VGK 446:751 -753 (1739) . 30 Norton, “ Estate By Estate”: 63. 21 Pasquereau to the north and was considerably larger than the average St. John estate of the time: 4700 by 4040 feet. Eight enslaved lived on the estate in 1739. 31Lieven Kierving now owned a considerable and continuous piece of land on St. John. 32 We do not know when he and his family moved there but it could very well have been shortly after buying the Vessup estate.An indication was, that Lieven Kierving on September 23 that year took the day off to go to a public auction , a popular planter pastime, held by St. John pl anter Cornelius Koop to make a good deal. Up for auction was among other things 16 Kapmesser sugar knives, no fewer than 21 hats, 6 pictures, a large amount of cinnamon, parts of a tea set and a large amount of green bay . Lieven Kierving was tempted by the goods and bought himself 4 hats for the price of 2 Rigsdaler 4 Mark and a lot of cinnamon worth 2 Rigsdaler 4 Mark and 1 Skilling to be paid in cash or cotton at cash price in March the following year. 33 2.5. JÜRGEN KIERVING The years between the last la nd list of 1739 and 1755, when the annual Matrikel land registry list were introduced are left in the dark since no archival sources exist s to shed some light to the development on the Pasquereau estate. We simply do not know what happened during these 26 “ dark years. ” In fact, we need to go as far as 1773 before we can safely track Pasquereau in the archival sources, this time with Lieven Kierving ’ s third oldest son, Jürgen as its owner. In the intervening years since the first land registry list in 1755, it has simply be en im possible to trace the property in the lists. Lieven Kierving is listed in 1755 as the owner of a single and very large property and we can see that no estates in the lists match the size and location of Pasquereau . One obvious possibil ity is that in the years since 1739 , there was a conglomeration between Kierving ’s two properties, that is, between Pasquereau and the former Vessup estate . In fact, Lieven Kierving came out of the “ da rk years” with a massive 6140 foot wide sugar -producing estate, thus grown in width by 2100 feet since 1739, exactly the same - and for St. John very unusual - width as 31 VGK 446:751 -735 (1739) . 32 The 2013 interns had the “Old Works” estate confused with Pasquereau in their report wrongfully stating that Kierving owned Pasquereau (thought to be “Old Works” ) from 1723 and onwards. Nielsen & Nielsen, “Investigations:” 33. 33 VGK 446:780. 22 the Pasquereau estate originally had . 34 The Kierving estate continued to be this size until 1760 then suddenly changing size to 5900 by 2900 fe et. It seems that Lieven ’s larger property was parceled out in smaller estates or plots in the following year s and sold or transferred to his sons Diderich, Adrian and Jürgen a s well as his son - in - law Peter W ood, husband of Maria Kierving . T he individual e states in the ownership of the Kierving -family are though hard to follow in the land registry through the 1760s. 35 On April 18, 1772 Lieven Kierving died and his wife Gertrud followed him barely two years after on January 29 1774. In the ir probate , the esta te liquidation and division between the children is listed . The large plantation was taken over by Peter Wood while Jürgen Kierving , the third eldest son had to make do with a mor e modest inheritance. He inherited thus the parents chest of d rawers, six old silver spoons, five silver te a forks and one teaspoon, eight large fine platters, seven knives, six forks and six spoons with a total value of about 18 Rdl. 36 When all the bills were paid and the claims of Lieven and Gertrud’s creditors were settled, Jürge n was left with 106 Rdl . 4 Mark and 5½ Sk. Not exactly an impressive amount considering that Lieven ’ s estate with en slave d workers and animals was value d at 14,910 Rdl . 37 At that time, in 1773, when Pasquereau appears again in the sou rces with Jürgen Kierv ing as its owner , the estate produced cotton according to the land register . The estate , listed with “1 cotto n work s” , co nsisted at the time only of the southern half of the original area, 1500 feet wide. The northern half was owned by brother - in -law and n eighbor Peter Wood . 38 From 1777 , the area of the estate is further reduced to “½ cotto n work s” with a wi dth of 500 feet. 39 For the first time in the history of the Pasquereau estate, an owner is known to have had his residence on the estate, since Jürgen liv ed there throughout his ownership except for the years 17 82 -1783. The first year he lived there with a woman who for an unknown reason - possibly 34 RRVR 571:83.1 (1755). 35 RRVR 571:83.1 (1756 -1760); RRVR 571:83.2 (1761 -1768); RRVR 571:83. 3 - 83.4 ( 1769 - 17 70 ). 36 STSJG 712:35:40.7 (fol. 130 - 132). 37 STSJG 712:35:40.7 (fol. 137, 131 ) . 38 For further on the complex Kierving -Woods ownership of the Vessup estate, see: Nielsen & Nielsen, “Investigations:” 33. 39 RRVR 571:83.3 -83.4 (1773 - 1777). 23 death - stopped living there the following year . The population of enslaved laborers consisted in 1773 by two adults and four children. The number of enslaved inhabitants increase d to eight in 1776 with two adults and six children and then decreased again the following two years, when two of the children either died or were sold. The number was back to 8 in 1780. In 1782, when Jürgen move d from th e property for two years, he took the enslaved with him though returning the following yea r. The following years the number of enslaved increased, cu lminating in 1787 with 17 . With that size of a labor force, t here must ha ve been a reasonably good production of cotton under Jürgen ’s ownership. 40 2.6. DIDERICH AND DIDERICHHowever it all ended suddenly when Jürgen Kierving died in 1788. The estate consisted then of a 75 ac re large plot with a house and some slave cabins valu ed at 2 ,100 Rdl. Jürgen owned at his death 13 enslaved laborers with a total value of 2,800 Rdl. This is the only scant information about the estate that the water damaged assessment protocol provides at the death of Jürgen . 41 On August 30, 1788 a public au ction of Jürgen ’s estate was held. T he auction protocol presents t wo interesting facts: first, p rocurator Rogiers, the new owner of Peter Wood ’ s former property, “Marias Hope” (the former Vessup/Kierving estate ) made a claim at the auct ion on the northern half of deceased Jürgen’s estate with regard to an agreement between Jür gen and Peter Wood. This was however rejected because there was no barricade or boundary between the two halves. Whet her this meant that the two parts of Pasquereau then again were com bined is not clear . At least it is not reflected in the land registry . The other interesting information is that the plantation here for the first time in the sources is referre d to by a name, i.e. “Pakkeroe.” After some bidding and overbidding, the auctio n ended with the property being bought by Jürgen ’ s n ephew, Diderich Magens Kierving together with his curator, father Diderich Magens and guarantor , stadshauptmand de Mint for 1 ,600 Rdl. 42 The young Diderich Jr. did not move to estate himself , whose sole inhabitants in 1788 we re the enslaved laborers Susanna and John nes . With such a small labor force, the produc tion of cotton must therefore 40 RRVR 571:83.3 -83.4 (1773 - 1785); RRVR 571:83.3 -83.4 (17 85 - 178 7 ) . 41 STSJG 712:35:37.2 (pag. 206 - 212). 42 STSJG 712.34.2. 24 have ended with the death of Jürgen and was never revitalized . Barely a year after Diderich Jr. took over Pasquereau , a tragedy happened. Landfoged Weerlin described the dramatic event in a report: “ Anno 1789 , August 4 at 4 o’clock in the afternoon , I arrived at the Bordeaux plantation after requisition or report by John Braithwaite at 1 o'clock in my house and the same r equest at 2½ by Diderich Kervinck S enior, I order , at the Bordeaux plantation, to perform a lawful insp ection business on the aforementioned Kervinck Sr. ’s dead son , Diderich Kervinck J unior , who under tragic circumstances was reported to be dead by carele ssness of his own rifle (...) Upon arrival at the plantation , the person showed me a place in the forest where the deceased was and when the bailiff followed by the Doctor Gordon, Edward Kenny, William Williams and others arrived there , which was a far dis tance from the plantation buildings , the young Kervinck was found lying dead in the woods. Dr. Gordon was ordered to examine the wound of the shot, which the deceased had in the right side below the navel, a nd when the wound was inspected, it was fully bla ck from the gunpowder and the shirt was burned. The shot or charge had not passed through the body but remained in him (...)” 43 The investigations showed that it was a tragic hunting accident that caused the death . Diderich Jr. had been on dove hunt with th e free - colored Clas Blic k, who told that Diderich at one point sat down with the gun resting on his stomach and that the gun then had fired by accident . Diderich did not die immediately and Cla s had tried to carry him back . 44 The estate of Dider ich Magens K ierving Jr. was not finally sor ted out until the following year. Only t hree months after his son’s fatal accident, the father, Diderich Kierving , also passed away on November 8, 1789. He left behind him six children: Lieven Adrian, age 26, Jürgen, age 17, Anna Maria, age 19, Diana, age 15, a daughter married to William Williams and a daughter married to William Runnels (names not specified). At the assessing business held on Pasquereau - still belonging to Diderich Jr. - on November 9, 1789, four enslaved l aborers named Abel, Aventure, Simeon and Christiana valued at a total of 770 Rdl. were found to live there. The rest of the taxation was postponed until 43 STSJG 712:34.44a (pag. 8 - 9 ) . 44 STSJ G 712:34.44a (pag. 9 ) . 25 December 14: “ Then the plantation Pakkeroe with houses, buildings, fields and everything was checked an d by the above men tioned men valued at 2 ,400 Rdl. Furthermore a canoe was noted valued at 35 Rdl.; 1 fishing net or yarn: 25 Rdl.; 1 coffee grinder : 12 Rdl. " 45 The estate of Diderich and Diderich was final ly elucidated after an extensive probate process in the summer of 1790. So, three Pasquereau owners: b rothers Jürgen and Diderich and the eldest son of the latter died within just 15 months. With this family tragedy, the end had come to the Kiervings’ more than 60 - year long dynastic ownership not only of P asquereau , but also of the major neighboring properties that had been in the family ownership . 45 STSJG 712:34.44a (pag. 5 - 6) . 26     3. The Rise and fall of sugar production: 1790-1848 3.1 Johan Severin Weyle (Anne-Kristine) On the 12thof January 1790 the last of several auctions was held to sell the Pasquereau plantation estate. The value of the estate was estimated at 3170 rd1. The only bidders at the auction were procurator Weyle and William Willams, The auction started with Williams bidding 2000 rd, then Weyle bid 2100. This continued for some time, but at last Weyle had the highest bid of 2502 rd, only 1 rd more than his competitor William Williams. The Pasquereau estate was sold with houses, lots, and 4 slaves, called Abel, Aventure, Simeon, and Christiania. 2 Johan Severin Weyle was the son of Anna Runnels & Christian Frederik Weyle who had married in 1750 on St. Thomas. Johan Severin Weyle was married to Aletta Mitchel around 1782. 3 Aletta and Weyle had 4 children together. In 1802 Adam Christian was 20, Djuris Vriehus Weyle was 9, Maria Anna Weyle was 11, and Johanna Severine Weyle was 5 ½. There is a possibility that the couple lost a son in 1793. There is also a reason to believe that the family had Dutch origins. According to Ryberg’s list of inhabitants, the Dutch church is mentioned in connection to Adam Christian.4 In a church book dating the 28th of September 1803, it is mentioned that Weyle has a child with a coloured woman named Mary Mylan or Milan who lived at the Pasquereau estate. The girl was called Caroline. Weyle registered himself as the father in the church book, and his other children Adam Christian and Maria Anna Weyle, were registered as the sponsors for the mulatto girl when she was baptized. The mulatto girl Caroline continued to live with Weyle for the rest of her life. Weyle also had a girl named Jane. Caroline and Jane were both registered as mulatto children in the census in 1815 in Frederikssted, St. Croix.5 Johan Severin´s father had been the bailiff of St. John and the land Court judge of St. Croix. Johan Severin chose to follow in his father footsteps and became an attorney. In some periods he was the acting bailiff on St. John. On the 19th of March 1791 Weyle applied to get his position as an acting attorney at St. John and St. Thomas courts extended to St. Croix. He ended up withdrawing the application, but in the year of 1800 he applied again. Later Weyle moved to St. Croix and became the public trustee. In 1829 he retired and was replaced by his son Adam Christian. Johan Severin Weyle died on St. Croix the 4th of January 1839, 79 years old. 6                                                                                                                 1  Rix dollars (rd).   2 STSJG 712:35.34.2. 3 Personalhistorisk Tidsskrift, 80. årgang, 14. række 2. bind 1960, p 187. 4Hugo Ryberg, ed., A List of the Names of Inhabitants. The Danish Westindian Islands (the Virgin Islands) from 1650-Ca. 1825., STSJG 712:35.37.3. 5  This information is provided by Anne Walbom and with documents from her private archive.   6 Steffen Lindvald, En Officer I Dansk Vestindien Og Hans Fritidsbeskæftigelse (Dansk Vestindisk Selskab, 1988)., 92, Personalhistorisk Tidsskrift p 187. 27     3.2 The inhabitants on the estate From the tax lists it appears that Weyle was living at the estate with his family more or less during his ownership. We do not know the specific circumstances, but during the years he was living there the amount of family members living in the main house varies. The records state that in 1802 he had 4 children and that there is a possibility that one of his children died in 1793. The amount of children changes during the last years of his ownership, and according to the tax lists on average only 3 children are living on the estate. This disagreement between the records can suggest two things. Either some of the children did not live at the estate with the rest of the family, or perhaps they did not state the correct number of inhabitants for tax issues. From 1799 – 1800 it appears that Aletta Weyle is not living at the estate, which could indicate that she has died. This is suggested knowing that Weyle has a child in 1803 with the African woman living there. She is stated as a live in partner.7 3.3 Sugar production and a new factory In the first years of the ownership of Pasquereau, Weyle continued the already established production of cotton. Coffee production is also registered in the tax lists. The year before he bought the estate no enslaved workers were living there. The year he took over the estate there were suddenly 23 enslaved workers on the Pasquereau. Weyle kept on increasing the number of enslaved workers while he was living on the estate. This tells something about his eagerness to establish a production on the plantation. In the year of 1799 he decided to stop the production of cotton and established a sugar work instead. At that point there were 30 enslaved workers on the plantation, 7 of them were house and crafts workers, and 23 of them were plantation workers. Yet in the same year he started to grow sugar he decided to sell the plantation.8 In a sales advertisement from the 28th of December 1799 published in the Royal Danish American Gazette dated Saturday the 15th of February, the newly established, but not quite finished, sugar estate and surrounding buildings are described. On the estate there is a: “ Dwelling House and out houses on the Hill, and a new erected, but not quite Boiling, Burning, & and still house with a Rum Cellar, in the form of an L down by the Water, so situated, that the Water may be led into the Works, Also a Mill and Mill Timber, complete, not yet erected, a new Copper Still, with Cap and Worm(..)” 9 The advertisement also reveals the number of animals he had on the plantation: 10 mules, 1 horse, 4 draught oxen, 6 young cattle, and together with the animals he was selling 30 enslaved workers and a new wagon. 10                                                                                                                 7  RRVR 571: 83.5- 83.15. 8RRVR 571: 83.5-83.15.   9, The Royal Danish American Gazette 15 of February 1799. 10 Ibid.   28     The building of the factory suggests that Weyle from the beginning had intentions of growing sugar. It appears that the factory only produced sugar in three years before Weyle sold the estate in 1802. At the same time he was applying to get his position extended to St. Croix. This could either suggest that his project and investment in the Pasqureau plantation was successful and he just wanted to move on, or it could suggest that his Pasquereau adventure did not go as planned. Perhaps he knew that the production of sugar never would be as big as he had hoped.11 Appendix 1.0 shows a picture of Weyle. Date and artist of the drawing is unknown. On the picture he is wearing glasses, and he is holding a walking stick, 3.4 The Hassel Family (Anne-Kristine) In 1802 the Hassel family from the Dutch Island of Saba took over the Pasquereau estate. During the next 26 years different members of the family owned it. 12 When merchant James Hassel from St. Thomas took over the plantation he continued the production of sugar that Weyle started in 1799. From the records it appears that James had a child with a mulatto woman; the son is baptized the 26th of November 1780. In 1803 Peter and Henry Hassel took over the estate, and together they owned the plantation until 1810. When Peter died in 1813 James Hassel took over the estate again but only for a short time, because then he sold the estate to Henry Hassel; probably the same who owned it together with Peter. The rapidly changing ownership continues until 1829 when the estate is sold.13 The Hassel family continued the production of sugar and provisions. They had an active sugar production in the years 1802-1813 when the production suddenly stopped. This sudden change in production might have something to do with the death of Peter Hassel and the change of ownership to James Hassel, who only had the plantation for a year. It appears that after the sugar production was abandoned, the enslaved workers who lived at the Pasquereau estate were working at another plantation estate owned by the Hassel family. According to the tax lists the production of provisions was continued. By continuing the production of provisions, even though the sugar production was abandoned, the enslaved workers could still obtain food. 14 The first year the Hassel’s owned the estate they also owned 30 enslaved workers. The Hassel’s kept buying workers, and in the period 1811 to 1826 they had over 50 enslaved workers. Compared to Weyle who had a lot of house and crafts workers, probably because he lived at the estate with his family, the Hassel’s only had plantation workers. This makes sense since the owners did not live at the Pasquereau estate themselves. Instead they hired an overseer who lived at the estate and whose its job was to run and look after the plantation. From                                                                                                                 11  RRVR 571: 83.10-83.15.   12  Tyson, "A History of Land Use "., 33.   13  Ryberg, ed., A List of the Names RRVR 571:83.15- 83,33.   14  RRVR 571:83.15-83.16. 29     1814-1828 there were 2 white people living in the main house or the dwelling house down at the factory; except for one year, 1826, when 2 overseers were living on the estate with 52 enslaved workers. 15 3.5 The last owners - Louis Michel & The Weimar family (Anne-Kristine) The Pasquereau plantation is sold in 1829 to Louis Michel, who owned the estate the following 9 years until his death in 1837. The Weimar family bought the plantation in 1838 from Louis Michel’s heirs. Like the Hassel’s, they had a rapidly changing ownership within the family. Until 1848 and throughout the period when Louis Michel and the Weimar family owned the estate, no owner, overseer, or enslaved workers lived on the Pasquereau estate except for one year in 1845 when 1 man and 4 women lived there. In that period nothing was produced or cultivated on the estate.16                                                                                                                 15 RRVR 571:83.15-83.32.   16  RRVR 571: 83.33-83.52.   30 P ART II: ON -SITE ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH 31 4. Structures and historic al geography 4.1. INVESTIGATING THE SITESOur investigation into the histor ical structur es and geography of Pasquereau is based on the on -site archaeological research of our St. John fieldwork in conjunction with the archival sources as well as the use of histor ical and contemporary maps and GPS -mapping. The investigation also to a certain extent makes use of two previous archaeological surveys of the Pasquereau estate: the building surv ey conducted around 1980 by Frederik Gjessing for t he National Park Historic Site - survey and NPS archaeologist Kourtney Donahue’ s preliminary inve stigation at the two sites in June - July 2011 . The Gjessing -survey has proved to be inaccurate on several points and the latter is far more detailed. 46 Our investigation operates with two different sites: the main or original Pasq uereau site dating back to 1721 which is located on t he upper Reef Bay Valley hillside, and the Jossie Gut factory site established during the 1790’s conversion to sugar production located in the valley below at the intersection between the gut and the Reef Bay Valley trail. Working on -site with the remains of the built structures and historical landscape of the Pasquereau estate, the investigation was faced with two major problems: firstly to actually loca te the remains of the built structures of the estate , and secondly to identify the various ruins and rem nants of the cultural landscape . There are no current roads or maintained trails leading to the main Pasquereau site and the natural impact of the dense tropical forest on the historical roads, cultural landscape and the built structures of the estate have been significant. The fact that the sites have not consequently been used for production or habitation since the 1820’s also means that the weathering of buildings and other structures has been lengthy and not many features are preserved. It is further en hanced by the fact that all residential buildings were primarily built of wood . Using the 1800 Oxholm map of St. John and especially the so - called Trail Bandit -map which maps the old colonial roads of the area, we had in advance a very good idea of the app roximate location of the original 46 Gjessing, “National Park” : 307 -312, 348 -352; Donahue, “Paquerau”; Donahue, “Jossie Gut”. 32 Pasquereau estate in the landscape. Hiking straight down the gut 47 which begins on the right hand side of the Bordeaux Mountain Road just opposite the Chateau de Margot Villa driveway we initially came acro ss the small trai l - re mains of the old colonial road - that runs between the Hope estate and Center Line Road. Following the trail west for about 150 meters we were able to locate the main Pasquereau site up the hillside just off the road on the right hand side. The other Pasquereau site, the Jossie Gut factory complex, was not initially a part of the investigation since it was not to begin with identified it as the sugar factory of Pasquereau. Eventually, the location of the site was well known and fare more easily access ible since it is situated directly on the Reef Bay Trail. Also the ruins of the factory complex were mu ch better preserved being stone - built. 4.2 .SITE A: THE MAIN PASQUEREAU SITEThe main Pasquereau site was situated on the ridge on a small plateau protr uding from the steep hillside. This was the site of the earliest settlements and production facilities on Pasquereau from 1721 and that of the residential buildings of the estate. Approaching the site from a southwestern direction four structures on the no rthern side of the plateau were immediately recognizable as ruins of buildings. Standing approximately 50 -120 cm. above the ground was the rubble and brick masonry wall base of a large building identifiable as the great house of the estate. Ten meters behi nd it was the meter high base walls of a smaller, rectangular building known in earlier surveys of the site as a service building or servants’ quarters . A little further away to the north were the remains of a bake oven and the foundations and collapsed wa lls of a small, square building, possibly the cook house . Between the service building and the cook house were traces of the foundations of two three unidentified structures (structures 12 - 14). Located directly south and east of the great house and servic e building was another group of at least ten structures identifiable as the faint remains the slave village with nine structures of fairly similar size and shape identified as the foundations of the houses of the enslaved workers (structure 2 -10) and a sma ller structure identified as the remains of a possible slave kitchen (structure 1). Right next to structure 6 and 7 were 47A gut is small ravine or gorge on the hillside. The mentioned gut is believed to be the origin of the name, J ossie Gut. 33 Fig. 2: GIS -map of the main Pasquereau site with all structures marked.a least two graves. North of the slave village were the outli nes of two structures (11 and 19) which could be the remains of early production facilities or just a part of the village (see below). On the shallow hillside approximately 15 meters west of the great house towards the old road, a retaining wall of large f ield stone, in the shape of a half circle approximately 13 -14 meters in diameter and with a pile of field stones in the center was found. It formed a platform of approximately 130 - 155 m 2 with the retaining wall facing west down slope. It was not thoroughly surveyed and has no structure number in this investigation. This is the structure identified by Gjessing as the possible animal mill but could also be traces of garden landscaping. In total, 20 different historical structures were identifiable at site A o f which at least 11 could be identified as residential, three as cooking or baking facilities and three as possible early production facilities. 4.3 . STRUCTURESUnfortunately, no early sources describe the buildings on the Pasquereau estate so next to no knowledge about the early built structures is preserved. The first and only meticulous description found in the archives is a taxation dated April 5. 1800. It gives the following account on buildings of the main site: “1 dwelling house on the mountain 30 feet long, 16 feet wide of 34 hardwood beams placed in the ground and semi -bricked walls, the upper part made of planks and with shingled roof as well as 2 rooms and a loft 1 Hurricane house very strong built 20 feet long, 14 feet wide, and the wall very thi ck and shingled roof One small storage building 14 feet long and 10 feet wide, planked and shingled One newly built sick house 16 feet long and 14 feet wide, planked and shingled One newly built pigeon house 8 feet long square with a boutlerie beneath…” 48 In addition to that, the appraiser found one privy shed, one bake oven, eight houses for the enslaved workers, one mule fold with a thatch roof above and one horse stable also with a thatch roof. 49 Using this historical source and the information gathered by this and pre vious investigations it is possible to examine and possibly identify the various buildings and built stru c ture s on Pasquereau main site . 4 .3.1 The great houseThe approximately 50 -120 cm. high foundation base together with the brick main stai rs on the west wall were the only remaining part of the Pasquereau main house. The vegetation in the building and on the walls was heavy and there was a lot of bio -turbulant disturbance. A part of the northern outer wall had collapsed down the slope. This main building of the estate and the dwelling house of the owners was a remarkably large rectangular building: the remaining foundations measures 14.1 by 11.3/13.4 meters 50 giving it a total area of 178 m 2 . The great house was constructed in wood on the base of a part brick part rubble masonry foundation. The foundations were built in random rubble and mortar masonry using primarily lime - and coral stones with corners in red and yellow brick. Both conventional and Flensburg bricks were found. 51 The upper woode n part was, according to the 1800 48 STSJG 712:35.31.1 - 2 ( fol. 90). 49 STSJG 712:35.31.1 - 2 ( fol. 90). 50 Donahue, “ Pa querau:” subsite 27.003. The dimensions are irregular due to an extension of the northern gallery of 9 by 2. 1 meters. 51 The Flensbu rg bricks are smaller than regular bricks – only 40 mm. in height. They were very popular in the 18 th century and a lot of them were sailed to the Danish West Indies as ballast onboard merchant vessels. 35 taxation, built of hardwood beams placed in the ground, plank walls and with a shingled roof. The house had 2 rooms and a loft. 52 The building had galleries on the north, west, and south side around a center enclosed core m easuring 9.7 by 5.4 meters. The galleries facing north and south were 3 meters wide while the western gallery was 4.6 meters. The north gallery had at some point an extension 9 meters long and about 2.1 meters wide added on the outside of the existing gall ery making it more than five meters wide. According to Frederik Gjessings investigation from circa 1980, a section of the gallery facing north was enclosed while the rest of the galleries were open with tile floor and a masonry rail supporting the posts of the roof. These features were not evident during our investigation 34 years after Gjessings survey. 53 The dimensions of the enclosed central part of the great house correspond quite well with the dimensions of the dwelling house given by the 1800 written s ource: 30 feet by 16 feet or 9.4 by 5.0 meters. Since no other structures on the site are near as large as this one , it is most likely the same building which means that the galleries are a later addition to the great house, added to the existing smaller b uilding between 1800 and 1813 where permanent habitation by owners or overseers ended. The building construction with open galleries suggests an early 19 thcentury design whereas the central house is earlier.An interesting feature on the great house is a series of five small, 20 cm. square cubbies or ducts in the in the south foundation wall near the southwest corner. They were brick built, approximately 20 -25 cm. deep and apparently leading nowhere unlike the drainage ducts found in the west wall (see: A ppend ix C .1 - 2 ). 4 .3.2 Servants’ quartersOnly the masonry base walls 50 -100 cm. height remained of this structure which was in poor shape due to considerable bio -turbulant disturbance, especially the northern half of the building. Also called the service building, the building was constructed as a rectangular half timbered house on a random rubble and brick masonry base, 6.6 meters long and 5.2 meters wide. The base walls were built of lime and coral stones, random field stones as well as yellow and red Flensburg bricks and brick rubble. The walls originally stood a little over 52 STSJG 712:35.31.1 - 2 ( fol. 90). 53 Gjessing, “National Park:” 351. 36 1 meter above floor level and were at some places 0.65 m eter thick. In the southern diagonal half of the building, at least nine post molds approximately 12 cm in diameter in the wal ls on the inside were visible. (see: Appendix C .3) The upper construction was most likely a timber post and planked construction with shingled roof. Two doorways were intact, one in the west wall facing the great house, and one in the south wall facing the slave village. 54 Labeled in both our investigation and in the previous surveys as service building and servants’ quarters, this structure is most likely identical with the hurricane house mentioned in the 1800 taxation. The dimensions of the hurricane hous e, 20 by 14 feet or 6.3 by 4.4 meters is a bit smaller on both axis but the description of it being “ very strong built […] the wall very thick” 55 corresponds with no other structure on Pasquereau except for the servant quarters and the overall layout matche s. The building could well have been used for both purposes.Dating the building is difficult but the wooden post construction and dimensions is very similar to the early great houses found at other St. John plantations indicating that this could originall y have functioned as the first 1720’s great house of Pasquereau. We know from the sources and the artifacts found at the site that the estate was inhabited during the earliest period. 4 .3.3 Cook house and bake ovenOnly the rubble rock and masonry founda tion walls of the structure labeled as the cook house of the estate were present but in very bad shape and the walls were collapsed. A lot of vegetation was growing on the structure. The building was 4.5 meters square built with rubble rock base walls made of mortar, limestone and random field stones . 56 On the ground next to the building was a section of wall or pillar built in Flensburg brick masonry indicating that parts of the construction was built in masonry. It is likely that the upper part of the buil ding was of a wooden planked construction with a shingled roof. There were no traces of a doorway in the building but the walls had in some places collapsed almost down to ground level thus removing signs of a doorway in those sections. 54 Donahue, “Paquerau : ” subsite 27.004. 55 STSJG 712:35.31.1 - 2 ( fol. 90). 56 Donahue, “ Paquerau ”: subsite 27.005. 37 The structure was l abeled initially by Gjessing and later by Donahue as a cook house and its close proximity to the bake oven and distance to the dwellings as well as the artifacts found on the slope just beneath the building are all strong evidence for this theory. Strangel y, the very detailed 1800 taxation does not mention any cook house on Pasquereau. This could indicate that the cooking facilities were arranged in a different way than in a n actual cook house . In that case, the cook house could have been built later on or the building had another function . Two buildings in the written sources roughly match the dimensions of the cook house : the 14 by 10 feet or 4.4 by 3.1. meters storage building or the sick house 5 by 4.4 meters in size. The remains of the bake oven locate d next to the cook house were essentially no more than a pile of rubble 2 meters square and 1.5 meter high with three trees growing out of it. It was originally built in as a brick and rock masonry construction very similar to other bake ovens found on St. John estates. 4 .3.4 Structures 12 - 14 Structure 12 was located right next to the cook house and nothing but the faint outline of the stone foundations of the structure and random rubble remained. The structure was approximately 5.6 by 4 meters in size, ha d a non -masonry base of limestone rocks and presumably a wooden or mud construction on top of that. There were no indications of the function of the structure and it could have been both building and pen for small household animals. The only building in th e 1800 taxation that the dimensions of the structure roughly resembles are those of the sick house (5 by 4.4 meters). 57 Structure 13 and 14 were located right next to each other behind the servants’ quarters and both found with only the outlines of the ston e foundations preserved. Structure 13 was approximately 9.6 meters long and 6.8 meters wide and on the basis of the dimensions and very few remaining traces of the construction, it is very likely to have been the roofed mule pen mentioned in the taxation. The Pasquereau estate had 10 mules in December 1799. 58 Structure 14 was approximately 4.4 by 6.8 meters in diameter and the remains showed clear indication of partitions or divisions of the interior. It is very likely to have been the mentioned thatch roofe d horse stable. 57 STSJG 712:35.31.1 - 2 ( fol. 90 ). 58 Weyle, “For sale:” 3. 38 4 .3.5 Slave villageThe remains identified as the slave village of the Pasquereau estate were located south and east of the other structures on the shallow south slope of the plateau. The location of the slave village was neither identifi ed by Gjessing nor Donahue in their previous surveys. All that remained were t he single rubble stone retaining walls which served as the edge on which the small wooden slave houses where retained on the long sides facing downhill. The faint outlines of thestructures on the ground were to some extend visible. The house itself was of a wooden construction probably with some kind of clay or dirt walls and a thatched roof. Nothing is known about the interior but they are very likely to have been similar to hou ses of enslaved laborers found elsewhere on St. John. At least ten of these structures were identified: five of them measuring 9 by 4 meters 59 , four measuring 6 -7 by 4 meters 60 , and one was measuring 4 by 3.2 meters. 61 There were thus two or three quite dist inct size groups and one smaller structure. On the basis of the findings of charcoal, the smaller size, location a bit more secluded than the other buildings and the presence of partitioning walls, the latter ( structure 1 ) was identified as the probable ki tchen of the slave village. The other nine structures were most likely dwelling houses, the homes of the main group of people living on the estate. This number of houses for the enslaved workers corresponds with the 1800 taxation which mentions “9 Negro Ho uses.” 62Four of the dwellings, all of the largest variety, were facing the same south -southeastern direction (structure 3, 5, 6, and 8) while the rest of the dwellings, mostly of the smaller variety, were facing south or south - southwest. This could be a si gn of different periods of construction. Just east of structure 6 and 7 traces of two unmarked and unidentifiable graves were found. They could well be the graves of former owners or they could be the graves of two of the enslaved. 4 .3.6 Possible early pr oduction facilities Structure s11 and 19 located next to each othe r north of the slave village were not identified during this investigation. The possibility of the 59 Structure s 3, 5, 6, 8, and 9. 60 Structure s 2, 4, 7 , and 10 . 61 Structure 1. 62STSJG 712:35.31.1 - 2 ( fol. 90 ). 39 structures being the remains of early production facilities were discussed by no final proo f found. Structure 19 was a rectangular pile of rocks some 7 meters long and 3 meters wide built on the lower part of an uphill slope. A retaining wall was found in the extension of the long axis. This was discussed as a possible early sugar boiling bench on the basis of the size, dimensions and the fact that it was more like rectangular heap of stones than the outlines of a foundation . The rubble stone remains of structure 11, approximately 5.5 by 4 meters in size, were found right next to it. This is the location of the possible factory as identified by Donahue in 2011 and the piece of a sugar skimmer found at the site was found next to structure 19. The possible animal mill located south of the stru ctures mentioned in by Donahue was not identifiable. 63 4. 4 .SITE B: THE JOSSIE GUT FACTORYThe second site investigated during our field work, the Jossie Gut factory site, was located where the tributary Jossie Gut merges with the stream at the bottom of the Reef Bay Valley approximately 390 meters south and dow nhill from the main Pasquereau site . The site was built in the 1790 ’s under the ownership of Johan Severin Weyle in order to establish a n ew sugar production.The lo cation of the factory complex at the bottom of the valley was logical. First of all, the fi elds of the estate were situated on the steep hillsides on the west ern side of the valley. With the location of a sugar factory in the valley and not at the original main site, t he harvested sugar canes had to be transported downhill rather than up the ste ep hill si de . Second ly, unlike at the main site, a natura l supply of water from the streams running through the valley and Jossie Gut was found here . And thirdly, the location of the factory in the valley offered good transportation out to the coastline via the trail running down the valley from Kongevei and out to the Reef Bay from where the disembarkation of the finished sugar and rum likely took place . The only downside to the loca tion in the bottom of the valley was the long and ardu ous journey from the residential buildings of the estate and down to the factory area. Approaching the site from the north along the Reef Bay Valley trail, a large, rectangular stone - built structure on the right side of the trail recognizable as an animal (most likely oxen) pe n was the first trace of the site. Immediately south of it were the ruins of three smaller structures, 63 Donahue, “ Paquerau: ” subsites 27.001 and 27.002. 40 Fig. 3 : GIS -map of the Jossie Gut factory site with all structures marked. probably storage buildings . Al so on the right side of the trail were the rui ns of a two large r buildings placed end to end, likely to be another animal pound and more c learly a bagasse shed , with the chara cteristic pillars in the middle of the structure.On a protrusion in the hills ide above and to the left of the trail , the ruins of a numb er of buildings and structures were found and identified as possible residential buil dings, kitchen facilities and probably a dam and cistern construction for water supply. The further course of the trail went straight through the animal mill of the complex with the right half of the platform built on top of a high retaining wall and the left side partly dug out of the hillside. I mmediately south of the mill were the ruins of a two -storey building i dentified as the sugar factory. T he overall site measured approximately 100 x 100 meters and contained some 15 individual structures or buildings. The Jossie Gut factory area was previously surveyed thoroughly by Kourt ney Donohue in June 2011. S he identified all of the mentioned buildings and this invest igation was based on her original mapping and findings . 64 Frederik Gjessin g also examined the area for his mapping of St. John’s historical structures but he identified just six structures at 64Donahue, “Jossie Gut”. 41 Jossie Gut namely the animal mill, the sugar factory, the possibl e water supply construction (dam and cistern) and warehouse, o x pound and a stable north of this not found by Donohue or during our investigation. 65 4.5 STRUCTURES The earliest description of the Jossie Gut factory is in a sales ad for the Pasquereau estate dated December 28 th 1799. The ad describes “a new erected, but not quite finished Boiling, Burning, & still house with a Rum Cellar, in the Form of an L down by the Water, so situated that the Water may be led with spouts into the Works. Also a Mill and Mill Timber, complete, not yet erected, a new Copper Still with Cap and Worm, thirty working Negroes, ten Mules, 1 Horse, four Draught Oxen, 6 young Cattle, and a new Wagon.” 66 This description closely matches the oven given four months later in the ta xation record of April 1800: “Down below the mountain: In the shape of a L one newly built boiling and still house with rum cellar and loft above, in this no boilers yet and is not yet completely finished […] Acomplete set of iron and brass work s for a ho rse mill and timber for the same and most of the mill platform finished […] A new loading wagon and a new copper still with accessories…” all valu ed at the formidable price of 9, 750 rigsdaler. 67 So at the turn of the century, the factory was still under con struction and it consisted of a building for combined sugar boiling and rum distilling with a loft and a rum cellar, and of an animal mill of which the platform was almost complete but with the mill itself yet to be erected. From the sources we can also ga ther that the factory complex had to accommodate the four oxen and six cattle already living on the estate. That necessitates an ox pound. When the construction in Jossie Gut began is uncertain, but it was most likely to have been started by Weyle in the m id 1790’s. The factory and the animal mill must have been complete not long after 1800. In a taxation dated 1811, the sugar factory seems to have been completed and a “Boiling House, Still house, with 12 Casks, Curing house, Rum Cellar” valued at 11, 800 ri gsdaler is mentioned as well as a still of 160 gallons 65Gjessing, “National Park:” 307 - 312. 66 Weyle, “For sal e:” 3. 67 STSJG 712:35.31.1 - 2 ( fol. 90 ). 42 and 13 “Negro houses.” 68 The latter is likely to be the total number of houses of the enslaved laborers of the estate but given the fact that there were only nine houses in 1800 and that traces of only nine houses were found at the main site, this indicates that four new houses probably were built at the Jossie Gut site. The processes of sugar boiling, curing and distilling are in the 1811 sources described as though they were in separate buildings but t he material evidence and our knowledge from similar sugar factories and rum distilleries on St. Jan tells us, that these processes were in different section of the same building. The written sources do not mention any buildings at Jossie Gut other than th e factory building, animal mill and the indications of an ox pound and four slave houses. 4 .5.1 The boiling, burning and still house The factory building 69 at Jossie Gut for the boiling, burning and distillation processes of the sugar and rum production at Pasquereau was a large, L -shaped one and two story building with a loft located as the southernmost building of the complex situated about two meters south of the animal mill. The b uilding consisted of a one -story northern wing (the stem of the “ L ” ) 9 met ers long (north - south direction ) and 7.5 m eters wide, and a partly two -story southern wing measuring 12. 25 meters in length (west - east) and 7.5 meters in width. The total length of the west wall was 16.5 meters and attached to it was a double factory ciste rn measuring 7 by 7 meters in total. 70 The factory building was stone -built in rubble masonry constructed in field stones, coral and mortar with yellow and red brick lining of the corners and door and window openings. Plastering on the walls w ere still inta ct in some places The ruins of the factory building were in a poor condition due to erosion and badly deterioration. The walls were in a few places still standing almost to roof height some 5 meters above the ground level, but most of the walls were comple tely demolished or worn down to a height of 1 -3 meters. Most of the west wall had collapsed. Building materials lay scattered inside and around the ruin. The southern part of the building 68 STSJG 712:35.31.1 - 2 ( fol. 170). 69 Structure 2. 70 The cistern -extension on the fa ctory building led to the erroneous conclusions by Gjessing and Donohue that the factory building was T -shaped rather than L - shaped (Gjessing, “National Park:” 308; Donahue, “Jossie Gut.”) The cisterns were not an integrated part of the building but an att achment. 43 was the best preserved and in a ground -level windows frame a wooden lintel beam was still in place (see Appendix D . 1 ). There were overall a significant bio -turbulent disturbance on the building; trees were growing on its walls. The north wing of the factory building, the boiling house , consisted of a single room some 8 by 6.5 meters in size 71 housing the boiling train. It had two large windows in the north as well as west walls, at least one doorway and a window in the east wall and possibly a large opening in the south wall connecting the boiling house with the rest of the factory. Along the west wall were the clear remains of masonry mounts for four boiling pans ( coppers ). In the outer wall beneath the boiling train were a total of two stoke holes or furnace openings placed underneath the second and fourth copper giving the Jossie Gut factory a furnace solution somewhat of a hybrid between the older “Spanish train” with separate furnaces for each copper and the single -furnace “Jamaican train.” 72 The south wing of the factory building housed the curing and storage rooms of the factory and was split in two parts. The 7.15 meters wide western part had two floors, one in level with the rest of the building and a parterre level beneath with clear signs of a floor slab between them in the south wall. The 5.1 meters wide eastern part was in level with the boiling house. It was difficult to see, whether the two parts had originally been separated by a wall or not. There were at least three window openings visible in the upper part of south wall and a doorway and window in the lower par t. In the east wall were signs of at least one window opening. On the northern outer wall in the corner next to the boiling house was a brick and rubble masonry outside stairway possibly leading to the loft mentioned in the 1800 taxation. A possible doorwa y was found right next to the stair. The cisterns were housed in a rubble masonry extension 7 meters long, 4.25 meters wide and some 2 meters high. The two cisterns were rectangular, approximately 3 by 2 meters in size with rounded corners and plastered 0. 5 meter thick walls giving each cistern a capacity of about 12 cubic meters. There were some erosion and bio -turbulent disturbance on the cisterns and trees were growing on the walls. Attached to the west wall of the cisterns was another extension almost 7 meters long and 2.75 71 The approximate inside measurements of the 9 by 7.5 meters boiling house part of the factory . The walls were approximately 40 cm. wide. 72 Meide , “The Sugar Factory:” 16. 44 meters wide with a meter wide stairway leading to the top of the cisterns in the middle. It was unclear what this smaller extension was meant for due to severe deterioration but it could very well have housed the still of the factory. 4 .5.2 The animal mill Immediately nort h of the boiling house was the animal crushing mill 73 of the Jossie Gut sugar factory located slightly elevated compared to the ground floor of the boiling room. The circular mill platform was 22 meters in diameter p artially carved out of the slope to the north and east and partially built on a rubble masonry retaining wall on the southern and western sides, the retaining wall standing as high as 15 meters. 74 A series of rectangular drainage ducts were placed in the wa ll. Protruding from the southwestern part of the half circle retaining wall were a square extension of similar construction and equal height some 3,5 by 3,5 meters in size. At the middle of the platform, some faint traces of a ruble construction showed whe re the mill gears and crushing rollers were located. Built into the base of the retaining wall facing west was a cellar, probably the rum cellar mentioned in the archival sources. The cellar, constructed in regular red brickwork with arched doorway and ceiling, consisted of a single room approximately two meters deep, one and a half meters wide and two meters from floor to ceiling. The walls were in plastered brick masonry and in one wall a brick -sized duct some 40 - 50 cm. deep was constructed. The depth of the doorway in the retaining wall was approximately 60 cm. The retaining wall was in a surprisingly good condition with almost no bio -turbulent disturbance and the rubble masonry only damaged where the Reef Bay Trail crosses straight through the mill. T he platform itself had much of its flatness preserved but with a lot of small trees were growing on it. No signs of the sugar juice gutter connecting the mill rollers with the boiling house. 4 .5.3 Hill complexThe hill complex was a group of structures lo cated on a ledge on the hillside between the tributary gut and the animal mill. A rubble retaining 73 Structure 1. 74 Gjessing, “ National Park:” 307 - 308. 45 wall parted rhe ledge from_ the animal rnill to the sourh and east. The area was about 40 meters lang and 10-15 meters wide. Furehest to the east and closest to the animal mill were the remains of a structure labeled in out field work notes as che "planter's house."75 Only some free standing parts of the east and north walls of ch.e structure and a random rubble masonry staiiway leading from che mill platform to the structure along with scattered rubble remained and the function of rhe structure was not clear. Neither the west nar the south walls were clearly identiftable. The remaining wall seerions were about 1 meter high and 0.4 meter thick built in plastered brick and rubble stone masoruy. Of the east wall, cwo sections each 1.5-2 meters long were still standing and the part in between had collapsed. On the southern section of the wall, a part af the original plastered top finishing of the wall remained and showed chat the upper edge of the wall had sloped outwards. The sauth end of the east wall still had its plastered finish which indicated a daarway here. There were no traces of the furrher course of the wall. The northern section of the east wall was 2 meters in length and the northeastern corner rernained. Both sections were plastered and had clear imprints of supporting beams on the insides and horizontal grooves in rhe plastering. The beams show rhat the structure originally had a beam supported wooden structure on top of the foundational walls. An intact roaf tile in dark grayish day was found suggesting chat the structure (or another structure in the hill complex) rnighr have had tile roof. Approxirnatdy 11 meters of rhe norrh wall remained and along its outside, a parallel wall made up a long, 1 meter wide and 11 meters Long trough. This seems to have been part of a dam and cistern installation identified by Gjessing and Donohue but not thoroughly invesrigated. Wherher rhe remaining walls where a part of a planrer's house ar same sort of office building is unclear. An alternative interpretation is chat the ruins were a part of rhe intricate dam and cistern water supply system. The auter trough wall made up a part of the approximately 23 meters lang dam wall rhat ran east-west behind strucrure 8. 7 r, The dam was about 2.5 meters high on the norrhern side and built in random rubble stone with sofr Line mortar. A sectian af the wall 3.9 meters lang had 75 Srrucmre 8. The srructured was measured ro he approximately 5 meters wide and probably 11 meters long (The GIS-mcasurcmcnrs are not corrccr). 7(, Snueture 3. Measurements from: Donahue, "Jossie Gut." According to the GIS­ mapping, the dam wall was aLnost 35 merers long. 46 collapsed and there was an overall deterioration of the structu re. 77 At the eastern end of the dam, a free -standing unidentified and 90 degrees angled section of wall – called a “bank structure” – 2 meters high and 0.3 meters thick about one meter long in each part of the angle stood close the dam wall. 78 It was built i n random rubble and mortar masonry. The wall section was clearly a part of the same installation as the dam. The 1799 sales add by Johan Severin Weyle describes the factory “so situated that the Water may be led with spouts into the Works.” 79 It is though unclear whether that describes the dam and cistern -installation or some other function at the factory -building. None of the other archival sources describes the massive dam structure so it could be of a later origin. In the early 1980’s Frederik Gjessing d escribed the function of the structure as “a dam across the tributary gut” that had “a sluice - way and a spill -over and gutter leading to an elevated cistern between the gut and the horse mill.” 80 This sounds reasonable but was not very clearly identified on site.Four meters south of the dam wall and two meters east of the building labeled as a “planter’s house”, the characte ristic remains of a bake oven - a pile of rubble stones 1 x 1.5 meters in size and severely disturbed by vegetation - were located. 81 Ea st of the bake oven were the remains of a rectangular structure 5.3 meters long and 3 meters wide with an extension measuring 2 by 2 meters on the north wall. 82 The structure was identified by Donohue in 2011 as the kitchen of the Jossie Gut site. The distu rbed rubble masonry foundation walls remained 0.5 -1 meters in height and there were a lot of bio -turbulence and deterioration of the walls. The main part of the kitchen building had a transverse brick partition dividing it in two rooms. Furthest to the we st and a little uphill, two equally sized structures identified as quarters for the enslaved workers were located. 83 Both measuring 3.5 by 2 meters in size 84 only the severely disturbed rubble 77 Dona hue, “Jossie Gut.” 78 Structure 13. 79 Weyle, “For sale :” 3. 80 Gjessin g, “National Park :” 309. 81 Structure 9. Measurements from: Donahue, “Jossie Gut.” The measurements given by the GIS -map of Jossie Gut puts the dimensions of the bake oven are 2.5 by 2.5 me ters. 82 Structure 10. 83 Structure 11 and 12. 84 The measurements given by the GIS -map of Jossie Gut are 5 by 3 meters. 47 foundational walls remained. As wirh rhe other structures, trees and other vegetation were growing on the ruins. 4.5.4 Storage buildings and animal pens On rhe opposite and west side of the stream bed, a string of structures were identifi.ed. The northernmost structure85 was a rectangular 25.5 by 12.5 meters massive stone fence construction made of large rocks piled on top of each other without any mortar binding it together. Although rhe fence had tumbled in several places, it still had an average heighr of 1. 5 meters and was approximately I meter thick. The structure was idemified by Gjessing as well as Donahue as an ox pound.86 Given its size, construction and the faet that the Pasquereau estate had four oxen. and six catde in 1800 thLs seems to be the only reasonable usage for the structure. Sourheast of the ox pound were the ruins of three structures8' by both Gjessing and Donahue iden.tified as a single storage building88 but in our investigarion idenrified as the ruins of three separate structures likdy to have been some sort of storage buildings. Not much remained of the structures except for the tumbled stone foundation walls standing 30-50 cm. above the ground showing the outlines of the buildings. All three structures originally had a non-masonry base of random limestone rocks and presumably a wooden construction on top of chat. The flrst of rhe structures was located directly south of the ox poun.d and measured 10 by 6 meters. It had indications of a l meter wide corridor along the east wall in. the full length of the building. Perpendicular on rhe sourheast corner of the structure, the outlines of the foundations of another structure were vLsible measuring same 8 by 3 meters. A few meters to the south, rhe foundations of the smallest of the three structures, measuring 5.6 by 3.6 meters. There were no indicarions of the funcrion of the rhree srructures, but they where most likdy smaller buildings for storage purposes. Southeast of the three possible storage buildings and doser to the stream bed, the ruins of a large rectangular structure measuring 20 by 13.75 meters was located.89 It consLsted only of outer ruble stone walls 85 Srrucmre 4. 86 Gjessing, "National Parlc" 309-310; Donahue, "Jossi.e Gut." 87 Srrucrurc 5a, 5b and 5c. 88 Gjessing, "National Park:" 309-310; Donahue, "Jossi.e Gur." 89 Srrucmre 6. 48 and no traces of partitioning walls were visible. Identified by Donahue in 2011 as a possible stable, given its sheer size and the lack of masonry or compartments, the structure more likely seemed t o have been an animal pound for horses or mules. Gjessing identified the ruins of a possible stable north of the ox pound by these were either not visible anymore or Gjessing was inaccurate. 90 In continuation of the “stable” was the ruins of the bagasse she d of the Jossie Gut factory, 91 where the crushed sugar canes from the animal mill were dried and stored for the purpose of fuel in the boiling house furnace. Easily identified as such by the characteristic free -standing roof bearing columns in the middle of the structure, of which there were three, the close proximity to the furnaces of the boiling house and the animal also supported that conclusion. The bagasse shed measured 13.5 meters in length and 9.4 meters in width and the remains consisted besides the three brick and random rubble masonry columns of the rubble stone foundations of the outer walls.4.6 HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHYWhen the Pasquereau plantation was established in 1721, the size of the estate was 3000 by 2100 fe et equivalent to 942 by 659 meter s giving it an area of 620, 778 m 2 or 153 acres. 92 In the 1804 M atrikel , the area of the estate was stated as being 150 acres and six years later 175 acres. 93 We know from the 1728 land list the original boundaries of the estate as being “east of Jacob Magens and south of Madam Beverhoudt’s, now William Vessup’s, Plantation” 94 . Pasquereau was located in Reef Bay Quarter while the Magens estate was in Maho Bay Quarter and so was the Vessup estate bordering the northeastern corner of Reef Bay Quarter to the south . 95 This means that the northern and eastern boundaries of the Pasquereau estate followed the border between Maho Bay and Reef Bay Quarter from the present intersection between the Center Line and Bordeaux Mountain road west -southwest to the Reef Bay trail and down through the Reef Bay Valley along the stream to just south of the Jossie 90 Gjessing, “National Park:” 310 - 312. 91 Structure 7. 92 VGK 446.750 (1728). 93 RRVR 571:83.16 (1804, 1810 ) . 94 VGK 446.750 (1728). 95 Near present day Center Line Road at the Old Works ruins. The original Kongevei had a more northern trail north of Old Works . 49 Fig. 4: Map showing the location and boundaries of Pasquereau estate . Section of the 1800 Oxholm map.Gut factory. Given the size of the estate, the boundaries of Pasquerea u must have followed the border of the Reef Bay Quarter along the Bordeaux Mountain ridge and then from the ridge in a southwestern direction down to the Jossie Gut factory. The Pasquereau estate covered the entire western hillside of the Reef Bay Valley f rom south of Kongevei and down to the Hope Estate. Three plateaus with shallower terrain offered some natural fundaments for the cultivation of the estate but elsewhere the hillside was very steep and inhospitable. During the periods where sugar and cotton was cultivated on the estate, the inhabitants of Pasquereau mu st have been forced to build terracing for the crops. On the hillside southwest of the main Pasquereau site, signs of terracing were actually found in the form of long stone retaining walls par allel to the contour of the plateau. Still only a modest percentage of the land was cultivatable. When sugar production on the Pasquereau peaked in 1808, only 40 % of the total area was 50 planted with sugar canes, 10 % with other crops and the rest was uncul tivated.Terracing was also necessary in the construction of roads in the area. Little is known about the secondary road net of St. John before Oxholm made his first map of St. John in 1780. 96 The Kongevei or Center Line dates back to the colonization of th e island in the 1720’s and the Bordeaux Mountain Road is also from the early period. The present Reef Bay trail is said to be an original road linking the Reef Bay area with the Center Line and further north with Little Maho Bay. The road is however not on the Oxholm maps of 1780 and 1800, and might not have been constructed until the Pasquereau sugar factory at Jossie Gut was finished around 1800. On the Oxholm maps, secondary roads link the nearby estates Hope, Misgunst and Par Force to the Bordeaux Mount ain Road but no roads or driveways leading to Pasquereau are drawn onto the map. During the field work, we uncovered an old, unpaved and relatively well preserved 2 -3 meter wide road terraced into the eastern Reef Bay Valley hillside leading from the build ings of the Hope estate passing Pasquereau just below the plateau and continuing in the direction of the Center Line and the original Kongevei. It was registered by “trail bandit” Bob Garrison on his 2010 map of the old Danish roads on St. John and relativ ely easy to find hiking down Jossie Gut from Bordeaux Mountain Road. 97 The road was difficult to date since it was not of any of the Oxholm Maps, but it is very likely to have been constructed fairly early. An original access way to the Pasquereau estate di rectly from the nearby Bordeaux Mountain Road is unlikely since the terrain between the road and plateau seemed to be very steep. A road from Kongevei along the hillside like the one found would have been much more logical. A drive way (the only one found) leading from this old road and up to the estate ending right at the servants’ quarters/hurricane house on the northwestern side of the plateau was found supporting the theory that this was the original access way to Pasquereau. On his map, the Trail Bandi t marks a road leading from the Bordeaux Mountain Road and down the hillside to the before mentioned road along the south side of Jossie Gut meeting the Hope -Kongevei road just north of Hope. This road was not found during our investigations. 96 Oxholm , Topografisk Kort ( 1780 ) . 97 Garrison: 2010 St. John Hiking Map. 51 Fig. 5: The road net of the Pasquereau estate. The red lines are the known roads and the orange the possible roads. The main Pasquereau site was thus connected with Kongevei and Hope and the other estates further south by the Hope -Kongevei road and later on, the Joss ie Gut factory site was connected with Kongevei and with the coastline by the road now known as the Reef Bay trail. But in order for the Pasquereau estate to have been cohesive with the residential building separated from the production facilities after th e establishment of the Jossie Gut site, there had to have been a road or mule trail connecting the two parts of the estate. During the field work of this investigation, we found traces of a possible trail beginning directly behind the slave houses of the J ossie Gut site and leading up the gut on the south side. The traces of this possible road vanished further up the gut somewhere halfway between the site and the Hope -Kongevei - road. This would have been a logical way linking Pasquereau together, but the ste ep hillsides offered little comfort for the enslaved workers and mules that had to walk the road. We also managed to find clear traces of a terraced road leading directly down the hillside from the main Pasquereau site right where the road goes round the e dge of the plateau. Following the terracing and hairpin turns a bit down the steep hillside, the traces of the possible road disappeared. The road could have been washed away over time or the terracing discovered could have been for the cultivation of crop s. Given the very steep hillside, the latter seems most likely. 52   5. Historical archaeology and the material culture (Anne-Kristine) A way to come closer to an understanding of the past life of the people of Pasquereau is to combine the historical information found in the records and the material evidence found during archeological fieldwork. This is called historical archaeology. According to Barbara J. Little, historical archaeology seeks knowledge and understanding to gain insight into human conditions. Historical archaeology’s goal is to describe and reconstruct past cultures and life ways. Historical archaeology uses documents and historic methods, but they combine them with the study of material culture. In that way you can challenge the history derived from the documents and provide alternative questions and interpretations. 1 5.1 The dating through ceramics By analysing and dating the artefacts we can say a lot about the lives that were lived at the plantation site. To date the Pasquereau estate we made use of ceramics and glass. According to Stanley South, there is a high correlation between the manufacture dates of ceramic found at 18-century colonial sites and the period of occupation. Because you get information through historical studies in historical archaeology, it is known when a type of ceramic was manufactured, and when it went out of production. The connection between the manufacturing dates and the occupation dates is important because the manufacturing date gives us a start year from when the artefacts found its way to the site. 2 This is one of the guiding principles for dating the occupation of the Pasquereau plantation. 5.2 The classification of artefacts Another way to look into the concentration of artefacts during time is by dividing the different types of ceramic found. The groups are based on the introduction of new forms of ceramic: cream ware in 1762, pearl ware in 1780, and white ware in 1815.3 The groups follow artefacts from before 1721 until 1762, 1762-1780 and 1780 and onwards. To group the artefacts found at each collection area they were divided by their type, and were not emphasized by quantity. For example, plain cream ware, featheredged cream ware etc. The artefacts found at the Pasquereau site are helpful when determining the occupation of the area. The challenges working with artefacts found are that we cannot prove to whom the artefacts belonged, how they got there, or if they were heir looms. The basic assumption for classifying the artefacts, coping with time frames of the ceramic, is to look at the manufacturing year of the artefacts.                                                                                                                 1 Barbara J. Little, Historical Archaeology, Why the Past Matters (Walnut Creek, California: Left Coast Press 2007)., 21,29, 32. 2Stanley South, Method and Theory in Historical Archaeology (New York: 1977).202. 3 Historic ceramic sheet, U.S. National Park Service. St. John. 53   Then assume that the artefact was purchased while it was new and popular. If you were wealthy you would not purchase an item if it were not fashionable. With the industrial revolution and technological advancement, the ceramics became more accessible and affordable, and therefore more easy to replace if broken. Soon after ceramics arrived in the home, breakage started to occur. The ceramic would then be discarded in the deposit midden, where it would end up with all the previous broken ceramics. “All though a few heirlooms would be broken along with a few of the most recent acquisitions, the majority of the fragments would represent those most in use during the occupation of the site.” 4 The artefacts with the most recent date would then mark an end date of the use of the midden deposit.5 Some of the timeframes for some types of artefacts blend into each other. By using this classification, we might be able to see a changing activity of the estate, and of requirement of artefacts; how many types of ceramic the owners had, and when the owners preferred to require less or more different types. 5.3 The surface collection To collect the artefacts at the Pasquereau estate and the Jossie Gut factory site we did a surface collection. The general purpose of the collection was to remove the historical artefacts from the ground for further studies. The aim for the studies was to get information about the occupation, social conditions and material culture on the Pasquereau estate. To collect the artefacts on the two sites, we divided them in Field Specimen (FS) points covering the relevant areas, and structures. Appendix 1.1 and 1.2 shows the two sites, divided into collection points. On the area of the Pasquereau estate we collected artefacts from 26 FS points. They covered the following areas on the site: the slope next to the main house, kitchen and bake oven, and the area between the main house and the servants’ quarters and structure 14. They were also collected in the area between the servants’ quarters and structures, 9,10 and 11. We laid a grid of 20 meters, and then for every 5 meters we put a flag, symbolizing a FS point. We did that in two transects and then collected one meter of the flags for 10 minutes. We also collected around most of the structures on the site where we spent 5 minutes inside and outside the structures collecting artefacts. On the Jossie Gut factory site we collected artefacts in four main areas of the site: downslope of the kitchen and bake oven, downslope of the overseer’s/dwelling house, the animal mill, and downslope of the factory. We collected for 10 minutes on every FS point.                                                                                                                 4South, Method and Theory South, 206. 5 Ibid.   54   5.4 The provenience By looking at the artefacts gathered in the surface collection, with each FS point representing a collection point, this is a way of seeing if there might be a link between the provenience and density of artefacts and the different areas of the estate. By dividing the area into 4 areas, it might be possible to look into the lives of the owners, the enslaved workers, and the domestic life and production on the estate. Area 1 consisted of FS 1, 2, and 25 & 26. These collection areas are connected to the main house, kitchen and bake oven, and a possible servants’ quarter. The quantity and provenience of the artefacts found in area 2 consist of FS 3-12; this is the area where we did a 2msq surface collection. The 2msq surface collection does not reveal a lot about life on the estate itself, but artefacts found there have to be compared and analysed in connection to the structures nearby. The artefacts from area 3, the slave village of the estate consist of artefact collected from FS 14-24. Area 4, a possible production structure, was connected with FS 13. Map 1.0. Collection areas in the surface collection 5.5 The general artefacts In the surface collection at the Pasquereau estate we found a lot of different artefacts. Appendix 1.3 shows the composition of the artefacts that were found. The density of ceramics was very high in the surface collection; glass including the glass fragments was also well represented. The decision to include the glass fragments was made because they most likely are a part of the bigger fragments of glass that are identifiable. There were also fauna, metal, and lithics found. The large amounts of ceramics found can be explained by the fact that ceramics 55   break easily and then get thrown away. Therefore by looking into the ceramics found it is possible to reveal something about the consumption of the owners of Pasquereau. 5.6 The types of ceramics found on the estate The high density and variety of ceramic types found in the collection, represents a long period of occupation. By looking into the different kinds of ceramic, it is possible to see which kinds of artefacts were found in greatest quantities, and also when or which types were popular on the estate. Appendix 1.4 shows the different kinds of ceramics that were found in the surface collection. There were a lot of different kinds of ceramic, but notably almost half of the collected ceramic was cream ware. The second most represented type was pearl ware, and the third most represented type was porcelain. 5.7 Artefacts found down at the Jossie Gut factory According to the tax lists the Pasquereau plantation was producing sugar at the Jossie Gut factory in the period 1799-1813.6 The total number of artefacts found at the Jossie Gut factory was 31. This is very low compared to the high number of artefacts (1026) found at the Pasquereau site. In general the finds from the Jossie Gut factory can be dated later than the artefacts from the Pasquereau site. In contrast to the Pasquereau site, where there were many varieties of artefacts found, there were only glass and ceramic found in the surface collection at the Jossie Gut Factory. The figure on appendix 1.5 shows the distribution of the ceramic and glass, where ceramics covers 67 percentage of the total amount of artefacts.                                                                                                                 6  RRVR 571:83.10-83.16.   56   6. Sites and Artifacts 6.1 The main house, kitchen and servants area The highest density of artefacts was found in the area, downslope the main house and kitchen (392) and bake oven (124)7. These two collection areas were the biggest areas in the surface collection. The artefacts found in this area mainly consist of ceramics, but was also the area where the highest amounts of identifiable glass and metal were found. 6.1.1 The ceramics downslope of the main house and kitchen and bake oven The manufacturing date of the ceramic allow us to look into the types of ceramics represented in the area surrounding the main house, servant´s quarters and the kitchen and bake oven. Appendix 1.7 shows the different types of ceramic found in the area of the main house, kitchen and servants’ quarters. The number of types of ceramic found on the slope next to the main house and kitchen and bake oven, are representing artefacts throughout the time period that we investigated. Notably, there is a high density of different types of artefacts from the period before and after the introduction of cream ware in 1762. This might be explained by the fact that we looked at the types represented and did not look at quantity. Table 1.1 shows that pearl ware was the most represented in the collection, cream ware is the second most represented type in the two areas, and as mentioned before most represented type in general in the surface collection. This suggests that the owners of the plantation were at one point requiring and using a lot of cream ware. Table 1.1 Number of ceramics found downslope of the main house and kitchen and bake oven Type of ceramic Downslope of kitchen and bake oven Downslope of main house Pearl ware 29 141 Cream ware 50 106 Porcelain 4 15 Stoneware 4 12 Slipware 0 3 Delft 1 6 French faience 0 2 Earthenware 1 7 Hand built 0 4 6.1.2 Between the main house and the servants’ quarters In the area between the main house and the possible servants’ quarters and structure 14 behind the possible servants’ quarters, the density of artefacts was low compared to the slope.                                                                                                                 7  Appendix 1.6.   57   The artefacts that were found in the area separating the main house and servants’ quarters were mainly cream ware, but we also found porcelain, delft, and Moravian ware, all of which predated the cream ware. The only late piece we found in this area was a piece of annular ware on cream ware dating 1785- 1815. 8 The fact that we did not find concentrations of specific artefacts, suggests that the area did not have any specific function. Table 1.2. Number of ceramics found between main house and servants’ quarters and structure 14. Type of ceramic Between main house and servants’ quarters Structure 14 Pearl ware 0 2 Cream ware 11 9 Porcelain 2 1 Delft 1 1 Slipware 1 0 Hand built 0 1 Structure 14 contained large amounts of late pieces of ceramic. For example, we found a piece of annular finger-painted variegated dip on cream ware (1790- 1820), a piece of polychrome early style (1795-1830) and fragment of transfer print (1783-1830) shaped and used as a game piece.9 All the pieces have very narrow time frames and are therefore very good at setting a timeframe for the estate. The fact that there were artefacts found representing an earlier period suggest that the structures were used for something throughout the investigated period of the estate, but certainly after 1783. It appears that the enslaved workers on the estate were playing games after 1783. This is suggested because the game piece was found next to the servants’ quarters and between the slave houses. You would expect that the owner of an estate would have enough money to buy real game pieces. Therefore there is a possibility that the piece was owned and made by one of the enslaved workers, suggesting that some groups of the enslaved workers living on the Pasquereau estate had time to practice social activities together. 6.1.3 The glass Figure 1.3 and 1.4 on appendix 1.8 illustrates the amount of identifiable pieces of glass that were found in total at the Pasquereau site. To look into the glass found in the areas we only emphasised the identifiable pieces, because they are datable and might tell us something about the estate. The general manufacture dates for the glass found downslope of the main house and kitchen and bake oven, starts in 1700 and ends in 1870. The glass found in the estate was found where the daily life was lived. Map 1.2 shows where the glass was found on the estate. The highest densities of glass were found downslope from the main house and kitchen. Some pieces of                                                                                                                 8 Appendix 2.2 Cat Nr. 50778,50779,50781,50783. 9 Appendix 2.2 Cat Nr. 50771,50772,50773.   58   glass were also found around the servants’ quarters, and not far from structure 14 two pieces of glass were found. This was in the same area where the game piece was found. In the slave village the density of identifiable pieces compared to the rest of the site is sparse. There were 3 pieces of identifiable glass found, and in the area where we did the 2 meter square surface collection, there were 6 identifiable glass pieces found.10 The areas where glass was found in the slave village also connected to the kitchen and the structures behind the servant´s quarters. Map 1.2. Glass found on the Pasquereau estate To conclude, glass found on the Pasquereau site is mainly correlated with structures that have a relation to the main house and the kitchen and servants’ quarters. This suggests that glass was used in social gatherings and activities and domestic work. It appears because of the specific areas where the glass was found that glass was used either by the owners, overseers at the estate, or some groups of the enslaved workers, either well off or with a relation to the main house, kitchen and servants’ quarters. 6.1.4 The kitchen and the metal As with the glass, large amounts of metal were found around the kitchen and main house. The fact that all the metal found on the site was found in the area surrounding the kitchen suggests a correlation between domestic work and the                                                                                                                 10 Appendix 2.2 Cat Nr. 50766,50767. 59   use of metal. The kind of metal artefacts found supports. For example we found a fragment of an iron pot and pieces of unidentifiable metal, possibly from the pot. 11 Map 1.3. Amount of metal found at the Pasquereau estate The high densities of metal, together with glass and ceramics, that were also found in the slope next to the main house suggests that the kitchen was using this slope as their main midden area. The driveway from the Old Danish Road to the plantation runs through the slope next to the kitchen and bake oven. The trail might be from the 1720s and therefore could easily be the explanation of why the kitchen mainly used the slope next to the main house as the midden area. 6.1.5 A production? On the estate we found two metal hoes. One of them we found in the slope next to the main house, and the other one was found in the area where we did the 2msq collection: in the area between the servants’ quarters and structures 7 and 10.12 The two hoes suggest that the estate was growing provisions or perhaps even sugar cane at some point. The only artefact that could directly indicate a sugar production on the Pasquereau estate was a sugar skimmer that was located at structure 19. The fact that we know that the Gut was built in the late 1790s, and was producing sugar from 1799, helps to define when the sugar skimmer could have been in use. Because the records do not provide a lot of information about the production before 1773, it cannot be excluded that the                                                                                                                 11 Appendix 2.2 Cat Nr. 50564, 50565. 12 Appendix 2.2 Cat Nr. 50524,50649. 60   area around structure 19 might have been the place were an early boiling bench was placed. 13 6.2 The Jossie Gut factory site Despite the low quantities of artefacts found down at the Jossie Gut, these objects tell a lot about the lives that were lived at the Pasquereau estate. A large number of the artefacts were not just different in terms of time period, but also in types and style. 6.2.1 The ceramics Down at the Jossie Gut Factory there was a high density of white ware; 13 pieces were found. White ware was first introduced in 1815 and is still produced today.14 The second most represented type was pearl ware with 4 pieces found. We also found 2 pieces of stoneware and 1 piece of porcelain. The highest density of ceramic was found downslope of the kitchen and bake oven. This area contained 7 different kinds of ceramic and 17 out of the 20 pieces of the total number of ceramic found on site. Downslope of the dwelling house and factory we found one piece of white ware in each place and at the animal mill we found 1 piece of pearl ware.15 The large amounts of white ware there were found downslope of the kitchen and bake oven, suggesting that there is a connection between the kitchen and dwelling house and that there were overseers living in the dwelling house at some point after 1815. This connection was also seen at the Pasquereau estate where the kitchen indicated an activity in the main house. Because we know when the place was built, it appears that the only early piece of ceramic found at the site, a fragment of English brown salt glazed stoneware dating 1671-1675, was brought to the place by someone. Knowing that, we can conclude that some people who lived at the estate actually kept their old artefacts and reused them, while at the same time being fashionable and requiring the new kinds of ceramics. Appendix 1.9 shows the different types of ceramics, found at the factory site. The high amount of late types support the information stated by the records that the factory was established after 1780.What is interesting to observe is that no type of ceramic from the middle period is represented at the Jossie Gut factory. In contrast to the surface collection on the Pasquereau site, where cream ware was the most collected type, the lack of types of ceramics in this period suggest that there simply was nothing happening at the area in this period.                                                                                                                 13 RRVR 571 83.10-83.16. 14  Historic ceramics sheet, National Park Service. St. John.   15    Appendix 2.3,    Historic artifact analysis form 359, FS 1,2,3,4.   61   6.2.2 Development in glass There was a large amount of glass found when compared to the sparse amount of artefacts found at the Jossie Gut factory. The areas where identifiable glass was found were in the areas of the kitchen and bake oven, overseer’s house, and on the animal mill. The artefacts found down at the animal mill supports the fact that there was an activity at the sugar factory after 1790 because we found a bottle base dating to 1874 with a characteristic CW & CO embossed in the bottom. Downslope of the kitchen and bake oven we also found remains of a press moulded tumbler glass, and overseer’s house we found a late bottleneck and a highly decorative base of a candlestick. Table 1.5 Glass found at the Jossie Gut Factory Cat: Downslope of kitchen/Bake oven Dating 50790 Press moulded glass 1820-present Downslope of overseer’s house 50792 Bottle neck 1835-1855 - 50793 Press moulded Candlestick of milk glass 1790-1900 Animal mill 50796 Bottle base 1874-1900 50797 Bottle base 1700-1860 The places where the glass was found is in general similar to the areas at the Pasquereau site. It was found close to the kitchen and overseer’s house, connected to the more wealthy classes and the everyday life. Notably the distribution of the glass in general is very late in date compared to the other glass found on the Pasquereau estate. This can be explained by the fact that the factory was first built in the 1790s and therefore there had not been any previous activity there. Another interesting aspect concerning the glass found down in the Gut is that it is not entirely bottles. We actual found a lot of decorative artefacts, like the candlestick of milk glass and the fragments of the press moulded glass tumbler, suggesting that this was a place where you were living, and that the persons living there, owners or overseers, were not poor, but were able to buy beautiful artefacts for using in and decorating their home. 6.3 Artefacts in the slave village In the slave village of the Pasquereau estate we found 153 artefacts, compared to the kitchen and main house area where we found 532 artefacts. This difference in the density of artefacts not surprisingly suggests and supports the fact mentioned above, that the more wealthy people, the people living in the main house area, had larger amounts of artefacts than the enslaved workers. 62   6.3.1 Ceramics In the slave village we found a lot of varieties of ceramics. The most represented type was cream ware and the second most represented type was pearl ware.16 Notable for the area was that there were seven pieces of porcelain and large amounts of hand built ceramics. Appendix 2.1 shows the types of ceramics found in the slave village. Many varieties of the artefacts are represented in the slave village, and the artefacts found in the area around the main house, kitchen and servants’ quarters of the estate, were also present in the slave village, only in smaller quantities and on a larger distribution; except for the glass which was almost a no presence artefact in the slave village. 6.3.2 Artefacts from enslaved workers We found hand built ceramics and lithics all over the site. It is not possible to date the hand built ceramics and lithics, so it is hard to decide if the artefacts belonged to the slaves or if the Pasquereau estate is built on a top of an earlier archaeological site. However, by taking a closer look at the distribution of the hand built ceramics and the stone tools found on the estate, it draws attention to the fact that the areas where it was found is very close to some of the slave houses or areas where we know slaves were working or living. Map 1.4. Lithic and Hand built found on the Pasquereau estate At the Pasquereau estate there is a correlation between the hand built ceramics and lithics. The two types of artefacts are found in the same areas of                                                                                                                 16  Appendix 2.0.   63   the estate, indicating that there is a connection both between the artefacts and the slave village, but also the kitchen area on the site. The fact that the enslaved workers often made their own tools for everyday purposes suggests together with the archaeological evidence,that the artefacts were owned by the workers on the site and were not from an earlier archaeological site.17 Knowing that there is a correlation between the lithics, hand built ceramics and the enslaved workers, and the fact that we did not find any lithics or hand built ceramics on site, it appears that the Jossie Gut factory site was a production site and not a place where the enslaved workers were living. Taking a closer look at the artefacts from structure 19 where we found the sugar skimmer, it appears to be more a part of the slave village than a production site. The area around the structure did contain both lithic and ceramic artefacts, both from the early and late period. For example, there was found a piece of faience dating to 1740-1790, and a piece of early style polychrome dating to 1795-1830. The assumption that the area once was a place for an early boiling bench, because of the sugar skimmer that was found in the area, cannot be rejected because there is a period where we do not know what happened on the estate. But the fact that we found lithics, and a piece of ceramic shows activity after 1795. The fact that the tax lists state that there was not an active sugar production suggests that the structure was already a part of the slave village by then18 6.3.3 The slave kitchen It appears that structure 23 once was a kitchen for the enslaved workers. This is suggested by the artefacts found in the area and the fact that the structure was placed a bit further from the other houses. On the surface we found traces of charcoal and whelk shell. By placing the house further away from the other houses you would prevent fires. The whelk supports the fact that the structure once was a place for the enslaved workers to prepare and cook food. By comparing the artefacts with the kitchen and bake oven close to the main house, and at Jossie Gut where whelk shells were also found, we are able to establish a link between the presence of whelk and the area of a kitchen on the Pasquereau estate.19 6.4 The pipe fragments - a precise way of dating On the Pasquereau site we found 14 fragments of clay pipes. By measuring the diameter of the bore in the stems with a drill bit, it is possible to date the fragments. The interesting thing about the pipes is that they were personal artefacts used for smoking tobacco, so by looking into the dates and                                                                                                                 17  Karen  Fog  Olwig,  Cultural  Adaption  and  Resistance  on  St.  John.  Three  Centuries  of  Afro-­‐ Carribean  Life.  (Gainsville:  University  og  Florida  Press,  1985).,  49.   18  RRVR 571: 83.5-83.20, Appendix 2.2 Cat Nr: 50678, 50680,50685.   19 Field Specimen provinience form, 358, Historic artifact analysis form 359, FS 1. 64   types of pipes found at the Pasquereau estate, they might suggest when people were living there. Map 1.5. Number of pipe fragments Map 1.5. States that smoking was an activity that both the owners and the enslaved workers at the estate were doing. Notably smoking was the only activity on the Pasquereau estate that was not exclusive to whites or enslaved workers. The pipe stems were spread out in the area next to the main house, but also in the slave village, and next to the servants’ quarters. By looking at the dates of the pipe fragments we can try to see if there is a difference in dates of certain areas of the estate. Table 1.6 Datable pipe fragments found on Pasquereau Cat nr: Downslope of main house Year 50563 1 pipestems 1650 -1680 50562 2 pipestem 1750-1800 FS 3 – 2 msq surface collection 50584 2 pipestems 1720-1750 50585 1 pipebowl 1780-1830 FS 4 - 2 msq surface collection 50597 1 pipestem 1680-1720 50607 1 pipebowl Not datable FS 5 - 2 msq surface collection 50619 1 pipebowl Not datable FS 7- 2 msq surface collection 50642 1 pipestem 1720-1750 FS 12- 2 msq surface collection 50676 1 pipestem 1720-1750 Structure 10 50705 1 pipestem 1720-1750 50706 1 pipebowl Not datable 65   Structure 9 50765 1 pipestem 1750-1800 Worth noticing in the dating of the pipe fragments is that the time frames for the pipes are very narrow. According to South, this is a very good marker for deciding an occupation of a historic site.20 Because a pipe was a personal item, the pipe fragments are a proof of people actually being on the estate. Looking at the dates of the pipe fragments within the period we have been investigating, they suggest a general human activity on the estate after 1720 and before 1830. The fact that the fragments suggest an activity before the estate establishment can be explained by the fact that it could be an old pipe someone brought to the estate when they occupied it, or that someone might have been investigating the area before the establishment of the Pasquereau plantation. Especially interesting is that the most fragments found represent the period 1720-1750. From the records we do not know very much about the estate history in that period, so by looking at the pipe fragments we can conclude that there was definitely some kind of human activity on the estate in that period. 6.4.1 The artefacts and occupation It appears that the owners and overseers who lived at the Pasquereau estate brought the artefacts along with them. Looking at appendix 1.7 where the types of artefacts of the main house are represented, it is notable that the early types of artefacts represented in the area covering the main house and kitchen and bake oven do not agree with the records. The fact that we are unsure if anyone of the owners lived permanently on the Pasquereau estate in the beginning of the estates establishment makes it unlikely that large amounts of the artefacts represented before 1762 were brought to the estate by the Pasquereaus or Lieving Kerving. The fact that Madam Pasquereau is cited as being a permanent inhabitant on St. John, but still residing at St. Thomas until 1725, suggests that she did not live at St. John permanently.21 The demands from the government had to be fulfilled, so even though she did not live there permanently herself, she must have had overseers living on the estate, taking care of the establishment and looking after the enslaved workers while she was gone. This can justify some amount of the artefacts before 1762, but not all.22 After Lieving Kerving buys the plantation from the Pasquereau heirs in 1729, the land list of 1730 states that he lives on St. Thomas, and no white people are living at the Pasquereau site. This is also stated in the land list of 1736-1739 even though there are still enslaved workers living on the estate in this period.23 In the period 1739-55 we do not know what is going on on the estate, but the fact that                                                                                                                 20  South, Method and Theory, 206.   21 Laura Thatt & Jonas Møller Pedersen, "Lameshure Estate Complex 1718-1778(Internship Report 2009.) ," (2007). s 68 VGKB 446:736. 22  VGKB 446: 750-753.   23 VGKB 446: 750-753.   66   the pipe fragments tells us that there was some kind of activity on the estate helps us to establish a picture of the activity and of the estates history. Appendix 1.7 shows that there were not a lot of types represented in the period of 1762-1780. In the period 1755-1773, when cream ware was introduced, we cannot find the estate in the tax lists. A theory could be that it may have been merged into one of the other plantation estates that Lieving Kerving owned. This is suggested because the estate is still owned by the Kerving family in 1773 and the fact that merging of plantations was popular on St.John in this period.24 Despite the fact that we do not know what is going on on the estate in this period, cream ware as a type was overall found in greatest quantities. Because of the situation with the records it is not possible to know if someone lived there, but if there were slaves living there, there must have been overseers living on the estate, and therefore must have brought artefacts to the site. According to the tax lists of 1773, Jørgen Kerving lives at the estate. He lives there until 1788.25 He might be the first owner who lived permanently on the estate, and therefore it is most likely that he brought large amounts of the earlier artefacts, together with large amounts of the cream ware to the site. The variety of types that were represented down the slope next to the main house suggests that there was a high level of activity after 1780. Jørgen Kerving might also be responsible for buying some of the pearl ware because it was introduced while he lived at the Pasquereau plantation. One person who might also be responsible for buying and bringing large quantities of ceramics and especially pearl ware to the site is Johan Severin Weyle This is suggested because he lived in the main house of the Pasquereau estate throughout his period of ownership from 1790-1801.26 6.4.2 Habitation in the slave village There had been enslaved workers living on the estate from the estates establishment in 1721. This is claimed because the plantation had to be established and built. During the ownership of Lieving Kerving the land lists states that there were slaves living there while no white man was.27 According to the tax lists there were enslaved workers living on the estate until 1827. The artefacts and tax lists states that while the estate and the main house were abandoned in 1813, the enslaved workers continued to live next to the main house, where over 50 enslaved workers were living at the plantation estate from 1813 and onwards, until the estate was completely abandoned in 1827. This is supported by the fact that we did not find any artefacts typical of slave dwellings, down at the Jossie Gut factory, suggesting that the enslaved workers still were living up at the main house area. The ceramics found near                                                                                                                 24 Tyson, "A History of Land Use ".,25, RRVR 571:83.1-83.4. 25 RRVR 571: 83.3-83.9. 26 RRVR 571: 83.5-83.15. 27 VGKB 446: 750-753. 67   structure 13 and 14, the potential houses for wealthier group of workers, supports the fact that the enslaved workers were present there after 1813.28 6.4.3 Occupation and abandonment of the estate Through the artefacts we are able to define the general Pasquereau estate occupation dates as approximately 1721-1784. As mentioned above we are unsure if anyone lived permanently on the estate until 1773 where Jørgen Kerving is stated as living there. From thence until 1813 when the main house is abandoned, either the estate owner or an overseer was living at the estate. The Pasquereau plantation is abandoned until 1826 when 2 white overseers are stated as being inhabitants. Then the estate is abandoned again until 1845 where 1 man, 4 women and 1 boy are living there. The fact that we are unsure whom or if some one were living on the estate up until 1773 makes the artefacts very important, because through the artefacts we are able to see if something was going on in the period where we do not have any information about the estate. The fact that we only found pearl wares at the Pasquereau main site, and did not find any white ware, gives reason to think that neither owners nor overseers were living at the plantation at least after 1815. If someone were living there you would think you would have found remains of white ware on the site. According to the tax lists the estate is sold in 1802 to James Hassel, but according to an auction protocol Weyle is throwing an auction at the Pasquereau estate in February 1803. This suggests that Weyle still was living in the main house, and the overseer who lived at the estate in 1803 lived down in the dwelling house in the Gut. If that is true, the main house would have been abandoned 10 years earlier than first assumed. 29 A theory to explain why the overseer moved down to the Gut could be the accessibility of the dwelling house, it was easier to be connected with the other plantation estates and you would be closer to the sea. The high amounts of white ware found at the Jossie Gut factory, suggests activity on the site from 1815, and the bottle base from 1874-1900, with the embossed CW & CO, helps us to establish a more precise end time of the abandonment of the site.                                                                                                                 28    RRVR 571:83.16-83.31, Appendix 2.2 Cat Nr.: 50771,50772,50773.   29    STSJG 712:35.34.3, RRVR 571: 83.15-83.16.   68   7. A difference in wealth (Anne-Kristine) The area next to the main house and the kitchen contains a high density of ceramics. This might suggest that the owners of the estate had a lot a ceramic, and therefore were not poor. This consists with South who claims that during the 17th and 18th centuries there was a correlation between class and the use of ceramics and the amounts of ceramic found in the midden deposits. If you were poor you would not have that large amounts of ceramics and less breakage would also be expected. Compared to the upper classes, who simply used ceramics more, and therefore more breakage was expected. 30 It appears that there was a general difference of wealth in the different areas of the site. The different amount of ceramics that were found in the different areas during surface collection, especially in the areas of the main house, kitchen and the slave village along with the fact that the enslaved workers did not have that much ceramic in the slave village, obviously suggests that they had limited resources compared to the owner of the estate. Appendix 1.7 and 2.1 shows the number of types of ceramics found in the area of the main house, kitchen and servants’ quarter, and the slave village. If we compare the two figures it is notable that the owners had more types of ceramics than the slave village. The different number of types represented in the different areas on the Pasquereau estate suggests that there was a correlation between wealth and the amount of types of ceramic they had. Not surprisingly the people who lived in the main house area were wealthier than the enslaved workers. This also supports South’s claim that the people who were wealthy have more ceramic than the lower classes. 7.1 A slave hierarchy at Pasquereau By looking at map 1.6. It is notable that some slave houses have several more types of ceramic than others. The houses placed further away from the main house area did contain fewer types of types compared to the structures closer to the main house and kitchen area.                                                                                                                 30  South, Method and Theory ,204.   69   Map.1.6. Types of ceramic divided on the Pasquereau estate As suggested before, structure 14 might have been a place for the more wealthy enslaved workers. By looking at the structures close by, structure 9, 2, and 8, they together with 10,11, and 19 contain a high number of types. The difference in the number of types found in the different areas of the slave village suggest a coherence in the placement of the slave house compared to the main house area and kitchen and the amount of types found. The closer you lived to the living/activity areas of the estate, the more types of ceramic you would have. Close to structure 13 and 14 we also found glass. This could suggest that there has been a change of consumption in the culture of the enslaved workers through time. But in relation to the game piece found in the same area, it suggest that the workers who lived there were better off than others at the Pasquereau estate. All this points to the possibility that there was a social hierarchy among the enslaved workers who lived at the estate, and that the workers who had a higher position and were better off might have lived in the area of the servants’ quarters, structure 13 and 14, the kitchen, and the structures close by, relatively close to the main house. 7.2 Ceramics from the owners The general assumption when dealing with artefacts from the slave village is that they got their ceramics from the owners of the estate. This assumption is supported by the wide variety of ceramics found in the slave village. The fact that the types we found in the slave village are similar to the types we found in the main house and kitchen, suggest that the workers got the old ceramics when the people living in the main house wanted to get some new. 70   7.3 Porcelain The distribution of porcelain suggests that the Pasquereau estate in general was wealthy. Noteworthy on the Pasquereau estate, is that the porcelain was found all over the site and also in the slave village and next to the slave quarters. Porcelain was more common in the West Indies because of the Spanish and Dutch, whom you traded with, and St. Croix which was known in the 1780s to be a supplier of porcelain. But still porcelain was an expensive goods, and according to Desmond V. Nicholson, the more porcelain you had the wealthier you were.31 In general the amount of porcelain found on the estate tells something about the general wealth of the place. We found 43 pieces of different kinds of porcelain on the Pasquereau estate. When looking at map 1.7. It is possible to see if the porcelain was reserved for the people who were living in the main house, or if the slaves also owned porcelain. Map 1.7. Number of porcelain found on the Pasquereau estate The highest amount of porcelain was found, as expected, in the slope next to the main house and kitchen. In this area we found 14 pieces of Chinese imari porcelain.32 The presence of the porcelain on the Pasquereau estate suggest that the owners, and to some degree some of the slaves, had some kind of wealth. Especially in the area of structure 14, there was also a high concentration of porcelain. The porcelain was like the glass, only found in the structures close to                                                                                                                 31 Desmond V. Nicholson, "The Dating of West Indian Historic Sites by the Analysis of Ceramic Sherds," Journal of the Virgin Islands Archaeological Society 7, no. 7 (1979)., p 70. 32 Appendix 2.2 Cat Nr: 50512, 50529, 50545, 50558, 50593,50594, 50595, 50615,50628, 50640,50647, 50674,50702,50735,50744,50750,50762,50775,50780 71   the main house area. This might follow up on the theory of the estate being a hierarchy among the workers and that the more wealthy workers lived in the houses closest to the main house area, while the houses further back were for the poorer. 7.4 Artefacts for using in & decorating the home In the surface collection there was also found artefacts that tells something about how the home was decorated. One piece was found downslope the dwelling house down at the Jossie Gut factory. The milk glass candlestick, probably from when the dwelling house was occupied by the people living there in 1826 and 1845, gives us an insight into what they decorated their home with on the estate. The fact that we also found decorated fragments of the press moulded tumbler glass, suggest that the people living there not only followed the fashion and opportunities for materiality in terms of the new technology of the press moulded glass, but also opportunities for consumption brought by industrialisation. The two pieces of press-moulded glass there were found at the Jossie Gut. Another way of getting an idea of the prosperity of the owners of the Pasquereau estate is to look into the household effects. By looking into some of the personal property that either bought or sold on auctions, it is possible to look into the material wealth and the home of the estate owners on St. John, in the late 1700s. 7.5 Stylish clothes and fabrics The 23th of September 1739 Lieving Kierving went to an auction on St. John held by Cornelius Koop. He bought 4 hats for the price of 2 rd and 4 marks, and an amount of cinnamon worth 2 rd 4 marks and 1 shilling; he had to pay the goods either in cash or the price in amounts of cotton the following year of 1740.33 That private people sold clothes on auctions also happened in 1789 when Diderick Kervinck Senior died. He owned to plantation from 1889 to when it was sold to Weyle in 1790. An auction was held to sell his clothes, horses, and                                                                                                                 33  VGKKK 446: 780.   72   furniture. Even though he did not live permanently at the Pasquereau estate, we can use his personal property to look into the things of a typical estate owner.34 The 9 of November 1789 an auction was held and the following items were sold. Item Price in rd and mark 1 writing desk 7 1 small brown horse from Puerto Rico 15 1 small brown north American mare 50 1 white speckled cow 50 1 black horse in Rifbay 50 1 black dress waistcoat and trousers 6,2 1 pair of black silk trousers 1,4 1 white dress coat 3 7 pairs of white trousers 3,4 7 pairs of […] 2,4 I white kirtle 1,4 3 dress shirts 3 3 pairs of linen stockings 0,6 6 caps 2,6 6 stocks 2,2 2 silver shoe and knee buckles 3 The fact that Lieving Kierving buys cinnamon for 2 rd and 4 marks, almost equal to the value of 2 silver shoe and knee buckles, tells something about his wealth, or success in the plantation system. If you did not have the ready money, or a well established up and running production so you could pay the money the year after, you would probably not buy spices for that amount of money. The items up for sale in Diderick Kierving Seniors auction give information about his wealth and social status through the quantity and quality of his clothes. The items up for sale, were probably not all the clothes Diderick Senior owned but only the clothes worth selling on an auction. This suggests that clothes and especially the more stylish fabrics in general were items that were desirable things on St. John. The types of clothes he is selling are characterized of being of the more refined kind. For example the silk trousers and the white dress coat. Even though he owned a fine wardrobe, he was probably not wearing these clothes everyday. The silver shoe and knee buckles, together with the variety of clothes sold in the auction, suggests that Diderick Kierving Senior was an important person who had to be presented well in social situations. 7.6 Furniture silver and articles for everyday use In 1790 Johan Severin Weyle was forced by John S. Jones to throw an auction where he had to sell some of his personal property, probably because he owed                                                                                                                 34    STSJG 712: 35.37.2.   73   him money. The 31st of March 1790, he is throwing the auction on Pasquereau.35 The items that are up for sale on the auction are: Number in the auction Item Estimated price in rd and mark Actual price in rd and mark 1 2 Cedar wood dining tables 12,1 12,4 2 1 ditto writing desk 6,2 6,2 3 […] writing desk 1,4,3 2 4 […] box 6,2 5,1,1 5 [ …legs] of mahogany, 18,6 22 6 1 checkers game board dollars 6,2 6,2 7 1 glass table, 7,5,3 1,4,3 8 2 mirrors 25 13 9 1 telescope 37,4 20 10 1 pair of glass for lights 6,2 8 11 1 small mahogany tea table 3,1 1,4,3 12 1 dozen of silver tablespoons 28,1 28,4 13 2 potage spoons do. 18,6 18,6 14 1 pair of silver spurs, 12,4 12,4 15 1 diamond gold ring 75 [ …] 16 12 silver teaspoons and do. forks 24 13,3 17 1 new riding saddle with accessories 16,6 18,6 18 1 gold ring with a mounted red stone 18,6 18,6 19 1 pair of gold cuff links 3,1 4,1 20 1 box with 1 dozen knifes and 1 do. forks. 6,2 6,2 The auction gives Weyle 219 rd and during the auction he buys his cedar writing desk back at the same price as is was estimated, 6 rd and 2 marks. The fact that he buys some of his own stuff back suggests that this writing desk had a personal value for him. From the list of sold items from the auction it is notable that Weyle had quite lot of items made out of silver: forks, spoons, knives, and cuff links. He even has silver spurs for his horse. The jewellery he sold was all made out of gold and he even sold a diamond ring. He also sold a lot of glass items, the mirrors and a table made out of glass, and according to the list mahogany might have been his favourite kind of wood in which he had a lot of varieties of furniture. All the kinds of items are marked as luxury items that were nice to                                                                                                                 35 STSJG 712:35.34.2. 74   have if you were wealthy but not necessary to have. That might be why he chose to sell these items. Some of the arsticles also give us an idea of which artefacts were useful to have when you lived on a plantation estate on St. John. To own an expensive telescope could be a way of positioning himself as a scientific and knowledgeable man against his enslaved workers and in the plantation society. It could also suggest the needs of being aware of your circumstances when you lived up at the main house. The telescope could be used to keep an eye on your workers, or to have an overview of the estate in case of any emergencies so that you could warn the estate next to you. The checkers game board that Weyle also sells in the auction suggests what people were doing when they were socializing. At the same time it is supporting the fact that the game piece carved out of pearl ware found next to the servants’ quarters belonged to the enslaved workers. If Weyle could afford silver, jewellery, and mirrors, why would he carve out his own game pieces? While Weyle lived at the main house he was a wealthy man surrounded by a lot of extravagant items in his home. This picture of Weyle is consistent with the information according to the records: the fact that he had they money to built a brand new factory, and were increasing the number of workers on the estate while he was living there.36 7.6 The animals of the Pasquereau estate On the 19th of February 1803, 2 years after he sold the Pasquereau estate, Johan Severin Weyle is throwing another auction on The Pasquereau Estate. This time he is selling his cattle, furniture and kitchen utensils.37 The items that are sold in this auction are characterized being items you would sell if you were moving. The fact that he sells the kitchen utensils supports the fact that he still lived at the Pasquereau until 1803, even though he sold the estate in 1801. The item that were sold in the auction were following: Item Price in Rd and Mark 1 dairy cow 125 1 red heifer 2 years old 50 1 white heifer 2 years old 34 ½ 1 red heifer 2 years old 35 1 black and white bull 30 10 small and 4 big goats 78 2 glass for lights 12 A food cupboard of pinewood 13 A small iron baking oven 7,5 Comparing the animals sold in Weyle and Diderich Seniors auctions, we might get an idea of which animals were valuable to have on the estate. Weyle all together sold 5 cattle, 14 goats. Diderick Kervink Senior sold 3 horses and one                                                                                                                 36  RRVR 83.5-83.15.   37 STSJG 712:35.34.3. 75   cow. It is notable that the dairy cow is much more expensive than the rest of the animals that are up for sale. The value of it is listed as 125 rd; this might be because of its ability to produce milk. The two horses represented in the lists are also expensive, but not as expensive as the dairy cow. They are both sold for 50 rd. The value of the horse suggests the essential need for horses in the everyday when you lived on an estate. 7.7 General remarks on the material culture In the surface collection of the Pasquereau estate we found large amounts of artefacts. We mostly found ceramics, but we also found glass, fauna, metal, lithic, and charcoal. Almost half of the collected ceramics was cream ware, but we also found a lot of pearl ware and porcelain at the site. At the newer Jossie Gut factory we only found glass and ceramics, where white ware was the most represented type. The highest concentration of artefacts was found downslope of the main house and the kitchen and bake oven. It was also in this area that we found the highest amount of glass and metal on the collection points. In the area next to the main house and kitchen and bake oven there were artefacts represented throughout the investigated period, but there was especially a lot of types represented from the period before 1762 and after 1780. The types of ceramics most represented here was pearl ware and the second most cream ware. The area between the main house and possible servants’ quarters did contain artefacts throughout the occupation of the estate, but the area did not appear as having any specific function. The artefacts collected in structure 14, suggest high activity in the late 1700s and also appeared as a place were some groups of enslaved workers had the time to engage in social activities. The difference between the Pasquereau site and the Jossie Gut factory site, even though they all are a part of the same estate, was the finding of pearl ware, as the earliest industrial type of ceramic. This suggests that the factory was built after 1780 and is consistent with the advertisement from 1799 where the factory was not completed yet. The two sites where glass was found in large amounts were near or in connection to the main house, servants or kitchen area. This indicates that there in general was a correlation between your social status and the amount of glass you had, but also that glass was used in social gathering/ activities and domestic work. The glass found at the Jossie Gut factory was in general later in date, and the types of glass were also different in style and representative of the advancement of technology. The metal found on the Pasquereau site also suggests a correlation between domestic work and the use of metal. The fact that both metal and glass were found in the highest concentration next to the main house might be because the kitchen used the slope next to the main house as their main midden. The only artefacts found at Pasquereau which could indicate sugar production was a sugar skimmer and possibly the two metal hoes. The hoes were used for cultivation of the provisions grown on the estate but could also 76   possibly have been used for cultivating sugar canes. But The other artefacts found at the area suggest that it was a house for the enslaved workers in the late 1700s. The theory that the area might have been a place for an early boiling bench or some other production related structure cannot be rejected, but there is no direct proof of it. In general the quantity of artefacts were low in the slave village compared to the main house and kitchen area. The same types that were found in the main house and kitchen area were also found in the slave village, just in smaller amounts. The most represented type of ceramic was cream ware and the second most represented type was pearl ware. The hand built ceramics and lithics were only found in the slave village and areas where the enslaved workers had an affiliation. The distribution of hand built ceramics and lithics therefore suggests a correlation between these two types of artefacts and the enslaved workers. Knowing that, it is notable that we did not find these two kinds of artefacts down at the Jossie Gut factory, which points to pointing a possibility that the slaves only lived up at the Pasquereau estate. The slave village had a kitchen. This is supported by the placement of the structure, and the fact that we found charcoal and whelk shell. The kitchens related to the main house and dwelling house have similar features, and therefore we are able to establish a link between the presence of whelk shell and the 3 kitchens at the estate. It appears that the Pasquereau estate was abandoned before the introduction of white wares in 1815. This is suggested because the site does not show any signs of it. The tax lists states that the last overseer was living on the estate in 1813, but there is a possibility that the main house already was abandoned from 1803. The fact that the Jossie Gut factory only contain artefacts from 1880 onwards suggest that the overseers who lived at the estate in 1826 and 1845 did live at the dwelling house at the factory site instead of the Pasquereau main house. The pipe fragments found on the site also suggested a general human activity on the estate after 1720 and before 1830, but they also suggested activity on the estate between 1720 and 1750, so despite the fact that we do not have a lot of information on the Pasquereau estate in the beginning, the pipe fragments is showing that there was some kind of activity on the estate. The pipe fragments also revealed that smoking was the only activity on the estate that did not distinguish between statuses as a white or enslaved worker. The fact that we found such a high amount of different types of artefacts from the period before 1762 does not make sense. Taking it into consideration that we are not sure if any of the owners were living permanently at the estate until 1773. If you did not live permanently on the estate you would not have had the need for all those types of artefacts. Instead the high amount of artefacts from the early period suggests that some of the later owners brought it to the estate. This is supported by the fact that we can see that the persons who lived at the Jossie Gut did bring older artefacts to the site even though they also acquired the new kinds of ceramic. 77   It appears that there had been enslaved workers living on the estate from the beginning, and that in periods they had been living there alone. The artefacts found at the estate are consistent with the information stated by the records, but the artefacts suggest that the enslaved workers did not live down at the Jossie Gut factory, but were continuing to live in the slave village up at the main house while it was abandoned by the owners. The difference in the number of types of artefacts found in the main house and kitchen area, and servants’ quarters, and the slave village, shows not surprisingly that the enslaved workers who lived in the slave village had limited resources compared to the people who lived in the main house. It appears that the enslaved workers got their old ceramics, from the owners; this is the case because the same types of ceramic were found in the slave village, just in smaller amounts. The difference of number of types of artefacts that were found in the two areas, also suggests a correlation between wealth and the amount of different types of ceramic you had. Taking this into consideration there are signs of a slave hierarchy on the Pasquereau estate. This is stated because of the high density of types of artefacts, glass, and porcelain found in the area behind the servants’ quarters, and the structures close by. This area had more material resources than the slave houses further away from the area of the main house. The porcelain found on the estate proposes a general wealth on the Pasquereau estate. The owners had of course the highest amounts of porcelain, but some of the workers did also own porcelain, which supports the theory about the hierarchy among the enslaved workers. The decorative artefacts that we found down at the overseer’s house were the only artefacts we found that tell us how they decorated the home. Together with the tumbler glass, the two pieces of press-moulded glass tells us that the overseers that stayed in the dwelling house followed the fashion and the consumption patterns brought on by industrialisation. Another way of getting an idea of the wealth of the owners of the estate and how they decorated their home is to look into the things they sold and bought at the auctions on St. John. The personal property that the owners sold or bought from the auctions was characteristic of wealth. From the clothes they wore, to the furniture, and jewellery the owned, there were a lot of varieties of furniture, types of clothes, and the articles they owned were luxury but not necessary artefacts. The artefacts that were put up for sale were probably not used every day, but they were still owned by the estate owners, and therefore it gives us an idea of the general wealth of the owners of the Pasquereau estate. 78 Conclusions and perspectives The Pasquereau estate was established in 1721 by a St. Thomas merchant and planter named Pieter Pasquereau. He died shortly there after and his wife, Maria, too k over the operation of the estate herself but with little luck regarding the development of it . The estate was located quite secluded in the northeastern corner of Reef Bay Quarter close to the Center Line but far from the sea and therefore far from the r est of the world .The geography of the estate was by nature far from ideal for any kind of production ,being located high on the steep hillsides of the Reef Bay Valley with no natural water supply. After the death of Maria Pas quereau, the Kierving - family heade d by the patriarch , Lieven Kierving bought the estate and remained in ownership for half a century. They didn’t really manage to develop the estate until it was parceled out and ownership handed over to Jürgen Kierving. He established a production, he lived on the estate in contrast to any former owner as far as we know and he increased the number of inhabitants with more enslaved laborers. But: St. Johnian life was hard and he died at an early age. And so did the two Kiervings following him as owners of Pasquereau. Three dead owners in 15 months and a cotton production in ruins. Fortunately, the visionary bailiff Johan Severin Weyle had the will and means to recover and expand the estate , establishing a whole new production of sugar and having a factor y and a new planter’s house built in just a few years. The plantation p roduction on Pasquereau can roughly be divided into three distinctive periods each characterized by some distinctive trends: In The early period 1721 - 1739 when the estate was still in i ts establishment phase, it is very likely that there were actual attempts on plant ing and cultivating both sugar and cotton as stated in the land lists 1728 - 1730 . A nd there were six or seven enslaved laborers living on the estate to do so . But we do not ha ve any actual archival or archaeological evidence that a production was ever up and running at this stage . The only archival evidence besides the notion about sugar and cotton being planted, is the mention that only “kvast” was planted in the late 1730’s. During the cotton years 1773 - 1799 under the ownerships of Jürgen Kierving and later of Johan Weyle, cotton certainly was produced on 79 Pasquereau. Not only does the land registry state that year after year, but the number of enslaved laborers wa s increased c onsiderably from 1783 to 1787 and again in the 1790 ’s (see: Appendix B). During a three - year period from 1790 -1792, Weyle is said also to plant coffe e on Pasquereau. Finally , during the rise and fall of sugar 1799 - 1826 , a s ubstantial production of sugar wa s established on Pasquereau. Like a redemption after nearly 80 years without the successful establishment of such a production -bearing in mind that sugar was the whole reason why St. John was colonized in the first place - Weyle succeeded in building up a sugar production apparatus from scratch. The number of enslaved laborers was dramatically increased from 14 i n 1794 to 45 in 1801 and a new sugar production complex was established at Jossie Gut, a tremendous investment . The production, measured in the s ize of the workforce, seems to have been going very well from the start in 1799 and right until 1826 when all of a sudden all production cea ses and Pasquereau apparently were abandoned by all 54 inhabitants. However, the stagnation in sugar production alre ady began around 1812 when the area planted with sugar cane gradually was reduced year after year. And then there is the “dark years” 1739 -1755 followed by the gloomy ones up until 1773 where we actually do not know anything about what happed at Pasquereau . The estate most likely was conglomerated with the old Vessup es tate under Lieven Kierving’s ownership and there could very well have been some sort of production on Pasquereau during that time. But no sugar because no real evidence was fou nd of an early sugar production .The signs of a possible boiling bench and animal mill at the main site we re very faint and if they were traces of an early sugar production it is more likely to have been from the an attempt during the earliest period in the 1720’s. Two separate sites of the Pasquereau estate and plantation were discovered: an older main site located on a plateau on the Reef Bay Valley hillside dating back to the establishment in 1721 and a newer sugar factory site located by the stream at the bottom of t he valley established by Johan Severin Weyle in the late 1790’s and finished sometime after 1800. Before the completion of t he factory, the facilities for cotton , coffee and possible early attempts at sugar production and all habitation were loca ted on the main site. In the 1790’s , the transition to sugar production created the need for a comprehensive sugar and rum processing facility and the Josie Gut factory was built. The main enslaved 80 population continued to live at the main site but at least two slave houses were built at Jossie Gut probably for the enslaved workers who were needed to maintain and partly operate the factory and take care of the livestock. The field workers would have had an easy access to the uphill cane fields from the slave village a t the main site and a long, but downhill transportation way for the harvested sugar canes to the factory. The walk back up the hillside though, must have been a downside to the split location of the Pasquereau estate facilities. The demography of Pasquerea u changed dramatically several times du ring the century of inhabitance (see: Appendix B). In the 1720’s and 1730’s a handful of enslaved laborers, some of them children, lived by themselves on the estate with no daily surveillance and supervision by slave -owners or slave drivers. And although one of them might very well have been appointed to function as some sort of bomba for the rest, life must have been relative free -as free as one can be, being enslaved and living on a secluded estate. During the year s under the ownership of Jürgen, he lived together on the estate with up to 18 enslaved laborers. That must have created a very special set of social conventions. Very well, Jürgen lived apart from the rest of the inhabitant s and the enslaved had little sp ace to put their positions through. But the constellation must at least have set some limitations on for example how harsh Jürgen could treat his laborers if he wanted the plantation to operate smoothly. Then under the years of sugar production, the demogr aphy changed again dramatically. With a population of enslaved laborers between 40 and 60 and only a single white overseer or estate owner supervising most years early in the period , and no one living there in the full period 1814 - 1825, some quite differe nt requirements for the regime on Pasquereau must have prevailed . And then all of a sudden in 1826, the sugar production was no longer profitable and the owner at the time, Henry Hassell, moved the whole population and pulled the plug on the Pasquereau esta te. 81 Sources ARCHIVAL SOURCES Rigsarkivet – The State Archives (Copenhagen) (RRVR) Reviderede Regnskaber, Vestindiske Regnskaber 571:83.1 Matrikel for St. Thomas og St. Jan, 1755 -1915: 1755 - 1760 571:83.2 Matrikel for St. Thomas og St. Jan, 1755 - 1 915: 1761 - 1768 571:83.3 - 83.4 Matrikel for St. Thomas og St. Jan, 1755 -1915: 1769 - 1785 571:83.5 - 83.9 Matrikel for St. Thomas og St. Jan, 1755 -1915: 1786 - 1796 571:83.16 Matrikel for St. Thomas og St. Jan, 1755 -1915, 1803 - 1813 (STSJG) St. Thomas og St. Jan g uvernement mm., St. Jan Landfoged 712:34.44a Skiftebrevsprotokol 1789 -1803, 1789 - 1793 712:35.31. 1 - 2 Fogedprotokoller 1748 -1766, 1748 - 1813, 712:35.34.2 Auktionsprotokoller, 1753 -1868: 1787 - 1795 712:35.37.2 Registerings -og vurderingsprotokoller 1763 - 1882: 1775 - 1796 712:35.40.7 Skifteretsprotokoller. 1741 -1823. 1767 - 1791. (VGK) Det vestindisk -guineiske kompagni 446:95 Direktionen, Breve og dokumenter fra Vestindien. 1694 - 1754, 1674 - 1754 446:516 Guvernementet for Skt. Thomas og Skt. Jan, 1724 - 1740, Ordre - , b rev -og plakatbøger for St. Thomas og St. Jan 446:711 Bogholderen for Skt. Thomas og Skt. Jan, Gældslister for St. Thomas og St. Jan 1728 - 1745 446:731 - 732 Bogholderen for Skt. Thomas og Skt. Jan, Landlister for Skt. Thomas 1688 -1754, 1688 -1694 & 1697 - 1718 446:736 - 737 Bogholderen for Skt. Thomas og Skt. Jan, Landslister for St. Thomas 1699 -1754, 1721 - 1726 446:750 Bogholderen for Skt. Thomas og Skt. Jan, Landslister for St. Jan, 1728 -1739, 1728 - 1733 446:751 - 753 Bogholderen for Skt. Thomas og Skt. Jan, Landsl ister for St. Jan, 1728 -1739, 1736 - 1739 446:780 Regnskaber fra St. Thomas og St. Jan, Kassereren og købmanden 1691 – 1755, Auktionsprotokol, ført på St. Jan 1739 82 ARTICLESWeyle, Johan Severin, “For Sale”, in: The Royal Danish American Gasette , vol. XXX , no. 3390, February 15, 1800 (1800). UNPUBLISHED WORKDonahue, Kourtney, “Paquerau Plantation (VIIS 27,000). Unpublished notes and sketches from her on -site investigations, June/July 2011. Donahue, Kourtney, “Jossie Gut (VIIS 25,000)”. Unpublished notes and sketches from her on -site investigations, June 2011. Gjessing, Frederik: “National Park Historic Sites”, in St. John Sites Report 1981 - 82, ed. by Betty Ausherman (unpublished, 1982). Larsen, Leif Calundann, “Den danske kolonisation af St. Jan 1718 - 1733 ”, unpublished MA -thesis, University of Copenhagen 1980. Meide, Chuck, “The Sugar Factory in the Colonial West Indies: An Archaeological and Historic Comparative Analysis”, unpublished report, Collage of William & Mary 2003. Nielsen, Josefine D. & Lise W. V. Nielsen, “Investigations of the Plantations of Rustenburg and Old Works on St. John”, Saxo -NPS Internship Report of 2013. (Copenhagen: 2013).Norton, Holly Kathryn, “Estate by Estate: The Landscape of the 1733 St. Jan Slave Rebellion”. Dissertation, Syr acuse University (2013). Ryberg, Hugo, “A L ist if the Names of Inhabitants, ” The Danish Westindian Islands (The Virgin Islands) 1650 – ca. 1825. (Copenhagen: 1945). MAPSOxholm, Peter L., “Charte over den Danske Øe St: Jan i America”/optaget I Aaret 1780 og udgivet I Aaret 1800 af P.L. Oxholm; stukket af G.N: Angelo i Kjøbenhavn. (http://images.kb.dk/present?id=dk001404).Oxholm, Peter L., “Topografisk Kort af Eylandet St. Ian udi Amerika”, ommaalt og tegnet 1780 af. P.L. Oxholm. ( http:// trailbandit.org/ma ps -online/10). Trail Bandit, The, “The 2010 St. John Hiking Map.” ( http:// trailbandit.org/maps -online/11 - the - 2010 - st - john - hiking - map). 83 A ppendix A : The owners of Pasquereau 1721 - 1917 Period Name Comments Pasquereau era 1721 - 1722 Pieter Pasquereau 1 722 - 1726 Maria Pasquereau Pieter’s wife 1726 - 1728 Pieter Pasquereau’s heirs Adminstrated by Gerhard Moll 1728 - 1729 William Vessup Kierving family 1729 - 17 72 Lieven Kierving 1772 - 1788 Jürgen Kierving 98 Lieven Kierving’s son 1788 - 1789 Diderich Magen s Kierving Diderich Kierving’s son 1789 - 1790 Diderich Kierving Lieven Kierving’s son Weyle era 1790 - 1802 Johan Severin Weyle Hassel family 1802 - 1803 James Hassell 1803 - 1810 Peter & Henry Hassell 1810 - 1813 Peter Hassell’s estate 1813 - 1814 James Hassell 1814 - 1815 Henry Hassell 1815 - 1818 Henry & Peter Hassell 1818 - 1828 Henry Hassell 1828 - 1829 Henry Hassell’s estate Michel/Weinmar family 1829 - 1837 Louis Michel 1837 - 1838 Louis Michel’s heirs 1838 - 1840 John Mathias Weinmar Loui s Michel ’ son - in - law . 1840 - 1843 John William Weinmar & Peter Ewald Weinmar John is the son of John and Johanna, Peter Ewald is his cousin. 1843 - 1847 John William Weinmar 1847 - 1854 Peter Ewald Weinmar’s estate Later years 1854 - 1865 Hans H. Berg 1865 - c. 1910 William Henry Marsh 98 The norther n half was owned or leased by Peter Woods of “Maria Hope” estate. 84 c. 1910 - Count Carstenskjold Appendix B : Inhabitants 1728 - 182 7 Year Owners White overseers Enslaved Total 1728 - - 6 6 1729 - - 7 7 1730 - - (7) (7) 1731 - - (7) (7) 1732 - - 9 9 1733 - - - - 1736 - - 7 7 17 37 - - 4 4 1738 - - 3 3 1739 1773177417751776177717781779178017811782178317841785178617871788178917901791179217931794179517961797179817991800180118021803180418051806 - 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - - 1 1 1 1 1 - - 5 5 - - - 5 5 4 5 4 2 5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 1 1 3 - (3) 6 6 7 8 5 5 6 8 8 - 8 10 14 14 17 2 - 23 19 14 15 14 14 19 26 31 40 42 40 30 38 52 48 - (3) 8 7 8 9 6 6 7 9 8 - 9 11 15 15 18 3 - 28 24 14 15 14 19 24 30 36 44 44 45 31 39 53 51 - 85 1807180818091810181118121813181418151815181618171818181918201821182218231824182518261827 1 1 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 1 - 1 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2 - 49 44 46 60 59 56 53 54 57 55 55 57 58 56 56 55 55 53 50 52 52 - 50 45 47 61 59 57 54 54 57 55 55 57 58 56 56 55 55 53 50 52 54 - 86 Appendix C : Photo documentation, main site C 1. Great house, ducts in west wall (Krautwald 2014). C 2. Great house, ducts in west wall (Krautwald 2014 ). 87 C.3. Servants’ quarter, pole holes (Krautwald 2014). 88 Appendix D : Photo documentation, Jossie Gut D .1. Sugar factory, wooden lintel beam in a ground -level windows frame in the south wall (Krautwald 2014). 89 Appendix 1.0 Johan Severin Weyle Date and artist unknown 90 Appendix 1.1 FS points and structures on the Pasquereau estate 91 Appendix 1.2 FS points and structures down at the Jossie Gut factory 92 Appendix 1.3 Composition of artefacts found in the surface collection of the Pasquereau estate Ceramics   76,6%   Charcoal     0,4%   Fauna   0,4%   Lithics   0,7%   Pipefragments   1,4%   Metal     0,9%   Glass   19,7%   93 Appendix 1.4 Types of ceramics found in the surface collection of the Pasquereau estate Creamware   47,1%   Pearlware   32,6%   Delft   3,1%   Porcelain   5,5%   Stonewares   3,6%   earthenwares   2,5%   slipware   1,7%   French  Fajence   0,4%   Handbuilt   2,3%   RooKing  tile   1,3%   Majolica   0,1%   94 Appendix 1.5 Distribution of artefacts found down at the Jossie Gut factory Ceramics   67%   Glass   33%   95 Appendix 1.6 Number of artefacts found in the FS points 0   50   100   150   200   250   300   350   400   450   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10  11  12  13  14  15  16   17  18   19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26   96 Appendix 1.7 Types of ceramics represented in the main house and kitchen area 0   2   4   6   8   10   12   14   16   Artefacts  before   1762   1762-­‐1780   after  1780   Downslope  of  kitchen  and   bake  oven   Downslope  of    main  house   Between  the  main  house  and   servants  quarters   Structure  14   97 Appendix 1.8 Identifiable pieces of glass Table 1.3 Downslope Main house and Kitchen & bake oven Cat nr. Downslope of Kitchen/and bake oven Year Cat nr Downslope of Main house Year 5052 5 1 bottleneck 1790- 1870 5056 6 3 bottle base 1700- 1860 5052 6 1 gin case 1790- 1870 5056 7 1 bottle neck 1765- 1790 5052 7 5 bottle bases 1700- 1860 5056 8 1 bottle neck 1763- 1783 5052 8 1 bottle neck 1767 5056 9 1 gin case 1790- 1860 5057 0 2 gin case fragments 1790- 1870 5057 1 3 plain tumbler bases 1790- 1870 5057 4 1 bottle neck 1790- 1870 Table 1.4 Slave village and area of 2 msq. surface collection Cat nr. Slave village structures Year Cat nr. Area of 2 msq. Surface collection. Year 5071 2 1 bottle fragment 1790- 1860 5058 6 1 kick up fragment 1700- 1860 5076 6 1 bottle base 1700- 1860 5061 0 1 bottle neck 1819- 1840 5076 7 1 bottle base 1700- 1860 5062 0 1 tooled rim 1822- 1849 5062 1 1 base fragment 1790- 1870 5063 3 1 bottle base 1790- 1860 5066 4 1 bottle base 1730- 1820 98 Appendix 1.9 Types of ceramic represented down at the Jossie Gut factory 0   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   Before  1762   1762-­‐1780   after  1780   99 Appendix 2.0 Amounts of ceramic found in the slave village Creamware   48%   Pearlware   20%   Delft   4%   Porcelain   5%   Stonewares   4%   earthenwares   4%   slipware   3%   Handbuilt   7%   RooKing  tile   4%   majolica   1%   100 Appendix 2.1 Types of ceramic represented in the slave village 0   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   Before  1762   1762-­‐1780   After  1780   101 Appendix 2.2 Artefacts from the Pasquereau estate Accession # Catalog # Finding Aids, Fld Specimen # Key Descript Description Manufact. Date Within Site VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50497 1.0001 Creamware Plain Creamware 1762-1820 Surface Collection, Kitchen/Oven Slope VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50498 1.0002 Creamware Feather Edge Pattern 1765-1820 Surface Collection, Kitchen/Oven Slope VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50499 1.0003 Creamware Banded Annular Ware 1785-1815 Surface Collection, Kitchen/OvenSlope VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50500 1.0004 Creamware Plate, Rim, Line Painted 1762-1820 Surface Collection, Kitchen/Oven Slope VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50501 1.0005 Pearlware Pearlware Fragments 1780-1830 Surface Collection, Kitchen/Oven Slope VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50502 1.0006 Pearlware Green Shell Edged 1800-1840 Surface Collection, Kitchen/Oven Slope VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50503 1.0007 Pearlware Blue Shell Edged 1780-1830 Surface Collection, Kitchen/Oven Slope VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50504 1.0008 Pearlware Blue Transfer Print 1783-1830 Surface Collection, Kitchen/Oven Slope VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50505 1.0009 Pearlware Blue Willow Pattern 1795-1830 Surface Collection, Kitchen/Oven Slope VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50506 1.0010 Pearlware Blue Hand Painted 1780-1830 Surface Collection, Kitchen/Oven Slope VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50507 1.0011 Pearlware Banded Annular Ware 1785-1840 Surface Collection, Kitchen/Oven Slope VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50508 1.0012 Pearlware Polychrome 1795-1830 Surface Collection, Kitchen/Oven Slope VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50509 1.0013 White Salt Glazed Stoneware Barley Pattern 1740-1770 Surface Collection, Kitchen/Oven Slope VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50510 1.0014 White Salt Glazed Stoneware White Salt Glazed Stoneware 1720-1820 Surface Collection, Kitchen/Oven Slope VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50511 1.0015 Delft Blue on white 1630-1790 Surface Collection, Kitchen/Oven Slope VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50512 1.0016 Porcelain Porcelain Fragments 1550- Present Surface Collection, Kitchen/Oven Slope VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50513 4.0025 Slipware North Staffordshire Porringer Fragment 1670-1740 Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50522 1.0017 English Brown Salt- Glazed Stoneware Fulham 1671-1675 Surface Collection, Kitchen/Oven Slope VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50523 1.0018 Jackfield Jackfield Fragment 1740-1780 Surface Collection, Kitchen/Oven Slope VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50524 1.0019 Hoe Fragment Hoe Fragment 1720-1830 Surface Collection, Kitchen/Oven Slope VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50525 1.0020 Bottle neck Flanged Finish 1790-1870 Surface Collection, Kitchen/Oven Slope VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50526 1.0021 Gincase With Pontil Scar 1790-1870 Surface Collection, Kitchen/Oven Slope VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50527 1.0022 HANDBLOWN BOTTLE BASE Handblown bottle base fragments 1700-1860 Surface Collection, Kitchen/Oven Slope 102 VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50528 1.0023 Bottleneck Cracked off up, down tooled string rim 1767 Surface Collection, Kitchen/Oven Slope VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50529 1.0024 Porcelain Imari 1700-1780 Surface Collection, Kitchen/Oven Slope VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50530 2.0001 Creamware Plain Creamware 1762-1820 Surface Collection, Slope off main house VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50531 2.0002 Pearlware Plain Pearlware 1780-1830 Surface Collection, Slope off Main House VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50532 2.0003 Creamware Hand Painted Creamware 1762-1820 Surface Collection, Slope off Main House VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50533 2.0004 Creamware Banded Annular Ware 1785-1815 Surface Collection, Slope off Main House VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50534 2.0005 Pearlware Polychrome Early Style 1795-1830 Surface Collection, Slope off Main House VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50535 2.0006 Pearlware Blue Hand Painted 1780-1830 Surface Collection, Slope off Main House VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50536 2.0007 Pearlware Curved Blue Shell Edge 1802-1832 Surface Collection, Slope off Main House VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50537 2.0008 Pearlware Straight Blue Shell Edge 1809-1831 Surface Collection, Slope off Main House VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50538 2.0009 Pearlware Embossed Blue Shell Edge 1823-1835 Surface Collection, Slope off Main House VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50539 2.0010 Pearlware Blue Shell Edge 1780-1830 Surface Collection, Slope off Main House VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50540 2.0011 Creamware Blue Shell Edge 1774-1800 Surface Collection, Slope off Main House VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50541 2.0012 Pearlware Roccoco Green Shell Edge 1784-1812 Surface Collection, Slope off Main House VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50542 2.0013 Pearlware Green Shell Edge 1800-1840 Surface Collection, Slope off Main House VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50543 2.0014 Pearlware Blue Transfer Print 1783-1830 Surface Collection, Slope off Main House VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50544 2.0015 Pearlware Banded Annular Ware 1785-1840 Surface Collection, Slope off Main House VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50545 2.0016 Porcelain Chinese Imari 1700-1780 Surface Collection, Slope off Main House VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50546 2.0017 Slipware Joggled Slipware 1675-1725 Surface Collection, Slope off Main House VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50547 2.0018 Slipware Combed Yellow Lead Glazed Slipware 1670-1725 Surface Collection, Slope off Main House VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50548 2.0019 Faience French Faience 1690-1830 Surface Collection, Slope off Main House VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50549 2.0020 Stoneware Fulham Brown Saltglazed 1671-1775 Surface Collection, Slope off Main House VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50550 2.0021 Stoneware Brown Tankard 1722-1765 Surface Collection, Slope off Main House VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50551 2.0022 Delft Delft Fragments 1600-1802 Surface Collection, Slope off Main House VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50552 2.0023 Delft Blue on White Delft Fragments 1630-1790 Surface Collection, Slope off Main House VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50553 2.0024 Stoneware Ink and Beer Saltglazed 1820-1900 Surface Collection, Slope off Main House VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50554 2.0025 Earthenware Unglazed Coarse 1500-1900 Surface Collection, Slope off Main House VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50555 2.0026 Earthenware Painted Unglazed Coarse 1500-1900 Surface Collection, Slope off Main House VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50556 2.0027 Earthenware Lead Glazed Coarse 1650-1900 Surface Collection, Slope off Main House 103 VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50557 2.0028 Delft Sponged Delft 1708-1786 Surface Collection, Slope off Main House VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50558 2.0029 Porcelain Porcelain 1550- Present Surface Collection, Slope off Main House VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50559 2.0030 Slipware Two Handled Cup 1670-1740 Surface Collection, Slope off Main House VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50560 2.0031 Hand Built Hand Built Surface Collection, Slope off Main House VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50561 2.0032 Earthenware Coarse Earthenware 1500-1900 Surface Collection, Slope off Main House VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50562 2.0033 Pipe Stem Pipe Stem 1750-1800 Surface Collection, Slope off Main House VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50563 2.0034 Pipe Stem Pipe Stem 1650-1680 Surface Collection, Slope off Main House VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50564 2.0035 Iron Pot Fragment Iron Pot Fragment Surface Collection, Slope off Main House VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50565 2.0036 UID Metal UID Metal Fragments Surface Collection, Slope off Main House VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50566 2.0037 Bottle Base Mouth Blown Bottle Base 1700-1860 Surface Collection, Slope off Main House VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50567 2.0038 Bottle Neck Mouth Blown Bottle Neck 1765-1790 Surface Collection, Slope off Main House VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50568 2.0039 Bottle Neck Mouth Blown Bottle Neck 1763-1783 Surface Collection, Slope off Main House VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50569 2.0040 Gincase With Pontil Scar 1790-1870 Surface Collection, Slope off Main House VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50570 2.0041 Gincase Gincase Fragments 1790-1870 Surface Collection, Slope off Main House VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50571 2.0042 Plain Tumbler Bases Plain Tumbler Bases Early 1800's Surface Collection, Slope off Main House VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50572 2.0044 Flake Stone Flake Surface Collection, Slope off Main House VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50573 2.0045 Bone Bone Fragment Surface Collection, Slope off Main House VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50574 2.0046 Bottle Neck Flanged Bottle Neck 1790-1870 Surface Collection, Slope off Main House VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50575 3.0001 Delft Delftware 1630-1790 Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50576 3.0002 Jackfield Jackfield Fragment 1740-1780 Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50577 3.0003 Pearlware Even Scallop Curved Lined Shell Edged 1802-1832 Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50578 3.0004 Pearlware Blue Transfer Print 1783-1830 Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50579 3.0005 Creamware Checkered Annular Ware 1785-1815 Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50580 3.0006 Moravian Moravian 1750-1825 Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50581 3.0007 Pearlware Annular Pearlware 1790-1830 Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50582 3.0008 Pearlware Pearlware 1780-1830 Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50583 3.0009 Creamlware Creamware 1762-1820 Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50584 3.0010 Pipe Stem Pipe Stem 1720-1750 Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50585 3.0011 Pipe Bowl Pipe Bowl 1780-1830 Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. 104 VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50586 3.0012 Kickup Fragment Kickup Fragment 1700s- 1860 Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50587 3.0013 UID Metal Fragment UID Metal Fragment Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50588 4.0001 Earthenware Lead Glazed Coarse Earthenware 1650-1900 Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50589 4.0002 Hand Built Hand Built Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50590 4.0003 Stoneware Ink and Ginger Beer Stoneware 1820-1900 Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50591 4.0004 Pearlware Underglaze Brown Line Parallel to Rim 1810-1830 Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50592 4.0005 Pearlware Banded Annular 1785-1840 Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50593 4.0006 Porcelain Chinese Export 1660-1800 Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50594 4.0007 Porcelain Chinese Imari 1700-1780 Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50595 4.0008 Porcelain Chinese Imari with Flower Stamp 1700-1780 Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50596 4.0009 Pearlware Transfer Printed 1783-1830 Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50597 4.0010 Pipe Stem 6/64 Diameter 1680-1720 Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50598 4.0011 Pearlware Blue Banded Annular 1810-1830 Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50599 4.0012 Pearlware Plain Pearlware 1780-1830 Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50600 4.0013 Pearlware Banded Annular Pearlware 1785-1840 Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50601 4.0014 Pearlware Checkerd Annular Pearlware 1795-1840 Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50602 4.0015 Stoneware White Salt Glazed Stoneware 1720-1820 Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50603 4.0016 Creamware Plain Creamware 1762-1820 Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50604 4.0017 Slipware Combed and Trailed 1670-1795 Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50605 4.0018 Deflt T.F Fazackerly 1750-1770 Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50606 4.0019 Deflt Plain White 1640-1800 Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50607 4.0020 Pipe Bowl Pipe Bowl Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50608 4.0021 UID Fragment UID Metal Fragment Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50609 4.0022 Chipped Basalt Chipped Basalt Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50610 4.0023 Bottle Neck Downtoled Lip Shape, Downtooled String Rim 1819-1840 Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50611 5.0001 Stoneware White Salt Glazed Stoneware 1762-1820 Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50612 5.0002 Agateware Coarse Agateware 1750-1810 Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50613 5.0003 Delft Fazackerly Delft 1750-1770 Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50614 5.0004 Creamware Creamware 1762-1820 Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. 105 VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50615 5.0005 Porcelain Porcelain 1550- Present Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50616 5.0006 Pearlware Pearlware 1780-1830 Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50617 11.0012 Pearlware Early Polychrome 1795-1830 Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50618 5.0008 Pearlware Blue Shell Edged Pearlware 1780-1830 Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50619 5.0009 Pipe Bowl Fragment Pipe Bowl Fragment Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50620 5.0010 Tooled Rim Black Glass Tooled Rim 1822-1849 Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50621 5.0011 Base Fragment Dip Mold Base Fragment 1790s- 1870s Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50622 5.0013 Roofing Tile Roofing Tile Fragment Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50623 5.0014 Bone Fragment Bone Fragment Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50624 5.0015 Chipped Basalt Chipped Basalt Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50625 6.0001 Pearlware Blue Shell Edged Pearlware 1780-1830 Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50626 6.0002 Pearlware Pearlware 1780-1830 Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50627 6.0003 Creamware Creamware 1762-1820 Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50628 6.0004 Porcelain Porcelain 1550- Present Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50629 6.0005 Pearlware Transfer Printed Pearlware 1783-1830 Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50630 6.0006 Earthenware Black Lead Glazed Coarse Earthenware 1700-1770 Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50631 6.0007 Slipware Trailed Yellow- Red Glazed 1670-1795 Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50632 6.0008 Roof Tile Roof Tile Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50633 6.0009 Base Partial Free- Blown Base 1790s- 1860 Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50634 6.0011 Bone Fragment Animal Tooth Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50635 7.0001 Creamware Plain Creamware 1762-1820 Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50636 7.0002 Pearlware Plain Pearlware 1780-1830 Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50637 7.0003 Pearlware Blue Transfer Print 1783-1830 Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50638 7.0004 Pearlware Banded Annular Ware 1785-1840 Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50639 7.0005 Pearlware Hand Painted 1780-1830 Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50640 7.0006 Peorcelain Porcelain 1550- Present Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50641 7.0007 Slipware North Staffordshire 1670-1740 Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50642 7.0008 Pipe Stem Pipe Stem 1720-1750 Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50643 8.0001 Creamware Plain Creamware 1762-1820 Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50644 8.0002 Pearlware Plain Pearlware 1780-1830 Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50645 8.0003 Pearlware Blue Hand- Painted 1780-1830 Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. 106 VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50646 8.0004 Pearlware Blue Shell Edge, Unscalloped, Unmolded Pearlware 1874-1884 Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50647 8.0005 Porcelain Porcelain 1550- present Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50648 8.0006 Roof Tile Roof Tile Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50649 8.0007 Metal Hoe 1720-1830 Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50650 9.0001 Stoneware Brown Salt- Glazed Stoneware 1820-1900 Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50651 9.0002 Roof Tile Roof Tile Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50652 10.0001 Creamware Creamware 1762-1820 Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50653 10.0002 Earthenware Lead Glazed Coarse Earthenware 1650-1900 Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50654 10.0003 Stoneware English Brown Salt Glazed Stoneware 1671-1675 Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50655 11.0001 Delft Fazaclerly 1750-1770 Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50656 11.0002 Delft Plain White 1640-1800 Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50657 11.0003 Delft Blue on White 1630-1790 Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50658 11.0004 Stoneware English Brown Salt Glazed Stoneware 1671-1675 Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50659 11.0005 Creamware Brown Glazed Creamware 1762-1830 Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50660 11.0006 Pearlware Pearlware 1780-1820 Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50661 11.0007 Creamware Creamware 1762-1830 Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50662 11.0008 Stoneware Brown Tankard Bottom 1722-1765 Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50663 11.0009 Hand Built Hand Built Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50664 11.0010 Circular Dip Mold Circular Dip Mold 1730-1820 Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50665 12.0001 Creamware Plain Creamware 1762-1830 Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50666 12.0002 Creamware Brown Glazed Creamware 1762-1830 Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50667 12.0003 Pearware Pearlware 1780-1830 Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50668 12.0004 12.0004 Pearlware Blue Transfer Print 1780-1830 Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50669 12.0014 12.0004 Pearlware with Exterior Blue Glaze 1780-1830 Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50670 12.0005 12.0004 Pearlware with Exterior Brown Glaze 1780-1830 Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. 107 VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50671 12.0006 12.0004 Pearlware with Brown Line Parallel to Rim 1810-1833 Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50672 12.0007 12.0004 Pearlware Blue Shell Edged, Scalloped Straight Lines 1809-1831 Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50673 12.0008 12.0004 Delft Plain White 1640-1800 Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50674 12.0009 12.0004 Porcelain Porcelain Fragments 1550- Present Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50675 12.0010 12.0004 Handbuilt Handbuilt Fragments Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50676 12.0011 12.0004 Pipe Stem 5/64 Diameter 1720-1750 Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50677 12.0012 12.0004 Lithic Flake Surface Collection, 2m. Sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50678 13.0001 12.0004 Faience Rouen Plain 1740-1790 Possible Boiling Bench, Surface Collection VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50679 13.0002 12.0004 Creamware Creamware 1762-1820 Possible Boiling Bench, Surface Collection VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50680 13.0003 12.0004 Pearlware Early Style Polychrome 1795-1830 Possible Boiling Bench, Surface Collection VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50681 13.0004 12.0004 Pearlware Pearlware 1780-1830 Possible Boiling Bench, Surface Collection VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50682 13.0005 12.0004 Greyware Greyware 1750-1850 Possible Boiling Bench, Surface Collection VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50683 13.0006 12.0004 Pearlware Blue Shell Edge 1780-1830 Possible Boiling Bench, Surface Collection VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50684 13.0007 12.0004 Lithic Flake Possible Boiling Bench, Surface Collection VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50685 13.0008 12.0004 Sugar Skimmer Sugar Skimmer Possible Boiling Bench, Surface Collection 108 VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50686 14.0001 12.0004 Creamware Plain Creamware 1762-1830 Surface Collection, 2m. sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50687 14.0002 12.0004 Pearlware Blue Transfer Print 1780-1830 Surface Collection, 2m. sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50688 14.0003 12.0004 Pearlware Banded Annularware 1785-1840 Surface Collection, 2m. sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50689 14.0004 12.0004 Pearlware Blue Shell Edged, Even Scalloped, Straight Lines 1805-1831 Surface Collection, 2m. sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50690 14.0005 12.0004 Handbuilt Handbuilt Surface Collection, 2m. sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50691 14.0006 12.0004 Stoneware Fulham, English Brown Salt Glazed 1671-1775 Surface Collection, 2m. sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50692 14.0007 12.0004 Roof Tile Roof Tile Surface Collection, 2m. sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50693 14.0008 12.0004 Coarse Earthenware Agateware (Refined) 1740-1774 Surface Collection, 2m. sq. VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50694 15.0001 12.0004 Creamware Plain Creamware 1762-1820 Structure 10, Surface Collection VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50695 15.0002 12.0004 Creamware Feather Edged 1765-1820 Structure 10, Surface Collection VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50696 15.0003 12.0004 Creamware With Brown Glaze 1762-1830 Structure 10, Surface Collection VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50697 15.0004 12.0004 Pearlware Plain Pearlware 1780-1830 Structure 10, Surface Collection VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50698 15.0005 15.0005 Pearlware Blue Transfer Print 1780-1830 Structure 10, Surface Collection VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50699 15.0006 12.0005 Pearlware With Brown Line Parallel to Rim 1810-1833 Structure 10, Surface Collection VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50700 15.0007 12.0005 Pearlware Blue Shell Edged 1780-1830 Structure 10, Surface Collection 109 VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50701 15.0008 12.0005 Delft Plain White 1640-1800 Structure 10, Surface Collection VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50702 15.0009 12.0005 Porcelain Porcelain 1550- Present Structure 10, Surface Collection VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50703 15.0010 12.0005 Agateware Coarse Agateware 1750-1810 Structure 10, Surface Collection VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50704 15.0011 12.0005 Roof Tile Roof Tile Structure 10, Surface Collection VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50705 15.0012 12.0005 Pipe Stem 5/64 Diameter 1720-1750 Structure 10, Surface Collection VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50706 15.0013 12.0005 Pipe Bowl Pipe Bowl Fragment Structure 10, Surface Collection VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50707 15.0014 12.0005 Basalt Celt Basalt Celt Structure 10, Surface Collection VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50708 15.0015 15.0015 Stoneware Botle Neck Bellarmine, Rhenish Brown 1695-1730 Structure 10, Surface Collection VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50709 16.0001 15.0015 Pearlware Willow Pattern 1795-1830 Structure 7, Surface Collection VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50710 16.0002 15.0015 Majolica Majolica 1490-1900 Structure 7, Surface Collection VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50711 16.0003 15.0015 Roof Tile Roof Tile Structure 7, Surface Collection VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50712 16.0004 15.0015 Handblown Bottle Handblown Bottle Fragment 1790-1860 Structure 7, Surface Collection VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50713 17.0001 15.0015 Creamware Plain Creamware 1762-1830 Structure 6, Surface Collection VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50714 17.0002 15.0015 Pearlware Blue Shell Edged 1780-1830 Structure 6, Surface Collection VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50715 17.0003 15.0015 Handbuilt Handbuilt Structure 6, Surface Collection 110 VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50716 17.0004 15.0015 Slipware Yellow Lead Glazed Trailed 1670-1795 Structure 6, Surface Collection VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50717 17.0005 15.0015 Stoneware Fulham English Brown Salt Glazed 1671-1775 Structure 6, Surface Collection VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50718 18.0001 15.0015 Pearlware Plain Pearlware 1780-1830 Structure 4, Surface Collection VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50719 18.0002 15.0015 Creamware Plain Creamware 1762-1820 Structure 4, Surface Collection VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50720 18.0003 Stoneware Ink and Ginger Beer 1820-1900 Structure 4, Surface Collection VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50721 18.0004 Roof Tile Roof Tile Structure 4, Surface Collection VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50722 19.0001 Mocha on Pearlware Mocha on Pearlware 1795-1840 Structure 5, Surface Collection VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50723 19.0002 Slipware Generic Slipware 1675-1770 Structure 5, Surface Collection VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50724 19.0003 Creamware Plain Creamware 1762-1820 Structure 5, Surface Collection VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50725 19.0004 Pearlware Plain Pearlware 1780-1830 Structure 5, Surface Collection VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50726 20.0001 Pearlware Plain Pearlware 1780-1830 Structure 3, Surface Collection VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50727 20.0002 Creamware Plain Creamware 1762-1820 Structure 3, Surface Collection VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50728 20.0003 Handbuilt Handbuilt Structure 3, Surface Collection VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50729 21.0001 Creamware Plain Creamware 1762-1820 Structure 8, Surface Collection VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50730 21.0002 Pearlware Plain Pearlware 1780-1830 Structure 8, Surface Collection VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50731 21.0003 Pearlware Willow Pattern on Transfer Print 1795-1830 Structure 8, Surface Collection VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50732 21.0004 Pearlware With Blue Glaze on one side 1780-1830 Structure 8, Surface Collection VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50733 21.0005 Pearlware Pearlware 1780-1830 Structure 8, Surface Collection VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50734 21.0006 Pearlware Blue Shell Edged, Even Scalop, Curved Lines 1802-1832 Structure 8, Surface Collection VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50735 21.0007 Porcelain Chinese Export 1660-1800 Structure 8, Surface Collection VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50736 21.0008 Porcelain Porcelain 1550- Present Structure 8, Surface Collection VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50737 21.0009 Handbuilt Handbuilt Structure 8, Surface Collection VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50738 22.0001 Creamware Plain Creamware 1762-1820 Structure 2, Surface Collection VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50739 22.0002 Creamware Queens Shape 1762-1820 Structure 2, Surface Collection 111 VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50740 22.0003 Lead Glazed Redware Lead Glazed Redware 1650-1900 Structure 2, Surface Collection VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50741 22.0004 Pearlware Plain Pearlware 1780-1830 Structure 2, Surface Collection VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50742 22.0005 Pearlware Blue Transfer Print 1783-1830 Structure 2, Surface Collection VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50743 22.0006 Pearlware Blue Shell Edged 1780-1830 Structure 2, Surface Collection VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50744 22.0007 Porcelain Porcelain 1550- Present Structure 2, Surface Collection VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50745 23.0001 Slipware Possible North Devon Sgraffito 1650-1710 Structure 1, Surface Collection VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50746 23.0002 Handbuilt Handbuilt Structure 1, Surface Collection VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50747 23.0003 Pearlware Blue Shell Edged 1780-1830 Structure 1, Surface Collection VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50748 23.0004 Pearlware Plain Pearlware 1780-1830 Structure 1, Surface Collection VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50749 23.0005 Delft Blue on White 1630-1790 Structure 1, Surface Collection VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50750 23.0006 Porcelain Porcelain 1550- Present Structure 1, Surface Collection VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50751 23.0007 Creamware Plain Creamware 1762-1820 Structure 1, Surface Collection VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50752 23.0008 Creamware Annular Banded 1785-1815 Structure 1, Surface Collection VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50753 23.0009 Charcoal Sample Charcoal Sample Structure 1, Surface Collection VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50754 24.0001 Creamware Plain Creamware 1762-1820 Structure 9, Surface Collection VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50755 24.0002 White Salt Glazed Stoneware Dot Diaper and Basket 1720-1820 Structure 9, Surface Collection VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50756 24.0003 Pearlware Pearlware 1780-1830 Structure 9, Surface Collection VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50757 24.0004 Pearlware With Blue Glaze On One Side 1780-1830 Structure 9, Surface Collection VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50758 24.0005 Delft Blue on White 1630-1790 Structure 9, Surface Collection VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50759 24.0006 Delft Plain White 1640-1800 Structure 9, Surface Collection VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50760 24.0007 Slipware Yellow Lead Glazed Trailed 1670-1795 Structure 9, Surface Collection VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50761 24.0008 Coarse Earthenware Black Lead Glazed Coarse Earthenware 1700-1770 Structure 9, Surface Collection VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50762 24.0009 Porcelain Porcelain 1550- Present Structure 9, Surface Collection VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50763 24.0010 El Morro Ware El Morro Ware 1550-1825 Structure 9, Surface Collection VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50764 24.0011 Roof Tile Roof Tile Structure 9, Surface Collection VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50765 24.0012 Pipe Stem 4/64 Diameter 1750-1800 Structure 9, Surface Collection VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50766 24.0013 Bottle Base Handblown Bottle Base 1700-1860 Structure 9, Surface Collection VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50767 24.0014 Bottle Base Handblown Bottle Base with Pontil Scar 1700-1860 Structure 9, Surface Collection 112 VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50768 24.0015 Bone Fragment Animal Bone Fragment Structure 9, Surface Collection VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50769 25.0001 Creamware Plain Creamware 1762-1820 Structure 14, Surface Collection VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50770 25.0002 Creamware Creamware 1774-1800 Structure 14, Surface Collection VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50771 25.0003 Creamware Anular Fingerpainted and Varigatd Dipt 1790-1820 Structure 14, Surface Collection VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50772 25.0004 Pearlware Polychrome, early style 1795-1830 Structure 14, Surface Collection VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50773 25.0005 Pearlware Game Piece, Blue Transfer Print 1783-1830 Structure 14, Surface Collection VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50774 25.0006 Delft Blue on White 1630-1790 Structure 14, Surface Collection VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50775 25.0007 Porcelain Porcelain 1550- Present Structure 14, Surface Collection VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50776 25.0008 Handbuilt Handbuilt Structure 14, Surface Collection VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50777 25.0009 Celt Petaloid Celt Structure 14, Surface Collection VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50778 26.0001 Creamware Plain Creamware 1762-1820 Between Great House and Servants Quarters, Surface Collection VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50779 26.0002 Creamware Annularware 1785-1815 Between Great House and Servants Quarters, Surface Collection VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50780 26.0003 Porcelain Porcelain 1550- Present Between Great House and Servants Quarters, Surface Collection VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50781 26.0004 Delft Delft 1600-1802 Between Great House and Servants Quarters, Surface Collection VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50782 26.0005 Roof Tile Roof Tile Between Great House and Servants Quarters, Surface Collection VIIS- 00358 VIIS 50783 26.0006 Moravian Moravian 1750-1825 Between Great House and Servants Quarters, Surface Collection             113 Appendix 2.3 Artefacts from Jossie Gut Factory       Accession # Catalog # Finding Aids, Fld Specimen # Key Descript Description Manufact. Date Within Site VIIS- 00359 VIIS 50514 1.0010 Pearlware Pearlware 1780-1830 Downslope of Kitchen/Bakeoven, Surface Collection VIIS- 00359 VIIS 50784 1.0001 Whiteware Two Color Transfer Print- Green and Blue 1835-1840 Downslope of Kitchen/Bakeoven, Surface Collection VIIS- 00359 VIIS 50785 1.0002 Whiteware Plain Whiteware 1835-1840 Downslope of Kitchen/Bakeoven, Surface Collection VIIS- 00359 VIIS 50786 1.0003 Porcelain Porcelain 1550-Present Downslope of Kitchen/Bakeoven, Surface Collection VIIS- 00359 VIIS 50787 1.0004 Mocha on Whiteware Banded and Dipped Fan 1830-1875 Downslope of Kitchen/Bakeoven, Surface Collection VIIS- 00359 VIIS 50788 1.0005 Stoneware English Brown Salt Glazed 1671-1675 Downslope of Kitchen/Bakeoven, Surface Collection VIIS- 00359 VIIS 50789 1.0006 Stoneware Ink and Ginger Beer 1820-1900 Downslope of Kitchen/Bakeoven, Surface Collection VIIS- 00359 VIIS 50790 1.0007 Press Molded Glass Press Molded Glass 1820-Present Downslope of Kitchen/Bakeoven, Surface Collection VIIS- 00359 VIIS 50791 2.0001 Whiteware Plain Whiteware 1815-Present Downslope of Overseers House, Surface Collection VIIS- 00359 VIIS 50792 2.0002 Bottle Neck Downtooled Lip Shape, Flattened String Rim 1835-1855 Downslope of Overseers House, Surface Collection VIIS- 00359 VIIS 50793 2.0003 Candle Stick Fragment Milk Glass 1790-1900 Downslope of Overseers House, Surface Collection VIIS- 00359 VIIS 50794 2.0004 Handle from Cooking Pot Handle from Cooking Pot Downslope of Overseers House, Surface Collection VIIS- 00359 VIIS 50795 3.0001 Pearlware Plain Pearlware 1780-1830 Animal Mill, Surface Collection VIIS- 00359 VIIS 50796 3.0002 Bottle Base Embossed with CW & CO 1874-1900 Animal Mill, Surface Collection VIIS- 00359 VIIS 50797 3.0003 Bottle Base Free Blown 1700-1860 Animal Mill, Surface Collection VIIS- 00359 VIIS 50798 4.0001 Whiteware Light Blue Transfer Print 1830-1992 Downslope of Factory, Surface Collection   114