USVI Public Records

Document text

REPORT ON ARCHEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS AT THE TRUNK BAY SUGAR FACTORY, VIRGIN ISLANDS NATIONAL PARK By J. Lauran Riser, Agnes Wraae, Marie Veisegaard Olsen and Ken Wild VIIS Accession Number: 335 Virgin Islands National Park 1300 Cruz Bay Creek St. John, VI 00830 2011 ii MANAGEMENT SUMMARY The sugar factory ruin at Trunk Bay has been in desperate need of restoration and stabilization for many decades and was on the brink of collapse. The tall, unstable walls of the factory ruin sit about five meters from the North Shore Road and are directly across from the parking area for Trunk Bay beach. Since Trunk Bay is capable of averaging a thousand visitors a day, the ruin was deemed a safety hazard by the National Park Service. The factory site is listed on the National Register for Historic Places (NRHP) and due to the public safety issues involved, the park eventually secured funding to prevent the collapse of the ruin in 2008. After vegetation had been cleared in June 2009, a team of historic restoration masons from San Juan National Historic Site began to stabilize the ruin from the interior to the exterior. The preservation team filled cracks in the factory walls with historically approved mortar (Natural Historic Lime 3.5), placed wooden scaffolding support in the interior of the structure to help uphold the building, and outrigger beams to stabilize the walls from the outside of the building. Without a doubt this stabilization project has compromised the historic scene but it will help to keep this building from collapsing and it lays the ground work for future preservation efforts as it provides the necessary safe working environment from which any future masonry preservations efforts can be implemented. During the project archeological monitoring was necessary in order to carry out the restoration of the factory because subsurface excavation was required to pour concrete pads for the stabilization beams as well as installing a fence surrounding the factory, keeping visitors from harm and further protecting the factory while it was repaired. In an effort to better interpret the history and operation dates of the sugar plantation at Trunk Bay for the public, other structures associated with the factory were also identified and mapped and an interpretive sign was installed on the property (Appendix 3). iii TABLE OF CONTENTS MANAGEMENT SUMMARY ……………………………………………… ii LIST OF FIGURES ………………………………………………………….. iv LIST OF TABLES …………………………………………………………… v I. INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………………… 1 HISTORIC BACKGROUND ……………………………………….................. 8 II. METHODOLOGY ……………………………………………………… 47 FIELD METHODS ……………………………………………………………. 47 LABORATORY ANALYSIS AND CONSERVATION …………………….. 47 III. INVESTIGATIONS …………………………………………………… 49 IV. CONCLUSIONS ………………………………………………………… 58 REFERENCES CITED ……………………………………………………… 59 APPENDIX 1 ………………………………………………………………….. 64 APPENDIX 2 …………………………………………………………………… 70 APPENDIX 3 …………………………………………………………………… 79 iv LIST OF FIGURES Figure Aerial photograph of St. John and the project area .……………………….. 1 2 Photograph of north façade of factory before vegetation clearing ………... 2 3 Photograph of south façade of factory before vegetation clearing……..….. 3 4 Photograph of north façade of factory with caution/danger signage ……… 4 5 Photograph of factory stabilization, outrigger beams ……………………… 5 6 Photograph of factory stabilization, masonry work ……………………….. 6 7 Photograph of factory stabilization, scaffolding …………………………... 7 8 1749 engraving of a sugar plantation ……………………………………… 8 9 Drawing depicting the process of sugar production ………………………. 9 10 1780 Oxholm map ……………………………………………………….... 12 11 1800 Oxholm map ………………………………………………………… 12 12 Photograph of land plots from the land tax list of 1739 …………………... 14 13 1993 drawing of the factory completed by CVE ………………………….. 48 14 3-D image of factory ………………………………………………………. 49 15 Photograph of a crystal lead glass decanter stopper ………………………. 50 16 Photograph of tin enameled ceramics ……………………………………… 51 17 Photograph of black lead glazed coarse earthenware sherds ………………. 51 18 Photograph of factory well …………………………………………………. 52 19 Photograph of Feature 1 ……………………………………………………. 53 20 Site base map ……………………………………………………………….. 54 21 Photograph of manager’s house …………………………………………….. 55 22 Photograph of manager’s house, west wall …………………………………. 55 23 Photograph depicting post-in-ground construction, manager’s house ……… 56 v LIST OF TABLES Table Archival data recorded by year and plantation dimension ………………... 13 2 1728 St. John Land Tax Record …………………………………………... 16 3 St. John Land Tax Records 1728-1739 …………………………………… 21 4 St. John Land Tax Records from 1755-1774 ……………………………... 24 5 St. John Land Tax Records from 1775-1776 ……………………………… 24 6 St. John Land Tax Records from 1777 – 1794 …………………………… 26 7 St. John Land Tax Records from 1794 – 1834 ……………………………. 28 8 St. John Land Tax Records from 1834 – 1847 ……………………………. 29 9 St. Thomas Land Tax Record 1691………………………………………... 30 10 St. Thomas Land Tax Record 1692 ……………………………………….. 30 11 Elisabeth Moy’s Family 1688 …………………………………………….. 30 12 Elisabeth Moy’s Family 1691 ……………………………………………... 31 13 The Guardian Book: Auction of Adrian in 1764 ………………………….. 32 14 Auction Protocol: 1764 Auction of Adrian ………………………………... 36 15 List of 1733 rebels belonging to Adrian Runnels …………………………. 36 16 1802 Inventory of buildings at Trunk Bay plantation and their value …….. 37 17 Estimated 1802 value of Estate Adrian owned by William McBean ……… 39 18 Notice of an 1827 auction of Adrian ………………………………………. 40 19 Value of Adrian plantation in 1827 ………………………………………... 41 20 1829 Letter regarding enslaved laborers …………………………………... 42 21 1828 Letter concerning the production and abandonment of Trunk Bay …. 44 22 Number of acres of land at Trunk/Adrian cultivated and uncultivated …… 46 1 I. INTRODUCTION Archeological monitoring and investigation was conducted at the Trunk Bay sugar factory site from 10 June 2009 until 20 July 2009. A ground surface survey of the manager’s house was carried out on 11 September 2009. Figure 1 depicts a map of St. John and a close-up of the Trunk Bay factory site. Figure 1. Aerial of St. John and the project area at Trunk Bay highlighted in red. In 2008, funding was appropriated to begin efforts to stabilize the NRHP site (81000088), factory ruin that had over the years become a safety hazard to park visitors. In addition to the sugar factory at Trunk Bay, like many plantations, the site is also comprised of a manager’s house or overseer’s house that sits up slope southwest of the factory and an animal mill that was on a flat hill located upslope east of the factory. It is possible that a large earthen mound hollowed out in a bowl form, located adjacent to the animal mill and factory, served as a water reservoir for the site. Figures 2-4 show the factory between 2006 and 2008 before it was cleared of vegetation and stabilized. 2 Figure 2. North façade, before the factory was cleared of vegetation in 2006. (photograph by Susanna Pershern 2006). 3 Figure 3. South façade of factory (photograph by Susanna Pershern 2006). 4 Figure 4. North façade of factory in 2008 with caution/danger signage (photograph by Paul Odell 2008). Ken S. Wild and J. Lauran Riser supervised the historic restoration masons as they excavated the mandatory pits required to stabilize and preserve the factory. Figure 5 and 6 show the outrigger beams on the exterior of the factory and scaffolding supporting the interior, part of the stabilization efforts of the site. Wild and Riser screened all soils excavated using quarter inch hardware cloth, bagged the artifacts and completed the necessary record keeping for the recovery of archeological resources as mandated by NPS guidelines. All data, including the factory and manager house corners, units, postholes, and material remains were collected, recorded and mapped using a Trimble (Global Positioning System) GPS unit. 5 Figure 5. Outrigger beams support the exterior walls. (photograph by Lauran Riser 2009). 6 Figure 6. Stabilization efforts included masonry work such as fixing cracks in the walls (photograph by Lauran Riser 2009). 7 Figure 7. Interior scaffolding will aid in maintaining stabilization and provide access for future preservation efforts (photograph by Lauran Riser 2009). In July 2009, Lauran Riser completed the analysis of all materials recovered from the factory and in September 2009 completed the analysis of surface artifacts recovered from the manager’s house. A total of 277 artifacts were recovered. The project resulted in the identification of an early to mid eighteenth century occupation to an early nineteenth century occupation. Due to the fact that very little information was known about the Trunk Bay factory in terms of when it was constructed, operation dates, production, who worked there as well as the general plantation layout, a few individuals assisted in researching and writing the historic background section of this report. St. John historian, Chuck Pishko helped with the historic research of Trunk Bay plantation and its connection to Adrian plantation. Thanks to Charles Consolvo, local St Thomas and St. John merchant, historian, and recent graduate in archeology, the park was able to contract, through his business, Danish 8 history researchers that had just been recent international NPS park interns. The Danish students from the History Department of the Saxo Institute of the University of Copenhagen, Marie Veisegaard and Agnes Wraae obtained further information from the Danish archives to write the following section of this report. Additional information was also gathered from Elizabeth Keller’s (2004) dissertation on the laborer villages at Adrian plantation. HISTORIC BACKGROUND Sugar Production on St. John In order to complete the historic and archeological research of Trunk Bay, a good understanding of sugar production on St. John and how the sugar factory operated at this site is necessary. A review of sugar production on St. John was completed by Ken Wild for this report and for the development of the Wayside exhibit for the Trunk Bay factory site (Appendix 3). In the eighteenth century, sugar made many fortunes in factories like this one at Trunk Bay. While this new source of wealth produced a gentry class that surpassed that of most nobles of Europe, the production of sugar required a large labor force. Hundreds of thousands of Africans were captured, enslaved and brought to the Caribbean to cultivate sugarcane and manufacture the profitable products: muscovado sugar, molasses, and rum. On St. John, sugar production commenced at the very beginning of the island’s colonization by the Danish government in 1718. In fact, the Danish government required that each new planter build sugar works on their new property within five years and to have at least one white person living on the property within three months or forfeit the land title (Larsen 1986). Throughout the eighteenth century, the labor force in the Danish islands was truly one obtained by the capturing of Africans and bringing them to the islands by the Danish West Indian Company. The establishment of a sugar producing estate required the construction of an animal mill, a sugar cane boiling processing facility, an open shed for drying the squeezed cane stalks (bagasse), dwellings for the enslaved labors and a house for either the plantation owner and or for the estate’s manager. 9 Figure 8. In this 1749 engraving, the sugar factory is a simple boiling bench, as the first Trunk Bay factory probably was until sugar production increased. The animal mill depicted in the background of this drawing is very similar to the one here at Trunk Bay, which is located on the small flat hill on the east side of the factory. (Library of Congress). 10 Figure 9. Period drawing showing the process of boiling, skimming and cooling of the sugar in the factory. (Courtesy of the St. Croix Landmarks Society). The production of sugar began with the labor intensive field work of sowing the sugarcane. Once the crop had matured, it was transported on the backs of enslaved Africans and donkeys, the sugarcane was brought from the fields to the animal mill. The cane was then fed through iron rollers that were rotated by donkeys, oxen or horses. The cane juice flowed to the first of a row of iron vats known as coppers in the factory’s hot boiling room. Bagasse, the crushed and dried cane stalks, fueled the factory furnaces as the enslaved ladled the boiling juice, skimming constantly with a flat perforated copper plate attached to a long pole. This process was repeated down the row of coppers until all of the juice reached the smallest copper known as the Teache. The master boiler determined the crucial moment when the syrup would best crystallize into good sugar and at that point had a crew ladle the boiling mass to shallow cooling pans. Once the syrup cooled, the workers put the sugar mass into large wooden barrels with holes in the bottom. The molasses drained leaving the fine muscovado sugar that was shipped to Europe for refinement to white sugar. Very little went to waste. The scum, or skimmings, was used to make the rum, or kill devil which, along with the molasses, was sold and traded. 11 By 1726, all plantation lots on St. John had been claimed. Across the landscape of St. John many of the early attempts at sugar cultivation have been found in the form of abandoned sites that contain only a simple boiling bench (see Figure 8). Such a crude facility was possibly the first constructed at Trunk Bay after it was titled in 1725. Many of these small early estates were combined, as was the case for Trunk Bay; this is discussed below in the archival research. By the third quarter of the eighteenth century, sugar prices were once again on the rise. Between 1780 and 1830 St. John experienced its most profitable period of sugarcane production. During this period plantations grew as smaller farms were bought and combined into large estates. New windmills and more elaborate and productive factories were built. During this period the numbers of enslaved labor grew rapidly. A plantation in the first half of the eighteenth century rarely had over a dozen enslaved laborers, but by 1800 many plantations had hundreds of captured Africans working the fields and factories. By this time a plantation’s enslaved work force also included enslaved Creole Africans; those that had been born in the islands. After emancipation in 1848 and cheap beet sugar production began, the sugar industry in the Danish islands was almost completely abandoned. In the 1880s to the early 1900s, an attempt to revive the sugar industry was undertaken. It is during this final period of sugar production that large plantations on St. John such as Annaberg, Lameshure, Cinnamon Bay, Rustenburg, Caneel Bay, Susanaberg, Adrian and Reef Bay are updated. This includes the addition of a stone pillar bagasse shed; in some cases a steam engine was purchased to crush the cane. The houses at some of the former slave villages, now labor villages, began to have complete stone masonry walls from ground to roof as opposed to post in ground construction or wattle and daub walls. Trunk Bay – Archival research 1718 – 1847 This section of the report is based on archival research conducted in August and September 2009 at the Danish National Archive in Copenhagen. The focus of this research is Trunk Bay during the time period of 1718-1847. In 1718, Adrian Runnel founded a plantation later known as Adrian that Trunk Bay becomes a part of. The end date of this research time frame was chosen because in that year Adrian plantation was put up for auction. In the archives, different sources concerning Adrian and/or Trunk Bay are mentioned. For the most part, the findings consist of general information concerning the plantation plot, the owners of the plantation and their families, the enslaved workers living on the plantation and the buildings and inventory. This research translates the relevant sources without interpretation. All of the information in this research effort has a source reference, so it is possible to see where it is located in the archive. It should be noted that the way names and places are spelled is done so as each source spells them. Therefore, an individual’s name may have different spellings because the research referred to multiple sources, for example: (Prins/Printz). 12 The Sugar Factory at Trunk Bay One of the primary goals the Virgin Islands National Park’s, Cultural Resource Manger/Archeologist Ken Wild requested was that the research focus on the Trunk Bay sugar factory, especially when the factory was built and in use so that it could be properly interpreted to the public. It was soon discovered that the question was difficult if not impossible to answer from the archives alone. An attempt was undertaken to find the probates and auction protocols where information concerning the factory could be mentioned, however the majority of those sources were unavailable because of their present state of deterioration. Another problem encountered was that when the plantation plot of Trunk Bay was founded in 1725 it was joined with estate Adrian and remained so throughout the time period researched. This meant that all written information concerning Trunk Bay was also combined with Estate Adrian and it is impossible to separate the two. Therefore, it was necessary that this report contain information to include Estate Adrian, along with Trunk Bay. The following is a summary of what was discovered regarding the sugar factory at Trunk Bay: The plantation plot at Trunk Bay was founded in 1725 and according to the land tax records it was cultivated for sugar throughout the eighteenth century. It appears that the owners of Adrian/Trunk Bay lived at Adrian while Trunk Bay was used as a production facility. The first time the sugar factory is described in the archival sources is in 1802. In 1802, the sugar factory consisted of an animal mill and a sugar work with a distillery still in use. Figure 4, depicts the Trunk Bay factory on the 1780 Oxholm map and Figure 5 depicts a close-up of the factory on the 1800 Oxholm map. The 1780 Oxholm map is the earliest documented source of the sugar works at Trunk Bay. However, it is highly possible that a factory such as a simple boiling bench (Figure 8) was built at Trunk Bay soon after the plantation was founded. This probability is due to the fact that sugar production had begun on the estate when it was taken up in 1725 and the archives mention that when the work became older and worn down it was rebuilt or a new production facility was built in place of the old, but it is impossible to say anything conclusive as to when this occurred. So, the archival data indicates the sugar factory was built sometime between 1725 and 1780. The archeological evidence to be discussed in detail later, indicates the factory was indeed in use by the at least the 1760s. 13 Figure 10. 1780 Oxholm map. Figure 11. 1800 Oxholm map. Even though it is impossible to pin-point the exact year the factory was built, the sources inform us when Trunk Bay stopped being used as a production facility. In 1828, it was decided to stop the cultivation of the soil at Trunk Bay because it was too demanding due to the long distance from the main plantation, Adrian. In an auction protocol dating to 1847, the buildings at Trunk Bay are described as being “some old ruins.” List of Owners- Trunk Bay The plantation plot, Trunk Bay was founded by Adrian Runnel in 1725 measuring 1500 x 1000 in Danish feet and was cultivated together with his neighboring plantation Adrian, which was taken up in 1718 and measured 4000 x 1500 in Danish feet. Throughout the eighteenth century, Trunk Bay had been listed together with this other plantation and it appears as an appendix to this plantation. Later in the eighteenth century, Trunk Bay and Adrian become a part of a larger plantation estate that combines several other plantation plots. The combined estate plots become known as The Adrian plantation. The Adrian Plantation 14 Table 1. Archival data recorded by year and plantation dimension. Note: To see the size of the plantation after 1802 please see the figure under the section “Production”. “Adrian” “Trunk Bay” 1728- 1739 Adrian Runnels’ widow 4000 x 1500 Adrian Runnel’s widow 1500 x 1000 1755- 1763 Adrian Runnels’ widow ? x 2500 1764- 1765 Thomas de Wint ? x 2500 1766- 1768 Thomas de Wint ? x 2500 Thomas de Wint ? x 800 1769 Jacob Hendrich Schmalz ? x 2500 Jacob Hendrich Schmalz ? x 800 Jacob Hendrich Schmalz ? x 1280 Jacob Hendrich Schmalz ? x 1200 1770- 1772 Jacob Hendrich Schmalz ? x 2500 Jacob Hendrich Schmalz ? x 800 Jacob Hendrich Schmalz ? x 1280 Jacob Hendrich Schmalz ? x 1200 Jacob Hendrich Schmalz 3000 x 750 1773- 1775 Jacob Hendrich Schmalz 3000 x 5330 (OBS: The plantation ? x 1200 is not included anymore) 1776- 1778 William Bork 3000 x 5330 1779- 1795 Friderich Uytendaele Baron de Bretton 3000 x 5330 1796- 1797 Johannes Kierkerup 3000 x 5330 1798- 1802 William McBean 3000 x 5330/5336 1803- 1826 William McBean 1827- 1847 The Danish King 15 Location of Trunk Bay The description of the Trunk Bay location is the same in all the land tax records for the time period researched. In the 1728 land tax record, it is enumerated number12. See attached photograph of the location of Trunk Bay and Adrian plantation plots in relationship to adjoining estates (Figure 12). Figure 12. Approximate land plots as determined from the land tax list of 1739. The land tax list used to make the map dates to 1739 (VGK 446:751-753). In the photograph, the plantations of the widow of Adrian Runnels are named Trunk Bay (no. 10) and Adrian (no. 11). The other plantations are enumerated and listed with the name of the owner in 1739. It should be stated that the borders determined for this study are not one hundred percent accurate. However, the plotted map (Figure 12) does provide an overall picture of where the plantations were situated on the landscape for this study. It appears that the estate names of the plantations as Oxholm listed them on his map go all the way back to the first owners. For example, Adrian was named after Adrian Runnels, Jochumsdahl was named after Jochum Delicat, Beverhoudtsberg named after Johannes Bewerhoudt and so on. The list of the other owners as depicted in Figure 12 is as follows: No. 1: Daniel Jansen’s widow 3000 x 2000 No. 2: Daniel Jansen’s widow 3000 x 1500 16 No. 3: Jasper Jansen’s widow 3000 x 1500/1000 No. 4: Jochum Delicat’s heirs 2000 x 1500 No. 5: Jacob Delicat’s widow 2000 x 1500 No. 6: Jan Vlak’s heirs 3000 x 2000 No. 7: Jochum Melkior Magens 3000 x 2000 No. 8(1): Andreas Wellemsen 3000 x 2000 No. 8(2): Jan Toonis’ widow 4000 x 1500 No. 9: Cornelius Delicat’s widow’s heirs 3000 x 2000 No. 12: Johannes v. Bewerhoudt 3000 x 2000 No. 13(1): Isacq Runnels 3000 x 1000 No. 13(2) Pieter Deurloo 4000 x 1500 No. 14: Isacq Runnels’ widow 2850 x 1500 No. 15: Abraham Runnels’ heirs 2630 x 1730 No. 16: Pieter Durloe 3000 x 2000 Note: The sources used to the make this outline are the land tax records. 1728 Owner Land letter Cultivation Size Family Enslaved Workers In Total No. 11 Adrian Rönnel’s widow. Lives on St. Thomas Februa ry 2, 1718 A good sugar work Stretching in length N and S and east to Cornelius Delicats and west to Abrah. and Isacq Rönnels. Width ENE and WSW Length 4000 feet Width 1500 feet An overseer Capable men 16 Women 5 Manquer on 3 21 No. 12 Adrian Rönnel’s widow March 5, 1725 - Situated next to the before mentioned plantation no. 11 and stretches from the same North barricade to Length 1500 feet Width 1000 feet - Is listed under No. 11 - 17 the seashore with width a 1000 feet, and length ENE and WSW from Peter de Büÿks west barricade to Lorents Qustro now AB. Rönnels plantation east barricade 1500 feet. Table 2. St. John Land Tax Record, 1728 (VK 446:750). Outline of Inhabitants on the Plantations including the planter and his family, overseer, servants, and enslaved workers. The early period 1728 – 1739 (VGK 446:750 and VGK 446:751-753) Adrian Runnels’ two plantations are operated by the same group of enslaved workers and information concerning owner and overseer are always listed under “Adrian” (4000 x 1500). Also, each year “Adrian” is listed it is written that it is a good sugar work, but under “Trunk Bay” (1500 x 1000) nothing is written. The Land Tax Record of 1734 and 1735 do not exist. Year Size Producing Planter family living on the plantation Overseer Enslaved workers Enslaved in total 1728 No. 11: 4000 x 1500 No. 12: 1500 x 1000 A good sugar work Lives on St. Thomas Keeps an overseer Capable men 16 Women 5 Manqueron 3 21 18 1729 No. 11: 4000 x 1500 No. 12: 1500 x 1000 A good sugar work Lives on St. Thomas with her family Keeps an overseer Capable 21 Manqueron 3 Children 2 26 1730 No. 11: 4000 x 1500 No. 12: 1500 x 1000 A good sugar work Lives on St. Thomas with her family Keeps an overseer (according to last years land tax Record) Capable 21 Manqueron 3 Children 2 (no statement made and is listed as last year) 26 1731 No. 11: 4000 x 1500 No. 12: 1500 x 1000 A good sugar work - Keeps an overseer (according to last year land tax record) Capable 26 1 boy 12 years old Manqueron 3 Children 5 under age 36 1732 No. 11: 4000 x 1500 No. 12: 1500 x 1000 A good sugar work - Keeps an overseer (according to last year land tax record) Capable men 23 Negro women 5 boys 2 – 12 à 13 years old Manqueron 2 35 19 Small boys 3 1733 No. 11: 4000 x 1500 No. 12: 1500 x 1000 A good sugar work - Keeps an overseer Capable Negro men 21 Negro women 5 boys 2 à 13 years old 4 slaves from Laarbourg Galley May 7, 1733 4 should be Manqueron, but according to [?] on previous page account 2 of the slaves shall pay head tax - 1736 No. 11: 4000 x 1500 No. 12: 1500 x 1000 A good sugar work On this plantation lives the widow Pieter Papyn To own Capable Negro men 21 35 20 with a “lad” (overseer) Pieter Papyn without wife and children have lived there over a few years himself ½ man and 1 Negro woman Negro women 5 Manqueron 3 and 1 woman and 5 boys 1737 No. 10: 4000 x 1500 No. 11: 1500 x 1000 A good sugar work - Pieter Papyn To own himself ½ man and 1 Negro woman Capable men 17 Negro women 5 Capable maron 1 Half boys 2 Old men 3 Manqueron men 2 Manqueron women 1 children, boys 2 33 1738 No. 10a: 4000 x 1500 No. 10b: 1500 x 1000 A good sugar work - Overseer Isaaq Beauffion with wife and sister Capable men 13 Women 5 Half Negro women 2 34 21 Maria Beauffion Manqueron men 8 Manqueron women 2 Boys 4 1739 No. 10: 4000 x 1500 No. 11: 1500 x 1000 A good sugar work No overseer, but her son and stays there often No overseer Capable men 13 Women 5 Half man 1 Manqueron men 9 Manqueron women 2 boys 3: age 1-6 year + 3 capable who have died - Table 3. Land Tax Records 1728-1739. Owner of the two plantations: The widow of Adrian Runnels. Even though the owners of Adrian and Trunk Bay in the St. John land tax records were stated to be living on St. Thomas, it should be noted that it appears from the land tax records of St. Thomas that the family stayed on both St. Thomas and St. John. For example, it is mentioned in the St. Thomas land tax record of 1730 that the widow Runnels: “She lives west on St. John with her children, and sometimes here in town” (VGK 446:739). The St. Thomas land tax record of 1727 also states that the widow Runnels that year had the following enslaved workers on St. John: “16 Negro men, 5 Negro women, 2 Manqueron Negro men and 2 Negro girls who are underage” (VGK 446:739). From 1755 – 1776 (RRVR 571:83.1 and RRVR 571.83.2 and RRVR 571.83.3) From 1756-1758 and again from 1759-1763, the number of enslaved workers listed as living on the widow of Adrian Runnel’s plantation are the same. It is very unlikely that the number of enslaved workers would stay the same three to four years later. If the number of enslaved workers recorded is the same for several years, it is generally because the owner has not handed in the statement of information to the officials. 22 From 1766 it is impossible to follow the exact number of inhabitants on the two original Runnel-plantations because the plantations are once again combined and joined together with a smaller plantation measuring ? x 800 Danish feet in width. In 1769, the three plantations were bought by Jacob Hendrich Schmalz and combined with a fourth and fifth plantation measuring ? x 1200 and ? x 1280 Danish feet in width. In 1770, the sixth plantation measuring 3000 x 750 Danish feet was added to the estate with the other original plantation plots. Year Size (length x width) Produci ng Planter’s family living on the plantation Overseer and servants on the plantation Enslaved workers M W B G M W Childre n Capable Maron/ Newly arrived Half grown Children under 12 years Owner of the plantation: The widow of Adrian Runnel 1755 ? x 2500 Sugar - - - - 1 1 2 30 20 5 10 1756 ? x 2500 Sugar - - - - 1 1 2 28 9 2 12 1757 ? x 2500 Sugar - - - - 1 1 2 28 9 2 12 1758 ? x 2500 Sugar - - - - - - - 28 9 2 12 1759 ? x 2500 Sugar - - - - - - - 31 12 7 10 1760 ? x 2500 Sugar - - - - - - - 31 12 7 10 1761 ? x 2500 Sugar - - - - - - - 31 12 7 10 1762 ? x 2500 Sugar - - - - - - - 31 12 7 10 1763 ? x 2500 Sugar - - - - - - - 31 12 7 10 Owner of the plantation: Thomas de Wint Size ? z 2500 1764 ? x 2500 Sugar - - - - - - - 31 19 1 11 1765 ? x 2500 Sugar 1 - - - - - - 33 18 5 10 Owner of the plantation: Thomas de Wint Size: ? x 2500 and ? x 800 1766 ? x 2500 Sugar ? x 800 Cotton 23 1 - - - - - - 35 15 11 9 1768 ? x 2500 Sugar 1 - - - - - - 36 15 11 7 ? x 800 Cotton Owner of the plantations: Jacob Hendrich Schmalz Size: ? x 2500 and ? x 800 and ? x 1200 and ? x 1280 1769 ? x 2500 Sugar 1 - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - 44 7 18 6 - - 9 5 ? x 800 Cotton ? x 1200 ? x 1280 Cotton Cotton Owner of the plantations: Jacob Hendrich Schmalz Size: ? x 2500 and ? x 800 and ? x 1200 and ? x 1280 and ? x 750 1770 ? x 2500 Sugar 1 1 4 - - - 51 24 4 10 ? x 1200 Cotton ? x 1280 Cotton ? x 800 Cotton 3000 x 750 Cotton 1771 ? x 2500 Sugar 1 1 4 - - - 53 23 6 8 ? x 1200 Cotton ? x 1280 Cotton ? x 800 Cotton 3000 x 750 Cotton 1772 ? x 2500 Sugar ? x 1200 Cotton ? x 1280 Cotton 24 ? x 800 Cotton - - - 1 - - 41 10 2 10 3000 x 750 Cotton Owner of the plantations: Jacob Hendrich Schmalz The five plantation are joint together and not listed separated 1773 3000 x 5330 Sugar/ Cotton 1 1 - - - - 40 9 2[1] 11 1774 3000 x 5330 Sugar/ Cotton 1 1 - - - - 60 15 1 13 Table 4. St. John Land Tax Records from 1755-1774 (RRVR 571:83.1 and RRVR 571.83.2 and RRVR 571.83.3). Note: Land tax records from 1767 do not exist. [1] This year it is mentioned that children between the ages of 12 and 16 years are considered half grown. YearSize ProducingPlanter’s family living on the plantation Overseer and servants living on the plantation Enslaved workers M W B G MW Children CapableManqueronHalf grown Children under 12 years Buzal Owner of the plantation: Jacob Hendrich Schmalz 1775 3000 x 5330 Sugar/ Cotton 1 1 - - - - - 59 14 1 3 - 25 ? x 1200 Cotton Owner of the plantation: William Bork 1776 3000 x 5330 Sugar 1 - - - - - - 59 14 1 3 - Table 5. Land Tax Records from 1775-1776. Year Size ProducingPlanter’s family living on the plantation Overseer and servants living on the plantation Enslaved workers M W B G M W B G CapableHalf grown Børn Buzal Owner of the plantation: William Bork 1777 3000 x 5330 Sugar 1 - - - - - - - 51 23 - - 1778 3000 x 5330 Sugar 1 - - - - - - - 43 19 - - Owner of the plantation: Friderich Uytendaele Baron de Bretton 1779 3000 x 5330 Sugar 1 1 - 1 1 - - - 62 11 - - 1780 3000 x 5330 Sugar 1 1 - 1 1 - - - 62 11 1 - 1781 3000 x 5330 Sugar 1 1 - 1 1 - - - 50 8 1 - 26 1782 3000 x 5330 Sugar 1 1 1 1 - - - - 88 24 3 - 1783 3000 x 5330 Sugar 1 1 2 - 1 1 - - 85 25 5 - 1784 3000 x 5330 Sugar 1 1 2 - 1 - - - 80 23 - - 1785 3000 x 5330 Sugar 1 1 2 1 1 - - - 76 21 - - 1786 3000 x 5330 Sugar 1 1 2 3 1 - - - 72 21 1 - 1787 3000 x 5330 Sugar 1 1 2 2 1 - - - 68 21 5 - 1788 3000 x 5330 Sugar 1 1 3 2 2 - - - 66 25 5 - 1789 3000 x 5330 Sugar 1 1 3 2 2 - - - 60 27 6 - 1790 3000 x 5330 Sugar 1 1 4 2 2 - - - 54 20 - - 1791 3000 x 5330 Sugar 1 1 2 2 1 - - - 53 10 1 - 1792 3000 x 5330 Sugar 1 1 2 1 1 - - - 50 20 1[1] - [1] Children born after 1792. Year Planter’s family living on the plantation Over and servants Enslaved workers Capable Half grown Children under 12 year Dead this year Born this year Buzal M W B G M W B G M W B G B G 27 Owner of the plantation: Friderich Uytendaele Baron de Bretton Size: 3000 x 5330 1793 1 1 3 3 1 - - - 26 28 - - 4 3 - 1 - 1794 1 1 5 4 - - - - 25 26 4 - - 7 2 2 19 Table 6. St. John Land Tax Records from 1777 – 1794 (RRVR 751:83.3 and RRVR 751:83.4-83-9) Year Planter’s family living on the plantation Over and servants Enslaved workers Men Women House and craft Born this year Dead this year Buzal M W B G M W B G C[1] H[2] Ch C [3] H Ch M W Ch Owner of the plantation: Friderich Uytendaele Baron de Bretton Size: 3000 x 5330 1795 1 1 5 4 - - - - 36 18 1 48 12 2 - - - 7 2 - Owner of the plantation: Johannes Kierkerup Size: 3000 x 5330 1796 1 - - - 1 - - - 13 9 1 27 7 - 6 3 - 2 - - 1797 1 - - - 1 - - - 39 5 12 38 4 5 - - - - 6 - Owner of the plantation: William McBean Size: 3000 x 5336 - 1 1 - 4 - - - - 39 14 - 36 12 - - - - - - - 1799 1 1 - - 1 - - - 43 12 9 43 5 6 6 6 - 6 - - 1800 The plantation is joint together with another and it is not possible to see the inhabitants living on “Adrian” this year 1801 1 1 1 - 1 - - - 57 4 6 38 4 4 8 5 5 1 2 - 28 1802 1 1 1 - 1 - - - 39 5 6 37 3 1 8 4 - 1 4 - 1803 1 1 1 1 1 - - - 38 5 6 38 10 6 3 - 1 3 - 1804 1 1 1 1 1 - - - 42 7 5 48 14 7 3 - 3 6 - 1805 1 1 - - 1 - - - 38 12 3 43 13 6 3 1 1 3 - 1806 There exits no land tax record from this year 1807 1 1 - 1 1 - - - 38 12 2 45 13 6 3 1 5 - - 1808 1 1 - - 1 - - - 42 8 - 43 12 6 3 3 3 2 - 1809 - - - - 2 - - - 36 3 10 46 9 3 2 1 3 - - 1810 - - - - 2 - - - 35 3 10 45 9 3 2 1 - 2 - 1811 - - - - - - - - 33 3 8 43 9 2 2 1 - 6 - 1812 - - - - 2 - - - 30 3 8 40 8 2 2 1 - 7 - 1813 - - - - 2 - - - 30 3 9 36 8 3 2 1 1 4 - 1814 - - - - 2 - - - 29 2 8 33 6 2 2 2 - 5 - 1815 - - - - 1 - - - 33 9 - 35 8 2 2 - 2 4 - 1816 - - - - 2 - - - 14 4 11 21 13 4 - - - - - 1817 - - - - 2 - - - 14 4 11 21 13 4 - - - 2 - 1818 - - - - 2 - - - 14 4 9 21 11 4 - - 1 2 - 1819 - - - - 1 - - - 13 4 11 20 10 4 - - 2 2 - 1820 - - - - 2 - - - 17 11 2 21 7 3 2 1 2 2 - 1821 - - - - 1 - - - 19 4 5 21 2 3 2 1 1 2 - 1822 - - - - 1 - - - 18 4 6 26 13 3 2 1 3 3 - 1823 - - - - 2 - - - 16 4 6 20 15 3 2 1 2 4 - 1824 - - - - 1 - - - 16 3 10 22 12 3 2 1 2 2 - 1825 - - - - 2 - - - 16 3 10 22 14 3 2 1 3 2 - 1826 - - - - 1 - - - 16 3 11 22 13 3 2 1 2 1 - Owner of the plantation: The Danish King 1827 - - - - 1 - - - 14 3 11 24 9 3 3 - 1 1 - 1828 - - - - 2 1 - - 16 3 11 23 11 3 3 - 1 2 - 1829 - - - - 2 - - - 21 5 13 29 15 5 3 - 2 2 - 29 1830 - - - - 1 - - - 25 16 - 30 14 3 3 - 3 2 - 1831 - - - - 1 - - - 24 16 29 16 3 3 - - 3 - - 1832 - - - 1 - - - 24 14 30 5 15 3 - 3 - - - 1833 - - - 2 - - - 23 15 31 3 15 2 1 4 2 - - 1834 - - - 3 1 - - 22 18 30 6 15 2 1 3 - - Table 7. St. John Land Tax Records from 1794 – 1834 (RRVR 751:83.4-83.9 and RRVR 751:83.10-83.15 and RRVR 751:86.16 and RRVR 751:83.17-83.20 and RRVR 751:83.21-83.25 and RRVR 751:83.26-83.31 and RRVR 571:83.32-83.36 and RRVR 751:83.37-83.39) [1] C = capable [2] H = half grown [3] Ch = Children under 12 years Outline of inhabitants living on Adrian 1834-47 Year Free living on the plantation Enslaved workers House and craft Field Born this year Dead this year M W B G M W B G M W B G Owner of the plantation: The Danish King 1834 3 - - - 6 2 1 - 22 30 18 13 1 4 1835 2 - - - 5 2 1 - 24 31 17 13 3 - 1836 2 - - - 6 2 - - 22 31 19 15 5 1 1837 4 2 - - 6 3 1 - 21 29 20 17 3 3 1838 3 2 - - 5 2 1 1 22 30 21 17 3 1 1839 2 - - - 4 2 1 - 22 21 30 17 3 2 1840 2 1 - 2 5 - - - 21 24 31 19 2 6 1841 1 - - - 5 4 1 2 23 21 34 18 6 1 1842 1 2 - 1 5 2 1 - 23 34 22 18 3 3 1843 1 2 - - 6 2 1 - 19 28 24 22 2 4 1844 1 2 - - 5 2 1 - 25 41 14 10 6 3 1845 1 2 - - 5 - 1 - 22 32 18 23 1 1 1846 4 3 1 1 4 1 - - 23 30 21 21 2 4 1847 1 2 - - 4 2 - - 23 30 22 24 2 4 Table 8. St. John Land Tax Records from 1834 – 1847 (RRVR 751:83.37-83.39 and RRVR 751:83.40-83.42 and RRVR 751:83.43-83.45 and RRVR 751:83.46-83.48 and RRVR 751:83.49-83.51) 30 The Adrian Runnels/Rönnels Family (Owner of Trunk Bay 1725-1764) Adrian’s Family Father: Adiaen Rünnels, from St. Eustatius, 50 years old Mother: Anna Rünnels, from Anticho, 47 years old Children: Magritha, 18; Maria 17; Susanna 20; Ysac 7; Betie 4; - all born on St. Eustatius Faith: All Reformed Table 9. St. Thomas Land Tax Record 1691 (VGK 446:731-32). Ariaen Rönnels Children: Maria, Pieter, Abraham, Susanna, Lisabeth, Isaas Table 10. St. Thomas Land Tax Record 1692 (VGK 446:731-732) It is likely that Adrian Runnels’ parents were Adrian Runnels and Anna even though he does not appear as their son in any of the land tax records. The reason for this is that the land tax record for St. Thomas from 1710-1711 lists a plantation of a “Adrian Runnels Junior” on which he and his wife pay taxes and the same year another plantation is listed as being owned by the widow of Adrian Runnels (VGK 446:731-732). Other information on siblings include: In 1697-1698 Abraham is listed as a bachelor (VGK 446:731-732) and then married to Maria Gertrud Martins Dec. 14, 1699 (KVD 1- 775-1: LAK 5-1399). Pieter is first married to Elisabeth de Wint on May 1, 1704 (KVD 1-775-1: LAK 5-1399) and then to Cornelia Moy (sister of Elisabeth Moy) on May 23, 1714 (KVD 1-775-1: LAK 5-1400). St. Thomas Land tax record 1688 (VGK 446:731-32, year 1688) Capt. Daniel Mooy, Dutch reformed Wife Dorothea Swain, English Reformed 31 Table 11. Elisabeth Moy’s Family 1688. St. Thomas Land tax record 1691 (VGK 446:731-32, year 1691) Capt. Daniel Mooy, from Vliffringen, 41 years old Dorothea Mooy, from St. Eustatius, 34 years old Children: Cornelia, 6; Sara 4; Elisabeth 16month – all born on St. Thomas Faith: Father Dutch reformed, mother English Reformed. Table 12. Elisabeth Moy’s Family 1691. Elisabeth’s first marriage Elisabeth Moi was engaged to Thomas de Wint on March 27, 1704 and married April 23, 1704. The Adrian Runnel family and their plantation on St. John Marriage of Adrian Runnel and Elisabeth Moy Adrian Runnel was engaged on May 30, 1709 to Elisabeth Moy, widow of Thomas de Wint and married June 26, 1709 (KVD 1-775-1: Lak 5-1400). Children Maria was christened at home on November 28, 1710 (KVD 1-775-1: Lak 5-1400) In the 1733-1734 guardian book: Adrian, Daniel, Abraham and Maria (VGK 446:521) Elisabeth’s son with first husband Thomas Jansøn de Wint was named Johannes. He was baptized on March 5, 1705 (KVD 1-775-1: Lak 5-1399). Elisabeth’s daughter with her first husband was named Dorothea de Wint (KVD 1-775-1: Lak 5-1400 shows that she is getting married to J. Beverhoudt & VGK 446:739. In 1731 it is mentioned that Elisabeth Runnels has two daughters and one of them is married to J. Beverhoudt). Marriages of the Runnel Children 32 On January 6, 1730 Dorothea de Wint was married to Johannes van Beverhoudt Claudizoon (NB: zoon = son). Both are reformed and they are married in her mother’s house in town. Witnesses were Gerhard Moll and Johannes de Wint. (KVD 1-775-1: Lak 5-1400) On January 27, 1735 bachelor Johannes de Wint is married to Maria, deceased Gerhard Moll’s widow (KVD 1-775-1: Lak 5-1401). Later in 1752, he is listed as dead at a baptism (KVD 1-775-1: Lak 5-1401). On August 26, 1735, Mad. Maria Runnels is married to Jochum Melchior Magens (KVD 1-775-1: Lak 5-1401). He had a plantation very close to “Adrian” measuring 3000 x 2000 in Danish feet (VGK 446: 751-53). According to Kellar’s (2004) dissertation, at Elisabeth Runnels’s death, her grandsons, Claudious van Beverhoudt and Thomas de Wint took control of the plantation. It is correct that they took over, but it has not been possible to find evidence that they were her grandsons. However, it is likely that her son Johannes de Wint would have named his son Thomas after his father. It is known that Dorothea was married to J. Beverhoudt whose father was named Claudi. They too could have named their son after the boy’s grandfather. According to Kellar (2004), Jacob Hendrich Smaltz should be the second husband of Elisabeth Runnel’s granddaughter. However, evidence of this was not found in the archives. It was discovered that on June 6, 1765, citizen captain Smaltz married the widow Mad. Anna Zeeger. (KVD 1-775-1: Lak 5-1405). At a baptism in 1755, we are informed that her first husband’s full name was Salomon Zeegers. (KVD 1-775-1: Lak 5- 1402). It is known that the plantation plot measuring ? x 1280 Danish feet became a part of Adrian plantation in 1769 with owner Smaltz. That plantation plot had belonged to Zeegers until 1764. It must have become Smaltz’s at the marriage of the widow. (RRVR: 571:83.2) Death of Adrian Runnels His precise death is not found in the Lutheran church book, but he appears to have founded two plantations on St. John in 1718 (Adrian) and 1725 (Trunk Bay). On March 29, 1727, his wife Elisabeth is mentioned as the widow of Adrian Runnels at a baptism (KVD 1-775-1400). In the Guardian book 1733-1734 there is mention of a probate that was made in 1727, so it must be concluded he died early that year (VGK 446:521). The Guardian Book 1733-34 (VGK 446:521) Guardian Johannes de Wint Junior: For his half siblings Adrian Rönnels’s children, who 33 were the sons Adria, Daniel and Abraham and daughter Maria, who inherits just as much as her brothers and after probate of 1727, after their father and is by their brothers Pieter called, gets through their inherit capital 9822:4:2. Consist of [....] 2 plantations – a sugarwork on St. John and a cotton work here on St. Thomas and inherits together with their mother Elisabeth Runnels who takes care of their means to this date. Table 13. The Guardian Book: Auction of Adrian in 1764. On October 6, 1764, a public auction was held for Adrian after the former owner widow Elisabeth Runnel’s death. The auction protocol (RRVR 571:157.1) Description of the location: “The plantation is situated between Engel van Beverhoudt, the widow Susanna Runnel and the widow Adriana Bödger” Description of the buildings: A boiling house with four built-in cobber kettles A sugar mill A cobber distillery with tube and tube neck A dwelling house A smokehouse A storehouse with a plain roof Some small buildings and negro houses In addition the plantation is with inventory 34 Description of enslaved workers: Men: Woman: 1) Corido, bomba 1) Santie 2) Frompi, bödker 2) Snartie 3) Clasie 3) Flora 4) Casper next to bomba 4) Eva 5) Jan Bödger 5) Adjuba 6) Guantje 6) Soplica 7) Jen, sugar boiler 7) Maitje 8) Cesar 8) Mana 9) Cotje 9) Lena 10) Pieter 10) Luua 11) Tony, barber 11) Dominga 12) Andreas 12) Afiba 13) Ruavw 13) Afiba, bosal 14) Jakio 14) Sara 15) Jacob 15) Cato 16) Soboer 16: Letis 35 17) Cupido 18) Coffi Boys: 19) Wannivio 1) Prima 20) Jackie 2) Quasie 21) Peiter 3) Abraham 22) Quamina 4) Codje 23) Bentura 5) Copooÿ 24) Gratia 6) Jacob 25) Phillip 7) Paulus 26) Simon 27) Jankoe Girls: 28) Claes 1) Nannÿ 29) Joseph 2) Annilka 30) Minguel 3) Martha 31) Pontier 4) Susanna 32) Jantje 5) Maria 6) Marianna 7) Susanna The plantation was estimated to a value of 27.015 Rigsdaler (Danish monetary 36 unit) and it was purchased by Claudius van Beverhoudt and Thomas de Wint on December 31, 1764. Table 14. Auction Protocol: 1764 Auction of Adrian. The Slave Rebellion of 1733 It appears that 4 enslaved workers of Adrian Runnels’ widow on St. John were involved in the slave rebellion. See Table 16 below. (VGK 446.29.1) On a slip of paper (VGK 446: 1.29.1) Notification of the number of slaves of deceased Adrian Runnels that were in the rebellion Mina Prins Coffi Supio Negro woman Sublika St. John February , 1734 Johannes de Windt Table 15. List of enslaved Africans belonging to Adrian Runnels that participated in the rebellion of 1733. Through different sources mainly consisting of letters, it was possible to identify three of the four enslaved workers of the deceased Adrian Runnel who were involved in the rebellion. (VGK 446:1.29.1) It appears that the enslaved worker with the name of Prins was highly involved in the rebellion. In a letter dated June 3, 1734, it is stated that Prins, belonging to Elisabeth Runnel, was one of the ringleaders of the rebellion (VGK 446:99) and in a letter dating to May 22, 1734, he is mentioned as one of the first to rebel. (VGK 446:99). Most likely due to his involvement in the rebellion, it was stated in a poster published that if Prins was captured and taken to the governor, his capture would be rewarded with 50 Rigsdaler, Danish monetary unit. (VGK 446:571, 04-20-1734). In a letter from May 22, 1734, Scipio and Suplia of Elisabeth Runnel are also described as involved in the Rebellion (VGK 446:99), but the extent of their involvement is not mentioned. 37 Elisabeth Runnels stayed on St. Thomas during the rebellion (VGK 446:571, 02-13- 1734) and her plantation, including buildings and crops, were not damaged (VGK 446.1.29.1). On August 26, 1734, an order to Johannes de Wint and Jannes Runnels was dispatched to capture “Negro” Printz, who belonged to Adrian Runnels widow and a “Negro Woman,” Combia belonging to Michel Hendrichsen. Both individuals were said to be hiding at the plantation of the widow Runnels. In the same document, others are ordered to catch other remaining rebels hiding at different locations on St. John. They are all mentioned by name. (VGK 446: 516) On August , these last rebels who were named in the document dating to August At Trunk Bay One work with a distillery machine with Four boilers, liquor-dish and cooler in good condition 5000 rdl A dry wall mule [pen] in great order 50 rdl A cattle mill wanting repair 250 rdl 17 mules 2390 rdl 2 houses 150 rdl 4 cattle 250 rdl 3 cows 150 rdl 1 young cow and a calf 50 rdl were put on trial. Among them was Cumbia of Michel Hendrichsen, but not Printz. Doctor Bødger’s enslaved boy, January is called in to testify (VGK 446:516). Prins/Printz is not listed as caught, however according to Anderson (1992), after the rebellion, he and the 14 remaining rebels were lured into the bush with the understanding that he would be pardoned and would be allowed to continue working at Estate Adrian. Prins/Printz was asked to meet at Estate Adrian and when he arrived with the 14 others, he was immediately shot and beheaded. William McBean During William McBean’s ownership, the value of estate Adrian was estimated several times. Most interesting is a statement dating to 1802 where all the buildings at Trunk Bay are listed. It is evident that Trunk Bay was used as a production facility in 1802 and it was inhabited by enslaved workers who cultivated the land. Table 16. Inventory of buildings on Trunk Bay plantation in 1802 and their value (SA 423:1124A). 38 In 1802 the value of William McBean’s estate Adrian was estimated (SA 423:1124A) Estate Adrian on St. John, this [bereivers] day of May 1802, belonging to William McBean. 135 acres of land in canes á 331 rdl 44.685 rdl 36 acres of land in provision, negro grounds, bananas etc. 5400 rdl 129 acres of land in bush 9030 rdl A set works with 2 sugar boilers, liquor cask, 1, coolers etc. 6000rdl A mill of round in complete order 1600rdl 2 stills say one of 250 and one of 160 gallons with [worms], tubs etc. 3000rdl A set of works of lime and stone and hard wood roof with two sets of sugar boilers 9000rdl An 180 gallons distillery with worm and tub, nearly new 1500rdl A mill round in good repair 1600rdl 2 storehouses 150rdl An excellent commodious dwelling house 10.000rdl A stone kitchen and ironing room under one roof 1500rdl A stock house and nursery 100rdl A sick house and stone stable under one roof, 50 feet by 20 feet in clear of lime and stone with nursery and kitchen, use of sickhouse not yet finished but all material on spot 3000rdl Lots of land at Cruzbay with dwelling house, store house, nursery, Smith shop 1500rdl 28 negro houses most of them new 1820rdl Managers house 350rdl 1 The words in the bracket were difficult to read and they are written as they appear in the source. 39 A fishing boat with three ores 40rdl 5 draft cattle 750rdl 2 young bulls 200rdl 2 yearlings 60rdl 3 cows and one calf 312rdl 4 horses 1000rdl 24 mules 3600rdl 2 wagons complete 450 per each 900rdl 728 feet of wall around the garden yard 242rdl 2 iron crow bars 50rdl A new and complete [shard] cutter 400rdl A spare set of mill cases with [hjudgeons] sloops, wedgers etc. 300rdl 1 red oak slaves 75rdl 2 [pan tiles] 125rdl 164 iron sloops and [rivets/bivets] 191rdl A sheet of lead 340rdl All the negroes: 52 men, 47 women, 8 boys and 9 girls. Table 17. Estimated 1802 value of Estate Adrian owned by William McBean (SA 423:1124A) In 1803, William McBean received 21 enslaved workers from his brother Robert McBean, who lived on Tortola. It is stated that the enslaved workers lived at Trunk Bay. The 21 enslaved workers were named: 1) George, 2) Coffee, 3) Sampsoon, 4) Leeay, 5) Hord, 6) Sarah yellow,7) Sara, 8) Sambo, 9) Dublin, 10) Margrethe, 11) Catharina, 12) John Hill, 13) Magdalene Hill, 14) Pieter Hill, 15) John Christmas, 16) Mary, 17)Mary, 18) Eve, 19) Simmie, 20) Jack and 21) Margaret. (SA 423:1124A) 40 Adrian and Trunk Bay post 1827 The auction of Adrian and Trunk Bay in 1827 Because of unpaid debts, the estates belonging to William McBean were put up for auction in 1827. On a slip of paper (STSJL 712:35.35.1) ”At the request of the commission for the liquidating the royal West Indian debts of St. Thomas’ and St. Johns sugar estates” Adrian and Trunk bay Situated in Cruzbay Quarter No. as also the works, buildings, slaves, stock & thereto belonging will be sold at three public auctions, in consequence of a [levy affected], by means of which the properties were taken away from William McBean. The first two auctions will be held at the public auction office in the […] house at Cruzbay on Saturday the and of September, each day at 12 o’clock of noon and the third auction will be held at the estate Adrian on Saturday the of October next at like hour. The conditions will be made known at the sale. St. Johns August the 1827 John Mirkel Table 18. Notice of an 1827 auction of Adrian. Besides the involuntary auction of Adrian and Trunk Bay, the sources contain a slip of paper concerning a case between William McBean and Johannes Kierkerup. William McBean bought Adrian/Trunk Bay from Johannes Kierkerup in 1798, but in 1801/1802 he apparently still owed Johannes Kierkerup some money. (STSJL 712:35.35.1) The outcome of the case is not mentioned in the papers. 41 The Danish King’s ownership of Adrian and Trunk Bay In the 1827 auction, the Danish King, Frederik VI, bought Trunk Bay and owned it until 1847. In addition to Trunk Bay, the Danish king bought the neighboring plantations, Cathrinesberg (Hermanfarm) and Jochumsdahl in 1826. In 1828, the administrator of Adrian was Alexander Cameron while the administrator of Hermanfarm or Cathrinesberg was H. Fitzsimons. On December 30, 1833, Alexander Cameron died and H. Fitzsimons became administrator of both plantations. Later in 1845, H. J. Knevel became the administrator of Adrian. Shortly after the king’s purchase of Adrian its value was estimated (DVGL 534:20.7.1). On a slip of paper (DVGL 534:20.7.1) Adrian on St. John: 224 acres land, out of which 80 acres in sugar canes, 15 in provisions 71 Negros 1 Horse 18 Mules and 1 donkey 5 Bulls 5 Cows 5 Young cows and calf 1 Young Estimated to a value of: November 1827 65.569 Rigsdaler Table 19. Value of Adrian plantation in 1827. 42 In 1829 the enslaved workers on L’esperance were divided between Adrian and Hermanfarm (DVGL 534:20.7.1) Adrian has 250 acres of land, out of which 150 acres can be put in canes, Herman Farm has 376 acres of land, out of which about 70 can be put in canes. Considering the above local circumstances and after having taken a view of the 36 remaining negroes, out of which it appears 15 belong to one family, it is my opinion that the 21 following negroes: Jonathan, Reinhard, Andreas Christian, Henrik, Henrik, Jacob, John Jacob, Thomas, John Jacob, Susanna, Mimba, Minchy, Dorothea, Beate, Johanna Susanna, Maria Dorothea, Anna Maria, Amalie, Rebecca, Christiane and William to be allotted to Adrian Estate and the remaining 15 negroes, Paulus, Absalon, Lucas, David, Alba, Maria before Amka, Rachel, Charlotte no.1, Charlotte no.2, Sophia, Beate (child), Jamicky, John, William and Christian to be allotted to Hermanfarm estate. St. John September 1829, Lf. Miechel Table 20. 1829 Letter stating the division of enslaved workers from L’esperance plantation between Adrian plantation and Hermanfarm Estate. Adrian and Hermanfarm were auctioned in 1847. The Danish King had already tried to lease the estates in 1846 for a 5 year period but with no luck and they were sold in 1847. Concerning Trunk Bay (SA 423:1124A – no. 16, 1828) For a long time the overseer on the plantation of Adrian have complained about its Negroes [...] how to keep the plantation Trunkbay in cultivation, on account of this property’s long distant from Adrian and that [..] went over a high mountain and how tiring it is for the Negroes. The commission has therefore already taken it under consideration how the overseer can give up the cultivation of the grounds on the plantation Trunkbay, since they in this year only have yielded 4 (barns) and 4 [..] sugar 43 and 3 barrels of rum, together what is believed to be disproportionately with the number of used Negroes, when [..] Mr. H. Knevels, on his father’s J. Knevel’s behalf, offered, with getting 50 acres of the grounds of Trunkbay, to give up in 12 years an equal area of Susannaberg’s grounds that borders up to the Negro houses of the Adrian Plantation, and answers a yearly salary of à 100 (patacons) for the works on Trunkbay, which we have noticed are very run-down and therefore before 12 month they must be fixed to be used and thereafter keep up repairs, though under no obligation to rebuilt these if the works either should be damaged by a tornado or a hurricane. With this proposition gathered we the overseers on the Royal plantations Cameron and Fitzsimmons together with the stadhaupt man Usher’s and the Country Bailiff Michel’s consideration which strongly recommended the above mentioned to the commission before we take any decision we want baron and doctor Johan v. Bretton’s declaration about wanting to consent in the upcoming switch if his Majesty should graciously accept him and as a buyer which he confirmed. Under these circumstances and a clearly advantage for his Majesty and a relief for the Negroes on the plantation of Adrian, the commission took the offer from mister Knevel with under 4 of [...] enter into a contract whereof we allow us a copy. The measurement of the ground has already taken place with the supervision of last mentioned who can testify to that the grounds on which his Majesty has kept, are almost twice as much is cultivated against what M r. Knevels got in the 50 acres of the grounds of Trunkbay. With the conviction that he sent the best to his Majesty flatter we with us the hope that this temporary exchange will meet the high colleague’s approval. St. Thomas July 1828 The commission for the Royal West Indian debt liquidation for Thomas and St. Jan Søbøtker, Tonis and Magens Table 21. 1828 Letter concerning the production and abandonment of Trunk Bay. 44 The auction of Adrian and Hermanfarm in 1847 On November 3, 1847, the auction of Adrian and Hermanfarm was published in the St. Thomas and St. Croix newspapers (STSJG 712:35.35.3). In the newspapers it was mentioned that the sugar estates Adrian and Hermanfarm with “adjacent and appurtenance”, belonging to “His majesty the King” situated in Cruz Bay quarter on St. John were put up for sale on one public auction. The public auction was held at Herman Farm on November . Trunk Bay being a part of Adrian, Jochumsdahl and Hermanfarm or Cathrinesberg was also sold. Adrian was estimated to a value of 46.620 Rigsdaler (Danish Vestindien monetary unit), while Hermanfarm was estimated to a value of 40.937 Rigsdaler. The two sugar estates consisted of approximately 700 acres of land out of which 150 acres were used towards sugar production, while 70 acres were cultivated with provision crops. (STSJG 712:35.34.5) The highest bid was given by planter John Ellicott from St. Croix and he bought the two estates for a total value of 65.000 Rigsdaler. Among the documents concerning this auction was an inventory written in English that lists the names of the two estates’ enslaved workers along with a list of all the buildings, the stock and the tools. Photos of the inventory as copied in the Danish Archives can be seen in Appendix 2. Most importantly is the section with “Other Building” because it is mentioned that there are some “ruins of old works etc.” at Trunk Bay. (STSJG 712:35.34.5) Unfortunately, there are not any more details, so it is not known what type of buildings they were, but the only buildings that exist at Trunk Bay are the sugar works, so it is highly probable that the inventory is referring to the Trunk Bay factory. Since they are described as ruins it could indicate that by the middle of the 1800s Trunk Bay was definitely not used as production facility any longer. It had probably been abandoned in 1828 as was indicated by the 1828 letter detailing the difficulty of having labor travel to Trunk Bay to work the estate. Production The following table shows how many acres of land were cultivated with sugar cane and how many were uncultivated. The sources used are the land tax records 1803-1837. The term other covers everything else that can be cultivated in the island’s environment such as cotton, provision, coffee, etc. In an account from the administrator on Adrian/Trunk Bay dated in 1829, it is stated that the plantation has 250 acres of land, out of which 150 acres can be put into canes. (DVGL 534:20.7.1). In the same year it is stated in the land tax record that Adrian only has 225 acres of land. The reason for this inconsistency is difficult to interpret, but it is interesting that 150 acres could be put into sugar cane production. However, not even one year was devoted to cane cultivation on 150 acres. The largest number of acres cultivated with sugar cane in such a short time frame was 110 acres. 45 Year Owner X acres of the plantation are cultivated with Sugar Other Uncultivated Total in acres 1803 W. McBean 80 30 190 300 1804 W. McBean 90 30 180 300 1805 W. McBean 95 30 175 300 1806 There exists no land tax record for this year 1807 W. McBean 99 30 171 300 1808 W. McBean 100 25 175 300 1809 W. McBean 110 30 85 225 1810 W. McBean 110 39 85 225 1811 W. McBean 110 30 85 225 1812 W. McBean 110 30 85 225 1813 W. McBean 100 30 95 225 1814 W. McBean 90 30 105 225 1815 W. McBean 110 30 85 225 1816 W. McBean 50 20 155 225 1817 W. McBean 60 29 145 225 1818 W. McBean 60 20 145 225 1819 W. McBean 60 20 145 225 1820 W. McBean 60 20 145 225 1821 W. McBean 90 5 130 225 1822 W. McBean 90 5 130 225 1823 W. McBean 70 10 145 225 1824 W. McBean 70 10 145 225 1825 W. McBean 90 10 125 225 1826 W. McBean 70 10 145 225 1827 The Danish King 80 75 130 225 1828 The Danish King 80 15 130 225 1829 The Danish King 80 15 130 225 1830 The Danish King 80 15 130 225 1831 The Danish King 80 15 130 225 1832 The Danish King 80 15 130 225 1833 The Danish King 80 15 130 225 1834 The Danish King 85 10 130 225 1835 The Danish King 85 10 130 225 1836 The Danish King 85 40 100 225 1837 The Danish King 85 45 95 225 1838 The Danish King 85 45 95 225 1839 The Danish King 85 45 95 225 1840 The Danish King 66 45 114 225 46 1841 The Danish King 60 45 120 225 1842 The Danish King 60 45 120 225 1843 The Danish King 60 45 120 225 1844 The Danish King 50 45 130 225 1845 The Danish King 50 45 130 225 1846 The Danish King 55 40 130 225 1847 The Danish King 60 30 130 225 Table 22. Number of acres of land cultivated versus uncultivated land. II. METHODOLOGY FIELD METHODS The purpose of the archeological investigations was to assess and recover any cultural remains that could have been negatively impacted during the stabilization efforts of the sugar factory. Field investigations also included documentation and recovery of surface artifacts at the manager’s house in order to assign an occupation date to the structure in relationship to the factory and gain an overall understanding of the Trunk Bay plantation. The preservation team from San Juan National Historic site needed to excavate twenty 65 x 65 centimeter (cm) pits in order to lay concrete for the stabilization beams called outriggers. These beams will surround the perimeter of the structure temporarily while the factory becomes stable enough to allow visitation. Additional post holes were needed in order to construct a chain length fence around the structure in order to keep visitors at a safe distance from the factory. A total of 28 post holes were dug with a posthole digger. Archeological monitoring began with screening soil from pits that had already been dug without supervision. Although some of the proveniences had already been mixed together before Ken Wild and Lauran Riser were aware of the digging, as soon as they arrived on site they were able to direct the preservation team to dig in 10-20 centimeter arbitrary levels. Placement of the twenty 65 x 65cm pits was determined by the preservation team based on the number and position of outrigger beams needed on each side of the factory. The number and placement of post holes for the chain-length fence was also predetermined by the preservation team. Surface collecting did not take place at the factory site as no artifacts were observed. All artifacts recovered were bagged with their specific provenience and each bag was assigned a field specimen number (FS#). Shovel test pit forms were completed for each pit and a sketch map utilizing true north was drawn of the factory and all excavations. GPS points were collected for each corner of the factory ruin as well as the manager’s house. Points were also collected for the two surface artifact scatters down slope east of the manager’s house as well as at each 65 x 65cm pit and each fence post hole at the factory area. 47 LABORATORY ANALYSIS AND CONSERVATION Following the completion of the excavation and stabilization work at the factory in addition to the surface collection carried out at the manager’s house, all artifacts were processed at the Cinnamon Bay archeological laboratory and the National Park Biosphere Reserve Center where they were cleaned, sorted, and re-bagged for long term storage. The accession number obtained from the park for this project is (VIIS-335). The classification and cataloging of the artifacts adhered to the guidelines outlined in the Cataloging Manual for Archeological Objects Vols. I, II, III (National Park Service 2000) and the Museum Handbook, Museum Records, part II (National Park Service 2000). All artifacts were counted, weighed and identified by Lauran Riser. Shell remains were identified by species and then weighed and discarded. All artifacts recovered from the project were entered into the Interior Cataloging Management System (ICMS). The artifacts to be stored and curated are labeled with the park acronym and its assigned catalog number in archival indelible ink where no decoration occurs, (eg. VIIS- 1234) and placed in a bag with an appropriately labeled acid free tag. Artifact numbering and cataloging was completed by Chela Thomas and Susanna Pershern. The artifacts are stored in the climate controlled Bally Building located at the Virgin Islands National Park Biosphere Reserve. 48 III. INVESTIGATIONS INTRODUCTION AND RESULTS Archeological investigations at the Trunk Bay factory site were designed to mitigate adverse impacts as required in the stabilization of the Trunk Bay factory, therefore they were limited as far as time constraints, funding and placement of test pits. However, prior to this stabilization effort, no archeological investigations had ever been carried out at the site and very little historical information existed. In that regard, this project provided the opportunity to obtain a greater understanding of this resource for future interpretation. The factory and manager’s house had been mapped by Anne Hersh, leader of the Caribbean Volunteer Expeditions (CVE) in 1993 (Figure 13). Working from these drawings, student Krissy Nickle from Sir Sanford Fleming College, Canada developed a 3-D image of the historic ruin in 2000 (Figure 14). The construction style and appearance of the factory ruin suggested eighteenth century use, which was primarily all that was known at the time of stabilization and archeological efforts, however it is unique compared to other factories of that same time period. The north end of the factory has a window with a very high gabled roof and the east and west ends have high gabled roofs with doorways. Above the door on the exterior northwest wall is a circular masonry patch that indicates that at one time some type of seal or emblem was attached above this entrance. Ralf (Rafe) Boulon Jr.’s father, Ralf Boulon, Sr., owned the property from 1927-1957 and remembered the emblem above the entrance of the factory. He had mentioned to Rafe that it disappeared at some point during his ownership of the property (personal communication with Rafe Boulon, March 2010). 49 Figure 13. One of several drawings of the factory completed in 1993 by CVE. Figure 14. 3-D model of the Trunk factory (Krissy Nickle 2000). 50 The Factory The fact that surface artifacts were not present around the area of the factory may in part be due to minor looting and disturbance over the years from visitation since the factory is in such close proximity to the Trunk Bay public beach access. However, most surface material is absent due to erosion as will be discussed. When the project began Wild and Riser were not notified that work had commenced and unfortunately two pits had already been dug so the soils from all levels of these two pits were screened together. However, a total of 18 of the 20 test pits were excavated using archeological techniques. Approximately four to five tests were placed on each side of the factory about five to six meters from the wall. Beginning with shovel test (ST) 3, 10- 20 cm arbitrary levels were monitored and screened by park archeologists. Although most test pits did not yield many artifacts, materials recovered included mainly eighteenth century architectural and household objects such as wrought nails, brick and mortar, bottle glass and ceramics. Architectural materials such as nails and brick consist of 79% (209/264) of the total artifact count, which does not include faunal remains. Household items such as ceramic tableware and bottle glass consist of 18% (47/264) of the total artifact count. Personal items such as kaolin clay pipe stems and an upholstery tack make up 1.1% (3/264) and unidentified metal objects make up 1.5% (4/264) of the total objects. The high frequency of architectural materials compared to artifacts in the household or personal categories is expected since the roof of the factory was likely wooden and burned down or deteriorated at some point. It is also a probability that the high concentration of nails recovered on the west side of the factory where the furnaces are located may indicate the remains of the bagasse shed. The shed would have been located in the general area but not to close to the furnaces in order to supply the bagasse fuel to heat the coopers. Faunal remains consist of butchered and non-butchered animal bone and citarium pica (whelk) shell. Faunal remains are omitted from the artifact class totals because they are better quantified by weight. Animal bone totaled to 78.42 grams and shell totaled to 1,406.28g. The high frequency of shell was mainly recovered near the northeast side of the factory in ST-7 and was mixed with butchered animal bone and olive green bottle glass in very dark organic soil. This midden is presumed to be the old trash pit for the enslaved factory workers. Three artifacts recovered from the factory area were unique to a sugar factory site as well as other similar sites on St. John. First, a 1750s (Butler and Walkling 1986) crystal lead glass decanter stopper (Figure 15) was found near the northeast wall of the factory between 65-75 centimeters below the surface. Two rare eighteenth century tin glazed ceramics were also recovered near the northeast wall of the factory; one purple sponged delft sherd and one polychrome hand painted unidentified tin enameled sherd (Figure 16). A water gut that was probably directed by man flows around the eastern side of the factory. It is possible that these and other objects washed down from the manager’s house or the animal mill area and were deposited near the large trash midden discovered on the east side of the factory. However, it is also likely that these objects were deposited where they were recovered on site. Typical eighteenth century artifacts recovered from the 51 factory area include black lead glazed coarse earthenware creamware and pearlware (Figure 17). Three possible prehistoric hand-built earthenware ceramics were also recovered from the east side of the factory near the gut. For a complete listing of artifacts recovered from the factory area, see Appendix 1. Figure 15. Crystal lead glass decanter stopper dating to the 1750s found near the east wall of the factory (photograph by Kathryn Wagner 2009). 52 Figure 16. Purple sponged Delft (left) (1708-1786). Unidentified polychrome tin enameled ceramic (right) (photograph by Susanna Pershern 2009). Figure 17. One of the most common eighteenth century ceramics found at the factory site was black lead glazed coarse earthenware (1700-1770) (photograph by Kathryn Wagner 2009). One masonry feature was discovered associated with the well at the southwest corner of the factory. This feature (Feature 1) appeared to be articulated brick in the form of a wall curving parallel to the current well (Figure 18). It was interpreted as a possible earlier well, or the original factory well, predating the present well. The feature was documented and photographed (Figure 19) however it was not completely excavated and only yielded two artifacts besides brick and mortar. 53 Figure 18. Factory well near the southwest corner. It is possible that this well was a later addition and constructed sometime towards the late eighteenth century (photograph by Lauran Riser 2009). Figure 19. Feature 1, discovered about 25 cmbd at the west wall of the current well, was interpreted as part of an original factory well. It was probably built during the early eighteenth century (photograph by Lauran Riser 2009). 54 Archeological monitoring at the factory area was completed on 20 July 2009. However, it took several additional visits to the site to collect all GPS points because the site sits in a valley surrounded with heavy canopy cover. In 2011, Ken Wild and Kourtney Donohue undertook additional survey efforts around the factory and animal mill area to try and locate the village of those that were enslaved on this estate. Some artifacts and a large amount of building debris, primarily historic brick was observed in an area immediately across the modern road from the factory. It was determined that most of these remains had been deposited in this area as a result of rain water erosion and therefore the reason why so few artifacts were found on the surface at the factory during the investigations in 2009. Throughout the area surface stones were found in somewhat linear patterns which most likely indict the flow of the erosion, however subsurface investigation should eventually be completed at a couple locations to determine if some of these remains could be structural. Survey work was also conducted on the hillside just south of the factory up to the manger’s house. There was some deteriorated structural evidence found that indicates that the village for those enslaved was located in this area. Deteriorated stone wall remains were found in two locations at the base of the hill very near the factory’s south side. However, these structures had been severely damaged by the erosion through the area. It also appeared possibly that they had also been impacted by the leveling of the area where the village once was for vehicle access in the not too distant past. The Manager’s House The plantation manager’s house sits southwest on a hill above the factory overlooking Trunk Bay (Figures 9 and 10). Archeological surface reconnaissance, clearing of vegetation and mapping of the manager’s dwelling took place on 11 September 2009 by Ken Wild, Lauran Riser, Kathryn Wagner and Margaret McWhorter. Artifacts were collected in two areas down slope to the north of the house. Only three artifacts were found consisting of 1 black lead glazed coarse earthenware and 2 plain pearlware sherds. GPS points were collected at each corner of the structure, stairwell and artifact scatter. (See site base map Figure 20). 55 Figure 20. Site base map. The manager’s house has a rectangular shape, typical of other plantation manager’s dwellings and measures 11.5 meters in length and 6.5 meters in width. It has a staircase facing north downslope towards the factory and exhibits post-in-ground construction on the stone walls (Figure 12). According to the artifacts, the manager’s house seems to date to the same time the factory was in operation and like the factory; it was probably built in the early to mid eighteenth century. 56 Figure 21. Collecting a GPS point at the top of the staircase at the manager’s house (photograph by Kathryn Wagner 2009). 57 Figure 22. West wall of the manager’s house (photograph by Kathryn Wagner 2009). Figure 23. Post-in-ground construction, west wall (photograph by Kathryn Wagner 2009). 58 IV. CONCLUSIONS Archival research from Denmark and other historic documents along with archeological investigations and monitoring of the Trunk Bay sugar factory site revealed a broad amount of knowledge that was previously unknown about the plantation. The operation dates of the factory were discovered as well as the plantation layout and its connection to Adrian plantation. Although we do not have a defined date of construction for the factory, artifact chronology and archival information has provided a solid date range. Because of time constraints associated with the stabilization project, archeological excavations were limited and therefore serve as a preliminary study of the Trunk Bay sugar plantation. Further investigations should include additional excavation of the factory trash midden, and any other additional out-buildings associated with the factory’s operation. The factory itself is a valuable resource in understanding plantation life on St. John. National Park Service interpretive signage has been placed on the site and reflects archeological and archival information revealed in this report (Appendix 3). The factory and manager’s house will continue to be cleared of vegetation and preserved for future generations of Virgin Islanders and visitors to the Virgin Islands National Park. 59 REFERENCES CITED Anderson, John Lorenzo 1992 Night of the Silent Drums. MAPes MONDe Editore. Tortola, Rome, St. Thomas, VI. Butler, Robin and Gillian Walkling 1986 The Book of Wine Antiques. Antique Collector’s Club. Woodbridge, Suffolk. Kellar, Elizabeth 2004 The Construction and Expression of Identity: An Archaeological Investigation of the Laborer Villages at Adrian Estate, St. John, USVI. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Syracuse University. Syracuse, New York. Larsen, Lief Calundann 1986 The Danish Colonization of St. John, 1718-1733. Virgin Islands Resource Management Cooperative. St. Thomas, VI. Rigsarkivet (The Danish National Archive) (DVGL) Det vestindiske gælds likvidationskommission for St. Thomas og St. Jan 534:20.7.1 Sager vedrørende plantagerne Adrian og Herman farm, 1827-1847 (VGK) Det vestindiske-guineiske kompagni 446:1.29.1 Samlepakke, 1733-1755, I 1733-1745 446:99 Direktionen, Breve og