USVI Public Records

Document text

VIRGINISLANDS ~~ - RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ~ COOPERATIVE ; Biosphere Reserve Research Reports No. 19 HISTORIC LAND USE IN THE REEF BAY, FISH BAY AND HAWKSNEST BAY WATERSHEDS ST. JOHN, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS (1718-1950) by George F. Tyson, Jr. No. 20 A GENERAL REVIEW OF SEDIMENTATION AS IT RELATES TO ENVIRONMENTAL STRESS IN THE VIRGIN ISLANDS BIOSPHERE RESERVE AND THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN IN GENERAL by Dennis K. Hubbard No. 21 SEDIMENTATION AND REEF DEVELOPMENT IN HAWKSNEST, FISH AND REEF BAYS, ST. JOHN, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS by Dennis K. Hubbard, James D. Stump and Brian Carter No. 22 BASIS FOR LONG-TERM MONITORING OF FISH AND SHELLFISH SPECIES IN THE VIRGIN ISLANDS NATIONAL PARK by Ralf H. Boulon, Jr. e U.S. MAN AND THE BIOSPHERE PROGRAM ys ‘ Virgin Islands National Park August, 1987 HISTORIC LAND USE IN THE REEF BAY, FISH BAY AND HAWKSNEST BAY WATERSHEDS ST. JOHN, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS 1718-1950 BIOSPHERE RESERVE REPORT NO. 19 GEORGE F. TYSON JR. ST. THOMAS, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR ' NATIONAL PARK SERVICE AND VIRGIN ISLANDS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT COOPERATIVE VIRGIN ISLANDS NATIONAL PARK P.O. BOX 7789, ST. THOMAS U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS 00801 LOCAL CONTRACTING AGENT ISLAND RESOURCES FOUNDATION RED HOOK BOX 33, ST. THOMAS U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS 00802 (NPS CONTRACT NO. CX-0001-3-0048) ABSTRACT Historic land use and settlement patterns within the Reef Bay, Fish Bay and Hawksnest Bay watersheds were associated almost exclusively with export-oriented plantation agriculture introduced by European and Afri- can colonists after 1717. Aboriginal and post-emancipation peasant subsistence farming was not widely practiced in these study areas. Energized by imported slave labor the plantations spread throughout the watersheds between 1718 and 1740. Field operations and population densities peaked in the 1770’s, but continued at relatively high levels until about 1820. Thereafter, agricultual activities contracted steadi- ly, permitting progressive reforestation of the watersheds. During the first half of the twentieth century no more than 5 percent of total watershed land remained in use. Analysis of the historical record indicates that plantation agri- culture had a profound, yet variable, impact on watershed environments. Plantation fuel, lumber and land requirements resulted in the initial loss of most, if not all, of the indigenous forest cover and its partial replacement with introduced vegetation. On the other hand, truncated plantation development and plantation land management strategies, such as terracing, watercourse controls and selective reforestation, a] lowed for the persistence of many native plant species and probably moderated soil erosion and sedimentation discharges -associated with widespread land clearance and intensive use. TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract i Table of Contents ii List of Tables iii List of Figures iv Introduction | Historic Overview 5 Prehistoric Era 5 Proto-Historic Era (1493-1717) 6 The Plantation Era (1718-1850) 6 The Mixed Economy (1850-1950) 11 Land use in Reef Bay Watershed 17 Geographical Setting 4? Prehistoric Land use . 17 Historic Land use 17 Land use in Fish Bay Watershed 29 Geographical Setting 29 Prehistoric Land use 29 Historic Land use 29 Land use in Hawksnest Bay Watershed 41 Geographical Setting 41 Prehistoric Land use 41 Historic Land use 41 Summary 45 Literature Cited 50 Li Table ‘Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table i1. Table 12. Table 13. LIST OF TABLES St. John land use indices: 1739, 1760, 1800 Land use on St. John sugar plantations, 1797 St. John land use data, 1805-1915 Acreage and land use on St. John smallholdings, 1805-1915 Plantation development in Reef Bay watershed, 1718-1728 Reef Bay land use indices: 1739, 1760, 1800 Plantation land use in Reef Bay watershed, 1797 Reef Bay plantation land use trends, 1797-1915 Plantation development in Fish Bay watershed, 1718-1729 Fish Bay land use indices: 1739, 1760, 1800 Land use on Fish Bay plantations, 1797 Fish Bay plantation land use trends, 1797-1915 - Estimated impact by human activities on sedimen- tation in watershed study areas, A.D. 100-1950 —_ e . ° e 0 © NO OT eke LUN LIST OF FIGURES Watershed study areas Location of watershed plantations Distribution of St. John small-holdings, 1915 Reef Reef Reef Reef Fish Fish Fish Fish Bay Bay Bay Bay Bay Bay Bay Bay slave population trends, 1730-1800 watershed in 1800 land use trends, 1797-1915 watershed in 1919 Slave population trends, 1730-1800 Watershed in 1800 land use trends, 1797-1915 watershed in 1919 Hawksnest Bay watershed in 1919 Estimated land use intensities in watershed study areas, 1718-1950 INTRODUCTION Human manipulation of the St. John landscape began some 2000 years ago with the arrival of seafaring aboriginal migrants. Since that time the limited terrestrial and marine resources of the 19 square mile island have been subject to almost continuous exploitation by successive waves of immigrant groups. Although the scope and intensity of land utilization varied considerably in accordance with the size and adaptive resource management strategies of each settlement culture, the cumula- tive impact has been the complete alteration of the pristine insular environment. Today’s landscape, despite !ts wilderness appearance, is largely a cultural landscape, in that it has been shaped as much by human activity as by natural processes and events. This intrinsic cultural dimension derives from two human systems: an export oriented plantation system and, to a lesser degree, a subsistence system practiced by a post- emancipation peasantry. The plantation system dominated the landscape for over a century Croughly 1718-1850). Thereafter, it shared St. John’s natural resources with a small, but energetic peasantry until the advent in the 1950’s of the contemporary systemic mode based on tourism and welfare state economics. This study focuses on the land use patterns and practices of the plantation and peasant modes of production in three St. John watersheds - Reef Bay, Fish Bay and Hawksnest Bay - between 1718 and 1950. Its primary objective is to assess the extent and nature of human activity in these critical ecosystems in order to delineate the cultural and historical processes that have brought them to their present state of development. The study is based primarily on archival research in hitherto un- tapped documentary sources found in the national archives of Denmark and the United States. Informant interviews, field surveys, cartographic analysis and secondary sources have been used to supplement the documen- tary material. The most important historical documents consulted were the land tax registers (matriculg> maintained by the Danish Government. These records, which cover the years 1728-1733, 1736-1739 and 1755-1915, pro- vide invaluable statistical information about ownership, size, land use and population for each unit of production on the island. While they pose certain problems for the researcher (Tyson 1984), their use, in conjunction with supplementary material, such as plantation inventories and special plantation censuses, makes it possible to reconstruct land use patterns and population densities during the era of Danish sover- eignty with a high degree of accuracy. For the period between 1917 and 1950, the record collections of various United States Government agencies involved in island administra- tion were consulted. Information from these sources has been augmented by recollections of people who lived on St. John during the period. The study will provide historical baseline information that will be integrated into scientific studies of vegetation, sedimentation rates, reef systems, and fisheries being conducted within the Virgin Islands Biosphere Reserve. It is further intended to contribute to our under- standing of human ecology in Caribbean insular systems. ‘) a % Lp Cae ANY NASHVE wooo” 0 a 4 A oy es AVE w Let SNOAZIONTY % “ay AVE MNHSAHVI o 2 AV ATIOS 2 ; AVE a374 Seem, S,NHor AT 9 OTOH yor % ona [B32 Bay kee SNOAZapUay | FFF TODO", 23 e133 stt anysauey keq z00y ar usta ¥ sree autny AVE SITE), gant usiuyio Ave z3z0 * tonds / Au _ opend , TUBpUaT TON MATTEg \ suest -435' etteo xnvapz0g % x vedets % 633 syon xvas oot UF Sar , S3pnoyzeaog o3se, Tvs = puno29 3 % Pe mS asunbstw soupredsg , y3LUYNO Ava ZY ava s,waanvs\~ / of 3 odo F-4 XH wa aed rn & deg “<> aosea\ oar Noamy{Cormten)) BEE | Te8uR xorsva Fe % eanausapy Server’ 25 rm 3 be gee) w 63453204 YALUVND AVE TWuOD roqueasny | “Sunuooe\ 8 euTTozeD PRUE TAY ILD, a Aisa Koueg Aeg ‘louruu @, & ,weyerzqy ava ) és % MILUWNO AVE OVW SONOHVENTS ry yesizoy TPH AV OHV 3RULSPET kea deg Braqeuuy ; gun §,UMOIg yz Tus AVE §.RMOUE AV@ WALSNIZT quto *(%) suozzejueTd peysieqeM ts) s Axe JO WOTIeDOT *Z ean3sty iva znuo "19 uejuoD payStuz ( zn wy oupury \ ava ‘TaINvD UV % HISTORIC OVERVIEW Prehistoric Era According to the archaeological record, human occupation of St. John began around A.D. 100-200, when seafaring aborigines belonging to the Arawak family of South America established at a settlement at Coral Bay. Here they practiced a mixed subsistence economy that involved the exploitation of marine resources as a source of protein, but relied primarily upon the agricultural production of foodstuffs, such as pota- toes, peppers, maize, beans and, above all, manioc. The cultivation technique of these early horticulturalists most likely consisted of “gwidden" or "slash and burn" agriculture, rather than the establishment of permanent field systems characteristic of later Indian cultures found in the Greater Antilles (Bullen 1962; Bradstreet 1975; Figueredo 1982). For reasons that remain unclear, sometime around 500 B.C. the locus of aboriginal settlement shifted from the southern to the northern side of St. John. The Coral Bay site was abandoned, while several contempor- aneous settlements were established along the north shore between Cruz Bay and Francis Bay. Archaeologists differ as to why this shift occured. Bullen (1962) attributes it to population change. Sleight (1962) stresses environ- mental factors, chiefly the desire to find more hospitable meterological and agricultural conditions. Bradstreet (1975) also emphasizes environ- mental factors, but believes that Coral Bay was abandoned because of recurring drought induced by increased land clearance. Johnston and Lunberg (1983) suggest that northside sites may aiso have been preferred because of growing inter-island trade networks. All are agreed that the new settlement orientation reflected an adaptive shift in aboriginal subsistence pattern from primary emphasis on horticulture to primary reliance on the exploitation of marine resources, especially shellfish. The impact of aboriginal subsistence economy on the terrestrial and marine resources of St. John during more than 1000 years of occupation is difficult to estimate. Available archaeological evidence indicates small populations and limited site distribution. To date a total of 23 prehistoric sites have been reported on St. John (Sleight 1962; Prokopetz and Hamilton 1977; Johnston 1981; Reeves 1987), but most seem to be special use sites and/or temporary camps rather than major settle- ments. All known sites are located at coastal bays or valleys, and there is little evidence that Indian settlement or agriculture extended far into the interior. t. A 1986 archaeological survey conducted at Lameshur Bay by the South- east Archaeological Center found evidence of a pre-ceramic midden that radio carbon tested to B. C. 770 (+/- 70) (Reeves 1987). On the other hand, there must have been considerable Jand clearance and shellfish harvesting around the main coastal occupation sites at Coral Bay, Cruz Bay, Turtle Bay, Cinnamon Bay, Francis Bay and possibly Fish Bay. One local archaeologist ‘Figueredo 1986) believes that despite small populations, a millennium of shifting, slash and burn agriculture probably destroyed most, if not all, of the climax forest of St. John. - ~ ) St. John was among those Caribbean islands that Christopher Columbus encountered and claimed for Spain during his second voyage to the New World in 1493. His captains, who apparently did not make |and- fall, reported it as uninhabited. There is some evidence (Figueredo 1978) that Carib and Arawak refugees temporarily reoccupied St. John during the wars associated with the Spanish conquest of Puerto Rico and the pacification of the Caribs of St. Croix (1511-1530). However, it appears that aboriginal occupation ceased prior to 1550, leaving St. John uninhabited for over a century. Between 1671 and 1717 small bande of mariners, woodcutters and agriculturalists from St. Thomas and surrounding British islands inter- mittently occupied St. John for short periods (Westergaard 1917; Larsen 1986). But, competing claims to the island by European powers prevented permanent colonization. Little is known about these early colonists, and no documentary or physical evidence respecting the ltocation or nature of their settlements has yet surfaced. Their impact on the land- scape must have been slight, for on the eve of Danish colonization a visiting English governor reported St. John as being heavily wooded and without evidence of human occupation (Public Record Office 1717). Immediately upon colonizing St. John in March 1718, Danish authori- ties began parcelling out the land for plantation development with the intention of producing profitable tropical crops for export into the emerging world market economy. Consequently, there was no development of subsistence agriculture, such as occurred in colonial Puerto Rico, or of small-scale yeoman farming, such as occurred on neighboring British and French islands. By 1728 the entire island, except for some rocky headlands, had been subdivided into 91 plantation holdings (Larsen 1986). During the next decade some of these original tracts were subdivided by their owners, and headlands were parcelled out by the government so that by 1739 there were 110 plantations, averaging 110 acres and 15 residents. each (Table 1). TABLE 1. St. John land use indices: 1739, 1760, 1800 Sst. John 1760 1800 Total Plantations 83 65 Total Plantation Acreage 12497 12497 Total Plantation Slaves 1991 2359 Total Plantation Population 2169 2616 Estimated Cropland acres) 3 2987 3539 Population Density b ; 111 134 Av. Plantation Acreage 151 192 Av. Plantation Population 26 Av. Plantation Cropland Acres Sugar Sector Number of Plantations Plantation Acreage Plantation Slaves Plantation Population Estimated Cropland ‘acres @ Population Density b Av. Plantation Acreage Av. Plantation Population Av. Plantation Cropland Acres % Total Plantations % Total Acreage % Total Population % Total Cropland Number of Plantations Plantation Acreage Plantation Slaves Plantation Population Estimated Cropland (acres? # Population Density Av. Plantation Acreage Av. Plantation Population Av. Acres Cropland % of Total Plantations % of Total Acreage % of Total Population % of Total Cropland Number of Plantations Acreage % of Total Plantations % of Total Acreage ource: Rigsarkivet 1728-1915 b , Estimated at 1.5 acres per slave. “Persons per square mile Like other West Indian plantations, those on St. John imported Slave labor from Africa and other Caribbean colonies to clear the for- est, build terraces, plant, harvest and process cash crops for export into the world market. The first island-wide census, taken in 1728, showed 806 slaves (Larsen 1986). In 1739 the slave population stood at 1455; in 1760 at 1991; in 1800 at 2359 (Table 1). Slave labor was essential to plantation enterprise, and it was universally acknowledged by the St. John plantocracy that the size of the slave population, more than any other factor, determined the extent of land clearance and cul- tivation CRigsarkivet 1804a). Given the absence of other types of relevant statistical informa- tion, the slave population curve provides the best index of agrarian land use activity on St. John prior to 1804. Slave population figures can also be used to estimate the amount of cropland before 1804. Infor- mation derived from St. John plantation inventories dating between 1767 and 1793, and from an island-wide plantation census of 1797 (Table 2), establish a ratio of at least 1.5 cultivated acres per slave during the 18th century, which compares to 1 acre per slave elsewhere in the Caribbean (Barrett, 1965). In addition to importing labor, the plantations introduced a host of new plant species. including export crops like: sugar cane, cotton, coffee, indigo, cocoa and tobacco; food crops such as bananas, plan- tains, coconuts, vegetables and a variety of citrus fruits; and forage crops such as guinea grass. They also imported domestic animals, most particularly horses, cattle, burros, sheep, goats and swine. Like its Caribbean counterparts (Sheridan 1973), the St. John plantation system was not static. Rather it evolved through a devel- opment cycle consisting of four phases: foundation (1718-1740); consolidation (1740-1765); sugar monoculture (1765-1850) and decline (1850-1950). Data respecting the character of the plantation system in the first three of these phases is presented in Table 1. During its first half century the plantation system practiced a diversified agricultural economy, closely adapted to prevailing environ- mental conditions. Sugar cane was cultivated on coastal plains, allu- vial valleys, mountain spurs and the central upland plateau. Cotton was grown in the drier southwestern and eastern portions of the island. A few coffee estates were established along the cool mountain ridgelines between Bordeaux, Mamey and Camelberg peaks. Smaller properties on steep terrane concentrated on raising livestock or harvesting foodstuffs for sale to the sugar plantations (Tyson 1984). Some estates around Coral Bay produced indigo, but this fledgling industry was permanently destroyed by the great slave rebellion of 1733-1734 (Marfeldt 1765). By 1740 the foundations of St. John’s plantation economy had been firmly set in place. During this pioneer phase of development the plan- tation system spread throughout the entire island by a process of land distribution, in-migration, land clearance, terracing, cultivation and construction. A. large percentage of forest was cleared and transformed into cropland. Additional areas of native vegetation were partially modified by African slaves cultivating foodstuffs on a shifting basis COlwig 1986) and by herds of foraging livestock (mules, horses, cattle, sheep and swine) introduced by the plantation owners (Tyson 1964). Between 1740 and 1765 the system of diversified plantation agri- culture that had emerged in the 1730’s matured into a fully developed economic order. During this period the number of plantations declined from 110 to 83, as landholdings were consolidated by enterprising plan- ters into larger units of production. Non-sugar plantations prospered, with cotton and coffee competing with sugar as the leading crops. In 1760 the non-sugar plantations comprised 71% of al] plantations and occupied 50% of the land (Table 1). During this period the plantations achieved maximum internal] and external expansion through increased inputs of capital, labor and technology. Most, if not all, of the remaining native forest was cut down, either because of its commercial value, or to make way for planta- tion agriculture and settlement. Stone terraces extended sugar culti- vation to the mountain peaks in many areas. In 1760 (Table 1) eighty-one operational plantations occupied 98% of the land surface. Much of the remaining area had been exposed to some level of cultivation before being allowed to revert to bush by its owners. Probably at no other time has the St. John landscape been sub- ject to such extensive exploitation. In consequence of this agrarian enterprise, the pristine, tropical wilderness gave way to a cultural landscape whose features reflected the adaptive resource management strategies and syncretic cultural traditions of the new European and African inhabitants. After 1765 the St. John .plantation system underwent a major struc- tural transformation, as its diversifled agricultural economy gave way to one specializing in the production of a single staple: sugar. Be- tween 1760 and 1800, as shown by Table 1, the sugar plantations progres- sively enlarged themselves and their control over the St. John landscape at the expense of the non-sugar sector. By 1800 the sugar plantations engrossed 60% of the land, 91% of all cropland and 83% of the population (Table 1). Estates engaged in cotton and coffee cultivation virtually disap- peared from the scene. Non-sugar properties that were not directly incorporated into the sugar sector functioned essentially as its eco- nomic satellites, producing ground provisions, livestock and possibly even siave laborers for sugar plantation consumption (Tyson 1984). Several estates were abandoned altogether. In 1800 (Table |) there were 23 uncultivated plantations, aggregating 2010 acres. Most of these unproductive properties were located in the dry southwestern section of the island. It should be noted that by 1800 most St. John sugar planters owned uncultivated plantation grounds outside the bounds of their sugar estates, which they utilized for wood, water, marine resources and pasture. For example, in 1800 the respective owners of Susanaberg, Adrian and Herman Farm, three sugar plantation in the central upland plateau, also owned a 350 acre plantation at Fish Bay, a 75 acre plan- tation near the village of Cruz Bay, and two plantations aggregating 375 acres at Chocolate Hole and Great Cruz Bay, all of which were classified as uncultivated in the tax records (Rigsarkivet 1728-1915). Enlargement and consolidation of landholdings enabled sugar plant- ers to practice economies of scale and to manage limited land, water and labor resources more efficiently. In practice this meant that cane cul- tivation was expanded to wherever sollis, slope and precipitation could sustain it. Drier, rockier, steeper, less productive land was set aside for specialized purposes, such as sgiave provision grounds, pasture or wood harvesting. To concentrate labor on sugar production many planters scaled down or phased out these secondary activities, relying instead on imported food and lumber (Tygon 1984). The end result of this land man- agement regime was intensive use of arable acreage, while marginal land was allowed to lapse into secondary growth. The actual land use pattern prevailing on the sugar plantations at the end of the eighteenth century is shown in Table 2. TABLE 2. Land use on St. John sugar plantations, 1797 SIV S SINS SSI SSS SS VV VL SCS SL SASL VSS SSL AVL ALT VS LEA NLEECLSLKSLS SSL SSIS SSS TTT Total Acreage 8355 ¢100%) Crop] and 2636 (31.5%) Sugar Cane 1969 Cotton 40 Coffee . 2 Provisions 625 Pasture 1678 a (20.1%) Wood] and 4041 (48.4%) Slaves 1805 Cultivated Acres per Slave 1.5 ee a a ae et ee re a ts oe Ow ED es Oe ane De ie ae an Oe tl ea ae ay a ee ws lh lS ne ly Od eee Source: Rigsarkivet 1797. a. Reliable data could be obtained for 14 estates. It yielded an average of 84 acres per estate, which was the figure assigned to each of the six remaining estates. a eS Oe a Se ee a ae Sm OD aD ce Soe ee ma kD ee Oe ne ee ce ee a a ne oe oe en ee ae oe we - we —e—= = ee oe ee ee ee -—-=— According to these figures, derived from a special plantation cen- gus of 1797, just over half the total land area of the sugar plantations (4314 acres) was actually in agricultural use. The remaining 48.4% was classified as woodland. Of the land-in-use, cropland accounted for 61% and pasture for 39%. Caneland comprised 75% of al! cropland, while provisions for plantation use took up 24% of the cultivated area. Not all of the caneland was planted. According to another census of 1804 CRigsarkivet 1804b), 16% of the cane fields lay fallow. The woodland category included some cleared land, such as roads, trails, shoreline and the settlement site. Plantation settlement areas consisted of three activity zones: 1. Great House Complex: Owner’s and/or manager’s residence, kitchen and other service buildings, servants’ quarters, wells, cisterns, privy, garden, cemetary. 2. Factory Complex: Grinding mill, boiling, curing and still houses¢s), storerooms, stables, pens, shops, magoss house, hospital, overseer’s rooms. 3. Workers’ Village: Small houses, garden plots, burial grounds. These three complexes were typically concentrated together on high ground near the center of the property. It is not possible to accurate- ly determine the size of the settlement area from available information. However, the 1804 census shows that the 20 St. John sugar plantations allocated a total of 117 acres, or about 6 acres each, to their slave villages. It can be estimated that an equivilent amount of land was assigned to the remaining settlement structures. The settlement area on the typical St. John sugar plantation, therefore, aggregated about 12 acres, with perhaps an additional 3 acres in trails, paths and roads. The Mixed Economy (1850-1950) The period between 1780 and 1850 constituted the golden age of King Sugar, an era characterized by intensive, specialized land use, rela- tively high population densities, and island-wide land management by and for the great sugar complexes. After 1840 several factors combined to undermine the St. John sugar economy and vitiate the plantation system. These impairments included declining soil fertility, mounting production costs, falling prices and scarcity of investment capital (Tyson 1984). Slave emancipation in 1848 accelerated the decline, as many laborers evaded the oppressive contract Labor Act of 1849 by leaving St. John for greater economic opportunities and personal freedom on the neighboring islands of St. Thomas and Tortola (Olwig 1986). Overall population on St. John plunged from 2450 residents in 1846 to just 944 In 1880. During the same period the ll *ST6I-SO8T ‘B3ep asn pueT uyor "3g °¢ eTqeL 9881 UPTIPY S@pNTOUT, ‘eanqsed sepnToxd, “TI6T-SEST. ATIAeSHPA ‘StET-sZLT YoaTyTesbyY :seorNog q eu % ZOZET % 80zZT PPot oT 86Z bbz ze ZT 6S €z 0€ T ST6T (TT6T) #16 % 690€T % Bpect |. L08 oT 95% 902 18 Set os 0z 62 T OT6T vu % 690ET b/E SEEZT 92L mL £97 T6T bL LIT zs SZ Sz Zz SO6T (TO6T) 228 % 690ET % LEZZT ¥/E $28 % OT Ove 68T #9 S2T ts zz 9% € 006T eu % 690ET % EPSZT $/E 660 9z 612 got 99 Zot Ts GZ TZ Ss S68T P26 % 690ET B/E SSECT % TE9 z8 TZ Tot BL £8 es zz Lz i 068T eu b/E E662T b/E LREZT 0s 90T || z6T | 6ET 69 0L es 82 02 Hg Se8T S8 b/E E€6ZT b/E T2bZT y9S "BL eet z6 zh 0z TS 92 Zz T 08st Bu b/E €66ZT b/€ 90EZT 66S 88 S¥T €6 6L tT zs 6Z it 9 SLBT nN SS6 b/E €662T b/E GLLIT 8L0T 9€T ZzeT ze €9 6 0s 74 2% y OL8T 4 _ ea B/E €662T 8/S ZbZTT e/t zert | 68S . Tet z8 09 zz 6 Tz iT TE || S98t Lzpt #/€ S8EZT 960TT v/E LEET zas 86 uy eu eu TS 74 PT | €T |} o9eT ELIT % 8682T %LSVIT |. % €68 seg 16 6E eu eu zs 8z Tt “| et [| sset SZET % 86821 0060T % 2Z0T ‘946 ze - | €Te 9 Sz Ts Lt 8T 9T |] OS8T €Tlz % OT62T — % T6zTt “084 6£8 9L St 6 9T TS Tt 6T ST || SPST (TP8T) T9TZ SROT6ZT % 6OIIT | Ts8 0S6 64 9% v zz €S oT Tz 9t || Ost - SERZ % OT62ZT % SUSTT w LZE S66 18 62 8 Tz zs st iK4 9T |] SEST 6Tee % 9T6ZT % OCSTT [.° »0L7- 9TIt 9L rd t 0z zs st Tz ST |] OceT b22Z % OT62T b/E LSPTT p & Th TIzT 6s | 9 y z €s 8st BT | LT |] Szet £22 % 006ZT w/e vottt | 4% 082 SSPT 95 € € ) es | oz | st | st |{ozer 90€Z ZLbZT 5 LLbOT pT EEb T9ST SS € € 0 zs 6T st Bt || Stet 9BEZ ZESZT LECOT 508 069T 29 Tt 0 T 19 | Tz 6T TZ || OT8t LLS@ 90SzT 8866 pote 88ZT S9 z T on £9 0z zz Tz |] Soest WLOL | CADET ANWO THOL | Galva) aalwal Twiolj GaLwAy avons] wons| | dvaa, ae : GNWTGOOM WHIO {| wvons ELINONA| -LIAn9 SEIOONG NON] - NOLIWINdOd . SLINN Tyan (sadov) sasn aNwI AYLOL SaYOW OS UaGNn SYOW YO sauOV 0S - "SUFPTOY-TTeus evo sejouep @ “ci61 ‘S3uyproy-TTeus uyor 3g Jo woTanqyz3stq *¢€ eansTg wQ007 0 a 4 ‘ *e iva ° snoazzONrH Y ‘ AVE Aya xTIOg Jy Pp S,NHor | * , . zn peseas . ® -_ . . oe AP o 4e "4 e a q xva SITUS ; ee? woes z ” 7° °? cate . v4 waLudno Ava ZNUd kva $,uzanvs ‘ ivd THNVOE OTaVE TvH09 Cy yaLyyne Ava IvY0> : ° Uv : ° ; iva 2 & cf swaiuvne AVd OHYW ONONVNNED ° « e- e e*e @ e . sve OHYR . @@e. ¢ oe ee ee ? .. bd eee oo AVE S,.NNOUE ash 6 XV@ WALSNITI amount of caneland shrunk from ‘839 to 8 acres (Table 3). By 1915 only Par Force plantation in Reef Bay Quarter still cultivated sugar cane commercially. The St. John plantation system buckled under the impact of slave emancipation and the demise of the sugar industry, but it did not collapse. It adapted to changing conditions by converting to small- scale, labor extensive, diversified agricultural pursuits, such as provision farming, fruit growing (limes, mangoes, guava, bananas), bay leaf harvesting/processing, and, most importantly, livestock (cattle and sheep) raising (Tyson 1984). In 1915 there were still 31 operational piantations with combined landhoidings of 12,114 acres. However, only 729 acres were actually being farmed, chiefly as pasture. Much of the remainder had reverted to secondary forest. Although the plantations controlled 91% of the land in 1915, most of the rural population lived outside their boundaries. The plantations survived into the twentieth century largely because their owners began sharing land resources with the newly emancipated labor force, thus laying the foundations of a freeholding peasantry unique in the Danish West Indies. Much of the impetus toward agricultural diversification after 1850 came from the mixed subsistence economy practiced by these resourceful peasant cultivators. Data presented in Tables 3 and 4 shows that between 1805 and 1915 the number of smail-holdings (50 acres or less) on St. John rose from 2 to 244. In the latter year 75% of the population lived on these plots, which engrossed 9% of the land, and accounted for 31% of all land-in- use. Figure 3 shows the distribution of small-holdings in 1915. TABLE 4. Acreage and Land Use on St. John Small-holdings, 1805-1915 SVSSSSSOVSVVASSSSOI EVI VAS LEC LAVI SSSI LESLIE TS VISAS SSS SSS Ss SSS Vs TTT TTT Year Units Sugar Pasture & Unused Totals Acres Provisions 1805 4 0 1 31 32 1830 24 0 28 153 181 1860 47 0 43 312 355 1885 139 1 158 676 835 1915 244 0 325 823 1148 Source: Rigsarkivet 1728-1915 oe we om ee 14 The impact of the peasant sector on the landscape exceeded actual land ownership, because in addition to parcelling out land, the planters frequently entered into rental or sharecropping arrangements, allowing peasants access to unused estate land (Olwig 1986). The St. John peasantry practiced a subsistence economy involving a combination of occupational activities, including shifting provision cultivation, rearing smali numbers of livestock, charcoal production, boat building, fishing, sailing, sand and ballast rock harvesting, basketry and part-time plantation labor. A discrete Afro-Caribbean culture, baged on traditions of cooperation, sharing and reciprocity, crystallized around these diverse economic pursuits (Olwig 1986). Within fifty years after Emancipation a distinctive socio-economic order based on small-scale, diversified agriculture, synergistically practiced by a relatively small population of plantation owners and peasants had evolved on St. John. In this system of integrated resource Management people’s energies were directed not toward rearranging the environment, but to making the most effective use of microhabitat and Natural phenomena. A balance had been reached between production for the market and production for domestic use, which ensured the inhabi- tants a modest livelihood and a high degree of cultural autonomy. The development of this mixed economy significantly altered the land use Situation, as can be seen from a review of the data presented in Table 3. Between i805 and 1915 the amount of land-in-use on St. John de- creased by 58%, from 2158 to 1054 acres. Whereas in 1800 about 34% of the island was subject to intense exploitation, by 1915 only 8% remained in agricultural use. During this period the cultivation of sugarcane virtually ceased and there was a fundamental shift in land use from cropland to pasture. Population pressure on land resources eased con- siderably as the number of inhabitants fell from 2577 to 905, a net loss of 65%. Overall population density dropped from 134 to 47 persons per square mile. In 1917 the United States took possession of St. John along with the other Danish West Indian colonies. Although American rule did not Significantly alter the prevailing system of land tenure before 1950, it did disrupt post-emancipation patterns of land distribution and land use. The basic contours of the plantation system remained intact, pri- marily because large landowners held on to their properties for specula- tive, rather than agricultural, purposes. Land distribution to smali- holders was curtailed, and landholdings were concentrated into fewer hands, so that in 1950 just 14 owners held 10,460 acres, or 82% of St. John (Tyson 1984). Between 1930 and 1950 most plantations ceased commercial farming and fell into ruin. The once promising forestry industry collapsed. Livestock farming also suffered a downturn, al- though it persisted on a few estates. 15 After 1930 peasant subsistence activities also contracted, and many settlement sites were abandoned by their owners. Between 1917 and 1950, the rural population, which had been fairly stable since 1880, dropped from 900 to around 700. By 1950 smallholders probably had no more than 100 acres under cultivation. Charcoal production. continued to be the chief source of peasant income during this period, but by 1950 it too had almost ceased (Tyson 1984). The post-emancipation productive system, which began disintegrating during the 1930’s, has been totally transformed by the establishment of an open tourist economy and the St. John National Park in the 1950’s and 1960’s. During the past 35 years, most of the old plantation land has been Incorporated into the National Park system, which has shut it off to traditional agricultural and forest. uses. Concurrently, small culti- vators have abandoned the land as a source of livelihood, although some St. Johnians continue to engage in ground provision cultivation and artisanal fishing in order to supplement their government or tourist related incomes (Olwig 1986; Koester 1986). A way of life has disap- peared, while much of the landscape has been deliberately managed to a wilderness state that obscures its cultural dynamic. 16 LAND USE IN REEF BAY WATERSHED - hical Sett The Reef Bay watershed, located on the south side of St. John (Figure 1), drains 1391 acres (Hubbard, et al. 1987). The watershed is characterized by steep slopes rising to heights of 1000 to 1200 feet on three sides of a narrow, alluvial valley that opens broadly to the sea at Reef Bay on the south. The northern boundary is defined by the island’s central east-west oriented mountain ridgeline, culminating at Mamey Peak (1147 feet). The eastern border is defined at its upper elevation by the Bordeaux mountain spur stretching north-south toward Bordeaux Peak (1277 feet), thence meandering along a subsidiary spur toward White Point on the eastern side of Reef Bay. The western border is defined by another north-south trending mountain spur that incorpo- rates Camelberg Peak (1193 feet) before arcing in an ENE-WSW direction toward a shallow headland (Oyens or Owens Hill) that separates Reef and Fish Bays. Reef Bay Gut, the gecond longest drainage basin on St. John, com- pletely bisects the watershed, running 1.7 miles from Mamey Peak to Reef Bay. It is paralleled on the west by Rustenburg Gut, which extends 1.1 miles before joining it on the valley floor. Water flows in these two guts are intermittent. Most of the watershed has slopes of 40-60 degrees. Cramer variety soils predominate in the uplands, San Anton varieties on the valley floor Rivera, et. al. 1970). Prehistoric Land Use There is little evidence of significant land use in the Reef Bay watershed prior to the historic epoch. Two prehistoric sites have been found in the Reef Bay valley by surface surveys, but only limited cul- tural remains have been encountered, leading archaeologists to speculate that Reef Bay was not heavily populated or utilized by aborigines (Sleight 1962; Prokopetz and Hamilton 1977; Johnston 1981). It is en- tirely possible, however, that other evidence of prehistoric settlement may have been destroyed/buried by the dynamic of upland erosion and lowland sedimentation generated by historic agricultural activities. Historic Land U Whatever the level of prehistoric activity, there can be no doubt that the greatest human impact on the Reef Bay watershed occurred during the historic era, through the medium of the plantation system. All of the land within the Reef Bay watershed was parcelled out for plantation development during the first decade of Danish occupation. A total of i2 plantation grounds, comprising approximately 1455 Danish acres, were distributed by Danish authorities between 1718 and 1726 (Table 5). 17 TABLE 5. Plantation development in Reef Bay watershed, 1718-1728 a mazes Sesser TTT Tass sssssSSSS= Plantation . 1728 Owner Year Acres Laid Out (Danish) Adventure A Jan Viack 1718 150 Rustenburg A Jacob Magens 1718 150 Rustenburg B Jacob Magens 1718 150 Pasquereaux Pasquereaux heirs 1721 158 Hope A Adrian v. Beverhoudt 1721 150 Hope B Adrian v. Beverhoudt 1721 75 Misgunst Reis David 1724 112 Par Force A Andreas Tortensen 1721 150 Par Force B Jochim Stol ley 1721 150 Par Force C Bertel Swennings 1721 113 Par Force D Anthony Kambeck 1724 97 Little Reef Bay Phillip Diedrich 1726 75 ee a RO SD SS SD at SS SE SS uD EOL UD SOD SR a DO SD Sn he a le eS Os ee A Oe we at ee Se et eta AO A A a a A a he ey nea ne ee re ee ONO Se ORAS Sm i Se ES ee sh Se eee ae ie ae ce meee Between 1725 and 1800, 11 of these original plantation grounds were progressively consolidated into 4 large units: Rustenburg/Adventure (450 acres), Pasquereaux (175 acres), Hope/Misgunst (275 acres), Par Force (500 acres). Little Reef Bay (75 acres) was the only plantation unaffected by the consolidation process. Thereafter, the plantations retained these acreages until their acquisition by the National Park Service in the 1950’s. It should be noted that plantation boundaries do not coincide ex- actly with watershed boundaries. Three upland plantations - Sieben, Maria’s Hope (Vessup), and Bordeaux - each having some land within the watershed, have been excluded from this study because the majority of their property was outside the watershed. Sieben plantation, with considerable acreage on the ridgelines and slopes in the southwestern quadrant of the watershed, has been been excluded because after 1755 land use and population data relating to it was combined with that of Mollendal plantation in the land tax records. The Sieben/Mol lenda! plantation has been included in the Fish Bay watershed, which is discussed in the next section, since most of its land lies within those boundaries. The reader should bear in mind, therefore, that the Reef Bay watershed experienced somewhat greater human Manipulation than is statistically indicated in this discussion. The statistical distortion is offset somewhat by the fact that Adventure, a 150 acre plantation located outside of the watershed, has been incorporated into it by this study. This inclusion became neces- sary because after 1772 Adventure was combined with Rustenburg and so lost its independent listing in the tax records. 18 TABLE 6. Reef Bay land use - indices: 1739, 1760, 1800 Sees ss see $f Se SS SS SS A SNE sates ce en. es ees ame 1739 1760 1800 Total Plantations 1i 8 5 Total Plantation Acreage 1475 1475 1475 Total Plantation Slaves 242 383 267 Total Plantation Population 253 387 275 Estimated Cropland (acres) ? 363 575 401 Population Density P 110 168 119 Av. Plantation Acreage 134 184 295 Av. Plantation Population 23 48 55 Av. Acres Cropland 33 92 80 Number of Plantations 4 5 4 Plantation Acreage 600 1100 1400 Plantation Slaves 130 349 267 Plantation Population 133 352 275 Estimated Cropland ‘Cacres) @ 195 524 413 Population Density > 142 205 126 Av. Plantation Acreage 150 220 350 Av. Plantation Population 33 70 69 Av. Acres Cropland 49 105 103 % Total Plantations 36.3 62.5 80.0 % of Total Acreage 40.7 74.6. 94.9 % of Total Population : 52.0 91.0 100.0 % of Total Cropland 53.7 91.1 100.0 Number of Plantations 6 3 0 Plantation Acreage 725 375 0 Plantation Slaves 112 34 0 Plantation Population 120 35 0 Estimated Cropland Cacre@) 2 168 51 0 Population Density ? 106 60 0 Av. Plantation Acreage 121 125 0 Av. Plantation Population 20 12 0 Av. Acres Cropland 28 17 8) % of Total Plantations 54.5 37.5 6) % of Total Acreage 49.1 25.4 ) % of Total Population 48.0 0.09 0 % of Total Cropland 46.3 0.09 8) ivated .P. Number of Plantations 1 0 1 Acreage 150 0 75 % of Total. Plantations .09 0 20 % of Total Acreage 10.1 0 0.05 ource: Rigsarkivet 1728-1915 b ; Estimated at 1.5 acres per slave. “Persons per square mile ome te canes eee cm ant arse a nm ne ND DD en Sb, eid eh SAND SPO Sine SY SY ae De SO US SOS a SE SU SO SS OE SOD SES ey CY iD els re OD a Se Data summarizing land use and population trends in the Reef Bay watershed during the eighteenth century is presented in Table 6. Com- parison with similiar data in Table 1 demonstrates that watershed plantations were generally larger, more densely populated and more extensively cultivated than most St. John plantations. For example, in 1739 they contained 18% more acreage, were 22% more densely populated and had 39% more cropland than the island-wide average. By 1760 these figures stood at 18%, 34% and 61% respectively. Prior to 1740 watershed plantations practiced a diversified agri- cultural economy centering around the cultivation of sugarcane and cotton, but also involving provision farming, stock grazing and coffee growing. Jacob Magens, owner of Rustenburg, reportedly introduced the latter crop to St. John (Marfeldt n. d.>. Comparison of Table 6 with Table 1 shows that the statistical deviations from island-wide norms in 1739 and 1760 were largely attributable to the relative strength of the sugar plantations. Cane was being grown on Rustenburg, Adventure and Hope plantations from the 1720’s. Misgunst shifted from cotton to sugar around 1735. However, before 1740 land use features within the watershed were also strongly determined by the non- sugar plantations, nearly all of which cultivated cotton. In 1739 the non-sugar plantations contained 24% more land and 30% more residents than those outside the watershed. Between 1740 and 1760 sugarcane cultivation expanded significantly within the watershed, while non-sugar acreage contracted. By 1760, and probably earlier, five large sugar plantations occupied 75% of the watershed and held 92% of the population. Cane was also being grown on watershed uplands belonging to Sieben, Maria’s Hope and Bordeaux. - Watershed sugar plantations - Rustenburg/Adventure in the northwest corner, Par Force on the valley floor and Hope/Misgunst on the western slopes of Bordeaux Mountain - were about the same size as their counter- parts elsewhere on the island; but, in 1760 they had larger than average populations and population densities. And, because of their higher number of slaves, they undoubtedly had more land under cultivation than the norm. For example, in 1767 all 150 acres of Rustenburg plantation were being exploited: one hundred acres were planted in cane, 20 acres were planted in provisions and the remainder was in “negro plantation" (Rigsarkivet 1763-1775). Evidence survives of considerable terracing around Rustenburg and along the watershed’s eastern slopes between Misgunst and Pasquereaux. The three non-sugar properties in 1760 were Pasquereaux, in the upper northeastern corner, which concentrated on coffee cultivation until shifting to sugar at the end of the eighteenth century; Par Force B in the southeastern corner, which cultivated cotton unti] 1765, when it was absorbed into the Par Force sugar plantation; and Little Reef Bay in the southwestern corner, which grew some cotton, but emphasized the production of foodstuffs and livestock for sale to the surrounding sugar 20 plantations. Coffee was also cultivated along with sugar on Rustenburg and Hope plantations during the second half of the eighteenth century (Tyson 1984), while some cocoa was cultivated on Rustenburg, Maria’s Hope and possibly Pasquereaux along the watershed’s upper northern slopes (Rigsarkivet 1763-1775). Figure 4, which depicts the size of the watershed slave population between 1730 and 1800, shows that the highest slave densities, and, by correlation, the most intense agricultural land use, occurred during the two decades between 1755 and 1775. During this period the slaves were more or less equally distributed among watershed sugar plantations (Table 7), indicating roughly the same degree of environmenta! modi fica- tion. While agricultural activity, along with the slave population, fell off somewhat after 1775, it remained at a relatively high level into the first decade of the nineteenth century. 400 “= 350 - 300 = s 250 = Pa Slaves 200 = 150 = 100 ™ 1730 1735.1 174077 1745 = 17507) 1755™ 1760™ 1765— 1770™ 1775™ 1780" 1785 = 1790 om 1795™ 1800™ Figure 4. Reef Bay slave population trends, 1730-1800. 21 Figure 5 . “me SH) Mh White Lynt 7 0 feet robo Reef Bay watershed in 1800. (Oxholm 1800). be Cage ie) nanen SK 7, WEEE : 3 22 The nature of plantation land use and extent of land clearance in the Reef Bay watershed around 1800 can be rather precisely estab! ished from data presented in Table 7, and examination of Peter L. Oxholm’s 1800 map of St. John (Figure 5). TABLE 7. Plantation land use in Reef Bay watershed, 1797 222: Si oe ee se enw eee saws we St Se ee ee ee ee ees Sp See en re ese 7 SSSSGSRBSAMSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS SVS AS VS SV SSS Ss oss VST Tse sss Ss sss Ses SSSA Plantation Cane Other Pas- Wood- % Im- Popula- Live- Land Crops ture land proved tion stock Rustenburg/Adv. 70 30 84 266 41% 112 98 Par Force 90 40 40 330 34% 70 44 Hope/Misgunst 40 5 60 195 35% 55 33 Pasquereaux 502 404 2 58 61% 53 14 Little Reef Bay 0 3 72 0 100% 10 39 Totals 250 118 258 849 42% 300 228 ~ me ae ae ee a me ae a are see ae ae me _ Sources: Rigsarkivet 1728-1915; 1797 41804 figures on ae ie eee en a OR AOS SO lt aS OD SS ONS a wD Sl lh ED nD Sh Am GY Ss a eh Mm eh Sane ae SD SRD SS a a Se Hm Se ty kh ee Oe According to the data presented in Table 7, 42% of watershed land was improved in 1800, compared to an island-wide figure of 35%. Crop- land accounted for 59% of the improved land, with pasture making up the remainder. Caneland comprised over two-thirds of the cropland. Most other cropland was planted in provisions, except for a few acres of coffee still being grown at Pasquereaux. Comparison with island-wide statistics presented in Table 2 reveals that despite greater than normal land clearance within the watershed, al! forms of agricultural activity on watershed sugar plantations were less extensive than on sugar proper- ties elsewhere. Oxholm’s map (Figure 5), which shows roughly half of the watershed in vegetation, confirms and particularizes the statistical data. It shows extensive clearance around al! plantations, except Pasquereaux, which was just being opened up for sugar cultivation in 1800. According to Oxholm there were two large concentrations of woodland: one covered the long, dissected mountain spur abutting the western side of the Reef Bay Gut; the other extended along a mountain spur stretching between White Point and Bordeaux Peak in the southeastern corner of the watershed. It is likely that some part of both of these woodland areas had previously been under cultivation. The old Par Force D plantation was located somewhere in the first woodland cluster, while Par Force. B occu- pied the second. In all probability Rustenburg/Adventure cultivation once extended into some of the woodland area in the north-central part of the watershed. 23 TABLE 8. Reef Bay plantation land uSe trends, 1797-1915 1797 1836 1875 1915 Caneland aman Rustenburg/Adventure 70 40 0 0 Pasquereaux 502 0 0 0 Par Force 90 60 10 10 Hope/Misgunst 40 50 0 0 Little Reef Bay 0 0 0 0 Total (Danish acres): 250 150 10 10 Rustenburo/Adventure 114 30 30 0 Pasquereaux 402 0 0 0 Par Force 80 60 47 24 Hope/Misgunst 65 50 20 4 Little Reef Bay 75 10 0 4 Total (Danish acres): 374 150 97 32 Rustenburg/Adventure 266 380 420 450 Pasquereaux 602 175 175 175 Par Force 330 380 443 466 Hope/Misgunst 195 175 255 271 Little Reef Bay 0 65 75 71 Total (Danish acres): 851 1175 1368 1433 Rustenburg/Adventure 112 62 16 0 (1911) Pasquereaux 53 0 0 0 ¢1911) Par Force 70 83 15 27? (1911) Hope/Misgunst 55 117 0 0 ¢€1911> Little Reef Bay 10 18 0 0 €1911) Total: 300 280 31 2? ¢1911) Source: Rigsarkivet 1728-1915; 1797. 1804 24 Data presented in Table 8, summarized in Figure 6, shows that Reef Bay experienced a significant decline in agricultural land use between 1797 and 1915. During this period sugar production and other kinds of agricultural activity ceased on all plantations except for Par Force and Little Reef Bay. Despite the failure of commercial agriculture, planta- tion owners held on to their properties, so smallholders never estab- lished themselves in the watershed. 100 90 80 70 = 60 50 Percent 40 30 20 10 1797 1836 1875 1915 Figure 6. Land Use trends in Reef Bay watershed, 1797-1915. Sugarcane cultivation ceased on Pasquereaux in 1813, on Hope/ Misgunst in 1849 and on Rustenburg/Adventure after the hurricane of 1867. The latter plantation had an average of 60 acres planted in cane between 1845 and 1865, but apparently its owner could not raise suffi- cient capital to repair the hurricane damage to his sugar works. 25 ws a 1) >» ir ESE — ay \ iQ SS t, Ky OG Rat nigh . ae yh H iH H (Ce RU REEF BAY NY RY \N | feet O- Figure 7, Reef Bay watershed in 1919 (USCGS 1919). 26 As sugar production proved increasingly unprofitable, watershed planters shifted to other agricultural pursuits, particularly stock farming. But these new ventures enjoyed little success, and within a few decades operations ceased altogether, except on Par Force. Pasquereaux was abandoned in 1826, Hope/Misgunst in 1887, Rustenburg Adventure in 1898. Little Reef Bay, without the sugar plantations to cater to, also fell on hard times, going unoccupied for 40 years (1869-1909) before being reactivated as a stock estate by William Henry Marsh, owner of Par Force. Post-sugar era livestock herds were rather small. In 1860, for example, the watershed contained a total of 112 adult cattle, 31 sheep and 32 goats. By 1877 there were only 57 cattle and 6 goats, but the sheep population had grown to 68 (Rigsarkivet 1728-1915). Rustenburg and Par Force were the leading stock estates, even while they cultivated sugar. Although some grass pastures were planted and fenced, open range grazing was commonplace. After 1900 only Par Force and Little Reef Bay remained operational. They supported a population of some 25 residents, who cultivated from 7 to 10 acres of sugar cane, grazed small herds of cattle, and harvested some fruit, coconuts and vegetables (Rigsarkivet 1728-1915). According to an informant (Pickwood 1986) who lived on Par Force between 1895 and 1905, plantation operations extended over the entire valley floor. Sugarcane was planted just behind the marshy area north- east of the factory; fruit and coconut trees, used solely for domestic consumption, abounded; provision grounds for the plantation household and the estate laborers were located around the worker village and great house at the northern end of the valley floor. Although three or four enclosed grass pieces were set aside for sheep and cattle, most of the time plantation livestock roamed freely in the thickly wooded hills gurrounding the settiement. A detailed fieldmap of the Reef Bay watershed, prepared by the United States Coast and Geodetic Survey in 1919 (Figure 7), conficms the informant’s memory. It shows watershed slopes covered with trees and a cleared valley floor planted in grass and cane, with a banana patch and coconut grove behind the Reef Bay shoreline. Sugar and rum were stil! being processed at the estate factory (Swainson 1919). Little information respecting land use in the Reef Bay watershed between 1920 and 1950 has been located. It has been established through local informants and fragmentary documentation that Par Force and Little . Reef Bay plantations remained occupied and marginally operational into the 1940’s. During this period the locus of agricultural activity shifted somewhat from the Reef Bay valley to the slopes around Little Reef Bay. But, the overall amount of land in use appears to have remained fairly constant at 30 to 40 acres. 27 In 1930 five persons lived on Par Force (Shaw 1940). An agricul- tural census return of that year (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1930) showed that cane cultivation had ended, and that only 2 acres of improved land remained. A herd of 44 cattle grazed the property. The owner ‘Anna Marsh) sold small amounts of milk and fruit (limes, mangoes, guava and oranges). Little Reef Bay contained 30 improved acres, and a herd of 25 cattle in 1930. Its owner (A. A. Richardson, the island Administrator) sold small amounts of milk, fruit (mangoes, bananas, ]imes) and coconuts (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1930). No returns were submitted in 1930 for the other watershed proper- ties, indicating that they remained unimproved. However, some forest industry did occur there. In 1904 Baron de Castenskjold, a Danish nobleman who owned Lameshur and Bordeaux plantations, acquired Misgunst, Hope and Pasquereaux from the Marsh family. The Baron allowed a few families to settle on Bordeaux Mountain so that they could harvest leaves from bay tree groves. A number of these bay trees were located in the upper reaches of the watershed around Hope and Misgunst planta- tions (Figure 7). Herman QO. Creque, who purchased Castenskjold’s holdings in 1922, continued this practice, at least into the 1930’s (NARS 1933). Bay leaf harvesting also occurred around Rustenburg during the same period. Field surveys confirmed extensive bay tree orchards in all these upland areas, as well as several old charcoal pits, indicating that the pickers also cut and burnt estate wood. This pattern of limited occupation and land use continued through the 1940’s. Aerial photographs of 1947 (U.S. Air Force 1947) show the watershed covered with vegetation, except for a few small patches of clearance along the upper slopes of Bordeaux Mountain, at Rustenburg and near the Par Force factory. Sizable areas on the hillsides above the Little Reef Bay settlement and along the crest of Billington Ridge, south of the Par Force great house, seem to have been partially cleared, probably for use as pasture. Of the vegetated area only about 20%, located primarily along the western slope of Bordeaux Mountain, could be classified as forest. The remainder appears to be scrub, indicating intensive prior land use. By the mid-1950’s, according to aerial photographs (U. S. Geologi- cal Survey 1954) and a USGS topographic map (U. S. Geological Survey 1958), most of the cleared or partially cleared patches had reverted to bush, while the forested area had expanded. Par Force seems to have been abandoned, and residential usage was restricted to three buildings at Little Reef Bay. 28 LAND USE IN FISH BAY WATERSHED Geographical Setting The Fish Bay watershed, draining a total of 1448 acres (Hubbard, et. al., 1987), features several diverse terrains. In the north is a gently sloping upland plateau, roughly 2000 feet wide and 7000 feet in length. Cramer soils, in association with Isaac and San Anton variet- ies, predominate here. The eastern part of the watershed consists principally of a long mountain spur, with relatively gentle upper slopes, slanting southward from Camelberg Peak Ridge toward the sea. The watershed’s southern portion is characterized by steep, rocky terrain, except for some smal] alluvial fans with San Anton soils in the narrow lowland valleys immediately behind Fish Bay (Rivera 1970). Two major watercourses drain the central uplands into Fish Bay: Battery Gut, originating at Herman Farm, and Fish Bay Gut, beginning at L’Esperance. They converge at the northern end of the Fish Bay valley before emptying into a mangrove swamp behind Fish Bay. A shorter gut, originating in the hills between Sieben and Mollendal and entering Fish Bay from the east, drains the southeastern quadrant of the watershed. The three guts flow intermittently, but there are standing pools of water year-round in Fish Bay and Battery guts. Reportedly, the gut between L’Esperance and Fish Bay was never dry during the second half of the eighteenth century (Rigsarkivet 1804). Four prehistoric sites have been found by surface surveys in the Fish Bay watershed. Ali of these sites are located around Fish Bay. One is on the west side of Ditlef Point. Another is on Owens Hill. Two sites are in the central Fish Bay valley, on either side of Fish Bay Gut. No sites have been reported in the upper part of the watershed (Sleight 1962; Prokopetz and Hamilton 1977; Johnston 1981). None of the sites appear to be extensive; but collectively they suggest a relatively high level of prehistoric activity. From the num- ber of shells present it can be conjectured that aboriginal inhabitants selected the area more for its marine resources than its agricultural potentials. Histori Use Land in the upper parts of the Fish Bay watershed was completely taken up by aspiring planters within three years after Danish coloni- zation commenced. Plantation development came somewhat later to the lower section around Fish Bay, indicating the poor agricultural value of this area. By 1729, however, as shown by Table 9, the entire watershed had been organized into 20 plantations. 29 TABLE 9. Plantation development in Fish Bay watershed, 1718-1729 sss: SSeS 2525222522525S555 S222 == Plantation 1728 Owner Year Acres Laid Out (Danish) Jochumsdah! A J. Delicat Jr. heirs 1718 75 Jochumsdahl B Jacob Delicat 1718 75 Cathar inaberg Judith Ann Delicat 1718 150 L’ Esperance A Eric Breda} 1721 150 L’ Esperance B Christian Crabbe 1725 150 Adrian A Adrian Runnels 1718 150 Adrian B Adrian Runnels 1725 37 Susanaberg A Isaac Runnels 1721 200 Susanaberg B Abraham Runnels 1721 113 Beverhoudtsberg A Johannes v. Beverhoudt 1721 150 Beverhoudtsberg B Johannes Runnels 1718 75 Bel lvue Anna Maria v. Hoeten 1721 150 Fish Bay A William Carstensens 1729 44 Fish Bay B Ditief Madden 1727 22 Fish Bay C Volkers & v. Hermal] 1721 150 Fish Bay D Diedrich v. Stell 1726 70 Mollendal A Adrian Charles 1727 113 Mol lenda!l B Gerard Mol] 1721 112 Sieben A Elizabeth Friis 1727 75 Sieben B Johan v. Sieben 1721 150 SO ee Ce SY Om AD Coe OR SD COTS SD OD OR AES Atte at AOS, EOC ERD ND UY A mY SOND AN AD a hy A ts te ee EE ne ome SEP Sam Se) EAP SOD SOS Se ha ele om ee a oe SO Sa SS TY Se Sa wh my Mm Sy ae cat ew ES nth me et nee SSN a ee wim hat SS TO SD Me nh Sm OE SY ARE Sane: OD Se ant See AO ite it te mi ao wre Between 1730 and 1800 all but one of these original plantation grounds were progressively consolidated into 7 large units: L’Esperance (225 acres), Jochumsdah!/Catharinaberg, called Herman Farm (300 acres), Adrian (225 acres), Susanaberg/Denis Bay (300 acres), Beverhoudtsberg (225 acres); Fish Bay (350 acres); Sieben/Mollendal (400 acres). Bell- vue (150 acres) was the only plantation uneffected by the consolidation process, although it was often affiliated with neighboring Beverhoudts- berg. Most plantations retained these acreages into the 1950’s. A 25 acre tract called Grunwald was permanently separated from Bellvue in 1871. Susanaberg had a 75 acre tract (Denis Bay) split from it in 1877. Sieben/Mollendal transferred 49 acres to smalltholders between 1879 and 1913. For statistical purposes, however, these smalier tracts have been grouped with their parent plantation throughout this study. Plantation boundaries do not coincide exactly with watershed bound- aries. As noted in the preceding section, some Sieben land actually lay within the Reef Bay watershed. About one-third of the land belonging to Herman Farm, Susanaberg and Adrian also fell outside the watershed. Given the organization of the land tax records, it was not possible to 30 TABLE 10. Fish Bay land uge indices: 1739, 1760, 1800 1739 1760 1800 Total Piantations 18 12 10 Total Piantation Acreage 2225 2225 2225 Total Plantation Slaves 400 622 649 Total Plantation Population 435 656 664 Estimated Cropland (acres) 3 600 933 996 Population Density > 125 189 191 Av. Plantation Acreage 124 185 223 Av. Plantation Population 24 55 66 Av. Acres Cropland 33 78 100 U Number of Plantations 9 7 6 Plantation Acreage 1525 1750 1750 Plantation Slaves 318 514 649 Plantation Population 340 533 664 Estimated Cropland (acres) 3 477 771 996 Population Density © 143 195 243 Av. Plantation Acreage 169 250 292 Av. Plantation Population 38 76 Lil Av. Acres Cropland 53 110 166 % Total Plantations 50.0 58.3 60.0 % of Total Acreage 68.5 78.7 78.7 % of Total Population 78.2 81.2 100.0 % of Total Cropland 79.5 82.6 100.0 Number of Plantations 8 5 8) Plantation Acreage 625 475 8) Plantation Slaves 82 108 0 Plantation Population 95 123 Q Estimated Cropland (acres) ? 123 162 0 Population Density b 97 166 0 Av. Piantation Acreage 738 95 is} Av. Piantation Population 12 25 0 Av. Acres Cropland 1S 32 8) % of Total Plantations 44.4 41.7 0 % of Total Acreage 28.1 21.3 0 % of Total Population 21.8 — 18.8 0 % of Total Cropiand 20.5 17.4 8) Number of Plantations 1 Q 4 Acreage 78 0 475 % of Total Plantations 05.6 0 40.0 % of Total Acreage 03.4 0} 21.3 ee ee ee nee ee ee cee a cree ae re me a a a ae eS AE OI cE OOD SO oe SO rm Se eh Se ce cme eee me ae een em cn em ce ee ree ource: Rigsarkivet 1728-1915 b ; Estimated at 1.5 acres per slave. Persons per square mile eliminate this acreage statistically from watershed holdings. On the other hand, nearly all arable land belonging to these properties fel] within the watershed, so data respecting land use has not been badly distorted. Data summarizing land use and population trends in Fish Bay water- shed during the eighteenth century is presented in Table 10. Comparison with similiar data in Table | demonstrates that from the outset water- shed plantations, were larger and more densely populated than most on St. John. As illustration, in 1739 they contained 11% more acreage, were 31% more densely populated, and had 39% more cropland than the island-wide norm. In 1760 these figures had increased to 18%, 41% and 54% respectively. It can be inferred from this data that the watershed experienced far greater human modification and use than other parts of the island during the eighteenth century. The deviations from island-wide norms are largely attributable to the early predominance of sugar plantations within the watershed. Due to its gently sloping terrain, relatively deep, rich soils and high rainfall, the central upland plateau constituted the premier sugar producing area on St. John. Peter Oxholm declared that its soil was “excellent and produces much better and finer sugar than either of the other two Danish islands" (Oxholm 1780). Area plantation owners seconded this assessment (Rigsarkivet 1804a). Sugarcane cultivation started in the upland region almost immedi- ately after Danish occupation. Catharinaberg was harvesting cane as early as 1721, and had a sugar factory a year later (Larsen 1986). In 1739 nine watershed plantations accounted for 33% of the land and 44% of the population within the entire sugar sector. By 1760 cane was being grown on all upland watershed properties, except Bellvue. Although watershed sugar plantations - Herman Farm, Adrian, Sieben/Mollendal, Susanaberg, Beverhoudtsberg, L’Esperance - tended to be of average size, they were more densely populated and extensively cultivated than the norm. Indeed, it appears that by the second half of the eighteenth century, if not earlier, sugarcane blanketed virtually the entire centra] Plateau. Plantation inventories dating between 1767 and 1780 show that cane cultivation extended over all of Catharinaberg, nearly all of Beverhoudtsberg, three-quarters of Adrian and two-thirds of Jochumsdah!. Most of the remaining land was planted in provisions (Rigsarkivet 1765-1786; 1775-1796). Non-sugar plantations within the watershed were concentrated in the southern portion around Fish Bay. Like their counterparts elsewhere on the island they had smal} populations and limited amounts of land in use. It is difficult to determine from available documentation exactly what types of agricultural activity they engaged in. Bellvue cultivated cotton for a while, as did Fish Bay D. Both estates also pastured live- 32 earlier, raised cattle (Rigsarkivet 1763-1775). Fish were also harvest- ed by dragnets in the bay, hence its name (Marfeldt 1765). Commercial agriculture lasted for less than sixty years on the non- Sugar properties. Between 1750 and 1765 the four Fish Bay plantations and Sieben A were acquired by upland sugar planters, who apparently dis- continued cultivation and used them to support the grazing and lumber needs of their sugar plantations. The land tax records show Fish Bay as being unoccupied and uncultivated between 1788 and 1914, although other evidence suggests that it may not have been wholly abandoned. Bellvue ceased agricultural operations between 1792 and 1908 according to the tax records. Presumably, the area belonging to Sieben A, which had been absorbed into the Moliendal/Sieben sugar plantation, suffered the game fate (Rigsarkivet 1728-1915). Field surveys by the author around Fish Bay located litte evidence of terracing on surrounding slopes, which tends to confirm statistical] data suggesting that this area experienced relatively limited agricul- tural development. 600 ~ 550 500 . “N\ & 450] of &? a a Pad 5 ’ S 400+ wa 3504 300. 250— © Fp BE ga pr Oo ol oe oe ee ~~ 2 NN ww ON ON UN UN UN USM Um COUmNSUUCU UCU =>a-.lcC<C<Ci ]lmmlUlU UU OCOUTUCUDOF es ¢e & &§ $4 &€ G&G SF BSB SEB SS Figure 8. Fish Bay slave population trends, 1730-1800. 33 iS es ,) wh \ My 2. 4 ~ y ry Nile ft ’ ‘host 3 Gf Bs J SS hind tay Mid fens Wag Figure 9, Fish Bay watershed in 1800 (Oxholm 1800). 34 The watershed slave population curve (Figure 8), which indicates the trend of agricultural activity, reflects an irregular development pattern during the eighteenth century, with highest population densities occurring between 1765 and 1780. A sharp decline took place between 1775 and 1790, followed by an upswing that pushed population and land exploitation up to previously high levels by 1800. The nature of plantation land use and extent of land clearance in the Fish Bay watershed around 1800 can be rather precisely established from data presented in Table 11 and by examination of Oxholm’s map (Figure 9). TABLE 11. Land use on Fish Bay plantations, 1797 (Danish Acres) Plantation Cane Other Pas- Wood = & Im- Popu- = Live- Land Crops’ ture land proved lation stock A Ah SF a Nee a ae ES SD ND A RD SOY SD A SD Sh SS SOS ED SU) SD why nh GD nD Am a Se eS SS OD Oh a GE tet SR nh ms Susanaberg/Fish Bay 100 25 200 175 65% 120 97 Beverhoudtsberg 90 10 84 41 82% 55 93 Adrian 150 30 170 0 100% 124 59 L’ Esperance 156 25 25 19 92% 71 38 Herman Farm 150 40 110 0 100% 107 44 Sieben/Mol lendal 80 60 150 261 53% 107 141 Bellvue 0 0 0 137 0% 0 0 Totals: 726 190 739 633 72% 584 472 Sources: Rigsarkivet 1728-1915; 1797 According to the data presented in Table 11, a total of 1655 acres, or 72% of watershed land, was improved in 1800. Nearly all of this im- proved land was located in the upland portion of the watershed. Two properties, Adrian and Herman Farm, were 100% improved, while aimost al] of L’Esperance, and 82% of Beverhoudtsberg had been cleared. Cropland accounted for 55% of the improved land, with pasture making up the re- Mainder. Caneland comprised 72% of all cropland. The remaining crop- land was planted in provisions. Comparison with island-wide statistics of the period shows that the Fish Bay watershed, particularly its upland plateau, was one of the most extensively developed and intensively farmed areas on the _ istand. Oxholm’s map (Figure 9) confirms this impression. It shows a wide arc of cleared land stretching from Beverhoudtsberg northeastward to Herman Farm, and a somewhat narrower area of clearance between Herman Farm and the Sieben/Mollendal bluffs. . 35 Conversely, almost the entire lower part of the watershed was wood- ed. There were only two thinly cleared areas in this section, both in Fish Bay valley. One was a narrow strip around the settlement site of plantation #8 (Fish Bay C) on the east side of the gut. The cleared area extended northward up the slope to the Mollendal settlement site. The other was associated with plantation #10, which was located on a small bluff near the southeastern base of Gift Hill. It is likely, however, that a greater amount of the land around Fish Bay had once been cleared and occupied. Fish Bay D plantation was located somewhere around Owens Hill east of the Bay, while Fish Bay B was probably situated somewhere along Ditlef Point. Mollendal A may have occupied the narrow, north-south trending ridgeline just east of the plantation #8 settlement. Data presented in Table 12 and charted in Figure 10, shows that agrarian land use fell off dramatically between 1797 and 1915. In the 100 90 80 70 n °o w oO Percent 40 20 10 1797 1836 1875 1915 Figure 10. Land use trends in Fish Bay watershed, 1797-1915. 36 TABLE 12. Fish Bay plantation land use trends, 1797-1915 Se aS a eS a oS SE SS SS OE Se 1797 1836 1875 1915 usanaberg 100 55 1 0 Beverhoudt sberg 90 30 0 0 Adrian 150 85 30 0 L’ Esperance 156 0 0 0 Herman Farm 150 55 40 0 Sleben/Mol | endal 80 0 0 0 Bellvue 0 0 0 0 Fish Bay 0 0 0 0 Total (Danish acres): 726 225 71 0 Susanaberg 2254 50 37 70 Beverhoudtsberg 94 20 0 0 Adrian 200 40 44 0 L’ Esperance 50 10 0 0 Herman Farm 150 40 33 0 Sleben/Mol lendal 210 35 16 18 Bel lvue 0 0 4 15 Fish Bay - 0 0 3 Total (Danish acres): 929 198 134 106 Woodland Susanaberg 1754 195 262 230 Beverhoudtsberg 41 175 225 225 Adrian 0 100 151 225 L‘ Esperance 19 21s 225 225 Herman Farm 0 205 227 300 Sieben/Mol | endal 261 365 384 382 Bel lvue 137 150 146 135 Fish Bay - 350 350 347 Total (Danish acres): 633 1755 1970 2069 Susanaberg 1202 93 15 10 C1911) Beverhoudtsberg 55 43 0 0 €1911) Adrian 124 96 42 11 ¢€1911) L’ Esperance 71 13 0 0 (1911) Herman Farm 107 100 39 (1874) 0 (1911) Sieben/Mol lendah! 107 18 9 26 (1911) Bellvue 0 0 6 18 (1911) Fish Bay - 0 0 0 (1911) Total: 584 363 111 65. ¢€1911) Source: Rigsarkivet 1728-1915; 1797. ? includes Fish Bay 37 = aN 5) 38 Fish Bay watershed in 1919 (USCGS 1919). Figure ll. LC" *- eg Ovo, pen) Ae es en | oe a latter year only 5% of the watershed was still improved. During this period sugar production ceased altogether, while other kinds of agri- cultural pursuits contracted sharply. Population density plunged from 159 to 18 persons per square mile. In 1808 the owner of Sieben/Mollendal discontinued cane cultivation in favor of stock farming. L’Esperance, which had the most caneland in 1797, abandoned the crop in 1830. Other plantations stuck with sugar until the end of the century. Beverhoudtsberg stopped production and was permanentiy abandoned in 1872. Susanaberg cultivated cane until 1879, but only in small amounts after the hurricane of 1867. Herman Farm and Adrian produced their last crop in 1896. As the sugar industry atrophied, watershed planters turned to provision farming, fruit growing and livestock raising as a source of income. Louis Delinois, a St. Thomas merchant who owned all the pro- perties in the upper watershed between 1883 and 1919, experimented with a variety of commercial crops, including coffee, cocoa, cotton, and fruits (guavas and mangoes). But his efforts to find an alternative cash crop proved unavailing (Tyson 1984). Stock raising seems to have been only moderately successful and herds tended to be small. In 1875, for example, the watershed supported a total of just 66 cattle, 120 sheep and 8 goats, 90% of which were pastured on Susanaberg, Adrian and Herman Farm CRigsarkivet 1728-1915). By 1915 the watershed contained only 106 improved acres, nearly all grass pasture. The remaining landscape had reverted to woodland and bush (Figure 11). Susanaberg, which functioned largely as a stock farm, was the only operational upland plantation, and 60% of its improved land was actually at Denis Bay. It did, however, have a small cultivation patch at its settlement site (Figure 11). Herman Farm had been shut down. Adrian was also uncultivated, but inhabited by 11 persons. Smallholders rather than planters were responsible for the little agriculture that survived within the watershed during the last decades of Danish sovereignty. Only a handful of peasant cultivators managed to secure watershed land. All but two of these subsistence farmers were located on Sieben/Mollendal, whose owners parcelled out 49 acres be- tween 1879 and 1913. By 1915 a total of 26 people lived on 11 small- holdings (ranging from 2 to 9 acres) at Sieben/Mollendal. Collectively, they had 18 improved acres, on which they grew fruit and ground provisions (Rigsarkivet 1728-1915). The two other peasant farmers in the watershed owned and operated plots of land at Grunwald, a 25 acre parcel that had been separated from Bellvue in 1871. Collectively they kept between 3 and 12 acres in use up to 1915. In 1911 a total of 18 persons lived on Grunwald, and it is likely that this small community was responsible for the improved acre- age at Bellvue and Fish Bay in 1915. 39 Little information could be found respecting land use trends in the Fish Bay watershed after St. John passed under American rule. A modest upswing in agricultural activity seems to have occurred between 1917 and 1930. In the latter year a total of 65 people lived in the watershed (Shaw 1940), while agricultural census returns (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1930) showed over 200 acres in improved land. Adrian had 46 improved acres. The 25 people who lived there raised some goats and hogs and grew smal! amounts of cocoa, coconuts and fruit (limes, bananas, mangoes, guavas, soursop). Ten people lived on Susana- berg. This property was leased by Neptune Richards, who raised ground provisions and grazed a variety of livestock on 69 improved acres. There were 5 acres of improved land on Grunwald, where peasant cultiva- tors grazed 10 head of cattle and harvested ground provisions and fruit (mangoes and sugar apples). In 1930 agricultural land use was greatest on Sieben/Mol lendal. Here Julius Sprauve, who leased the main plantation, maintained 82 improved acres, on which he raised provisions (beans, sweet potatoes, tanyas, yams), pastured 10 head of cattle and harvested 250 banana and 64 mango trees. Three peasant farmers also had an additional 9 acres in unpecified use. No returns were submitted for Beverhoudtsberg, L’Esperance, Bellvue and Herman Farm, indicating that they were uncultivated. Fish Bay also seems to have been unoccupied and unimproved, although a smal! herd of 22 cattle grazed there in 1934 (NARS 1934). This small-scale agricultural revival seems to have sustained it- self through World War II. It is documented that during the 1940’s Neptune Richards maintained his modest operation at Susganaberg, while Corey Bishop, an American entrepreneur, ran a sizable truck farm at Herman Farm (Johnson 1950). Aerial photographs of 1947 (U. S. Navy 1947) show an irregular, but broad, band of clearance along Centerline Road between Susanaberg and Herman Farm. There were also cleared patches along the southern slope of Peter Peak and at Sieben/Mollendal. Nonetheless, agricuitural land use occupied a relatively small area in 1947. Aerial photographs show over 90% of the watershed as sylvan. Of this vegetation, roughly 75% appears to be scrub, indicating inten- sive prior land use, while only 25%, located primarily in the southern and eastern sections (land belonging to Fish Bay, Sieben/Mollendal and L’ Esperance), could be classified as forested. The same configuration of clearance and vegetation is depicted on aerial photographs of 1954 (U. S. Geological Survey 1954) and the USGS topograhic map of 1958 (U. S. Geological Survey 1958), although the aerials do show some expansion of the forested area. Residential usage was limited to just eight buildings, according to the 1958 map. 40 LAND USE IN HAWKSNEST BAY hica tti The Hawksnest Bay watershed, located on the north coast of St. John (Figure 1), drains 233 acres (Hubbard, et al. 1987). It is defined on the east and west by two mountain spurs that extend northward from St. John’s central mountain ridgeline before culminating in headlands on either side of Hawksnest Bay. The western spur stretches for slightly more than a mile from Margaret Hill ¢€840’) to Hawksnest Point. The shorter eastern spur runs from the ridgeline near Susanaberg plantation ruins to an unnamed headland separating Hawksnest and Denis bays. The southern boundary is formed by the central mountain ridgeline, 600 to 700 feet above the Bay. The watershed is traversed by two smali drain- age guts with intermittent flows. Slopes are steep, and Cramer variety soils predominate (Rivera 1970). Prehistoric Land U One of the largest prehistoric settlement sites on the northside of St. John is located at Hawksnest Point (Sleight 1962). This site, which was badly disturbed by resort development in the 1960’s, supported a relatively large Indian population around 800 A.D. Aboriginal] exploita- tion of land and marine resources in the area must have been intense. However, horticulture was undoubtedly concentrated on the flat, fertile land around Caneel Bay, rather than on steep watershed slopes. No evi- dence of Indian occupation has been found in the southern or western portions of the watershed. Historic Land U Land use during the historic era is difficult to reconstruct pre- cisely because the watershed falls within the boundaries of two planta- tions - Susanaberg and Caneel Bay - whose main agricultural areas were located outside of the watershed. Field systems associated with Caneel Bay plantation were concentra- ted in the flatland directly behind Caneel Bay. However, as shown by Oxholm’s map of 1800 (Figure 9), they did extend to the top of the Hawksnest Point ridgeline. Oxholm also shows one section of the planta- tion’s settlement complex on this ridgeline, as well as a road running from Hawksnest Point up to Margaret Hill. Overall, however, operations of this plantation probably had a negligible impact on the Hawksnest Bay watershed, hence they have not been considered in this study. Most of the Hawksnest Bay drainage area falls within the historical boundaries of Susanaberg plantation. Data respecting land use and popu- lation density on Susanaberg has been included in the section dealing with the Fish Bay watershed because the main Susanaberg settlement complex and its best agricultural land was located in the central upland plateau. However, as shown by Oxholm’s map of 1800 (Figure 9), Susanaberg’s field systems also extended downslope through the Hawksnest Bay water- shed to an associated settlement complex at Denis Bay, which was linked to it by a serrated trail. A road, running along the main drainage gut through the middle of the watershed, connected Susanaberg and other up- land plantations with Hawksnest Bay, where sugar could be conveniently transported aboard securely anchored sailing ships. The Denis Bay plantation was probably always associated with Suganaberg. Both were laid out in 1721, and, although they had indepen- dent settlement sites, they were being operated by members of the same family in 1728 (Table 9). Between 1740 and 1754 they were consolidated under the same ownership, and remained together until 1877, when Denis Bay was split off with 75 acres (Rigsarkivet 1728-1915). Plantation agriculture at Susanaberg/Denis Bay clearly had a major impact on the watershed environment. Both plantations were cultivating sugarcane by 1729, and continued to do so into the second half of the nineteenth century CRigsarkivet 1728-1915). An inventory of 1844 showed the entire property as improved, with 125 acres in canes, 40 acres in provisions and the rest pasture (Rigsarkivet 1832-1845). Field surveys by the author found evidence of extensive terracing on the watershed’s eastern slopes. Indeed, human activity around Hawksnest Bay had become go intense by 1765 that the turtles the bay had been named after no longer nested there (Marfeldt 1765)». Thus, it can be assumed that the level of land clearance shown by Oxholm in 1800 (Figure 9) characterized the watershed for much of the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. By the 1840’s, and probably earlier, agricultural activities and population were being concentrated around Denis Bay. Inventories of 1844 and 1846 show more caneland and pasture at Denis Bay than at Susanaberg. Denis Bay had the only slave village, as well as the only operative windmill and sugar factory (Rigsarkivet 1832-1845). Agricultural activity and population pressure on Susanaberg/Denis Bay began to diminish after 1850. Cane cultivation ceased around 1880. But, the owners continued to maintain some pasture for livestock until the early part of the twentieth century. Throughout the nineteenth century. Susanaberg/Denis Bay supported relatively large herds of cattle and sheep. In 1850, for example, 101 sheep and 34 cattle grazed the property. In 1873 there were 31 cattle and 60 sheep (Rigsarkivet 1728-1915). A modest agricultural revival began on Denis Bay after it was sold to J. E. Lindqvist in 1905. Lindqvist not only raised cattle and main- tained a guest house (McGuire 1926), but planted some 2000 pineapples, 257+ Baw tne Poms GyPerkine Cay Hog nest Pt. Figure 12. Hawksnest Bay watershed in 1919 (USCGS 1919). 43 1000 banana trees and 500 coconut palms. He also tried growing cotton and cocoa among the pineapples and beneath existing natural vegetation (Borgesen 1906). Despite these undertakings, the contraction of overall!) agricultural activity on Susanaberg/Denis Bay after 1850 probably resulted in the reforestation of much of the watershed. Seventy-seven percent of the total acreage was in bush in 1915 (Table 12). The 1919 USG&GS fieldmap (Figure 12) shows the slopes covered with trees. Even the old road between Susanaberg and Hawksnest Bay had disappeared into the vegeta- tion. The fieldmap also shows Lindaqvist’s cultivated land around Denis Bay lying outside the watershed. While agricultural operations continued on both Susanaberg and Denis Bay at a considerably reduced scale into the 1940’s, according to local informants and aerial photographs, they did not extend into the watershed. The 1947 aerials (U. S. Navy 1947) show that forested woodland prevailed almost everywhere, except for a small strip of clearance along the upper ridgeline near the Susanaberg settlement. Aerial photographs of 1954 (U. S. Geological Survey 1954) and the 1958 topographical map (U. S. Geological Survey 1958) show the watershed entirely vegetated, except for a smal] area around the recently built Caneel Bay catchment basin. Residential usage was confined to two houses on the Caneel Bay ridgeline, and two others just behind the beach. SUMMARY Land use within the Reef Bay, Fish Bay and Hawksnest Bay watersheds has been associated almost exclusively with plantation agriculture and settlement that commenced with European occupation in 1718. Aboriginal land use seems to have been limited in these study areas. The plantations spread throughout the watersheds between 1718 and 1740, resulting in the loss of most, if not all, of their natural vege- tation. Extensive deforestation during this pioneer period induced soil erosion, sedimentation and changes in water quality and quantity. How- ever, the slow pace of plantation development and associated vegetation removal facilitated the persistence of native species and probably moderated runoff. Plantation operations and population densities in ali watersheds were most intense in the second half of the eighteenth century, peaking between 1755 and 1780, but continuing at relatively high levels until about 1820. During this period approximately one-half of total! water- shed acreage was heing intensively utilized for agricultural purposes. Much of the remainder was subject to periodic exploitation. Extensive terracing was necessary to support this level of agricul- tural activity on steep watershed slopes. Field surveys conducted by the author found evidence that terraces extended from valley floors to the uppermost ridgelines in the Reef Bay and Hawksnest watersheds. Some terracing also occurred in the Fish Bay watershed, primarily in the up- lands. There is also evidence in all three watersheds that watercourses were being systematically managed through damming and channeling. Ter- racing, watercourse controls and other plantation management strategies, mitigated soil and water runoff associated with land clearance and in- tensive land use. Plantation agriculture contracted steadily in all three watersheds during the nineteenth century, leading to their progressive reforesta- tion. This process accelerated after 1848 due to population decline and the demise of sugar production. By 1900 ninety-five percent of al! watershed acreage was classified as woodland. Thereafter, agricultural land use never exceeded five percent of the total. Abandonment of plan- tation lands, however, also produced initial increases in erosion and sedimentation due to the breakdown of the terrace system and slow suc- cession rates on severely cut over and degraded areas. Post-emancipation subsistence farming had limited impact on the watersheds. Relatively few peasant smallholders managed to gain a foothold. Swidden farming and charcoal burning appear to have been confined to small areas along Bordeaux Mountain ridge and on Bellvue, Sieben/Mollendah! and Rustenburg plantation grounds. 45 MODERATE..USE LIMITED USE (t r) J : NU \\= ‘ Estimated land use intensities in watershed study areas, 1718-1950, Ey \\oos.: a ~ Ny wm : ; Ge NY pM a . “yy BV. | Vax p Figure 13. Between 1718 and 1950 plantation land use activities were most pronounced in the upland plateau region between Beverhoudtsberg and Rustenburg plantations, in the Reef Bay valley between Little Reef Bay -and Hope/Misgunst plantations and on the eastern slopes above Hawksnest Bay. Here extensive vegetation removal occurred. Moderately effected areas were the steep, rocky slopes and ravines located in the lower part of the Fish Bay watershed, the rugged middle section and precipitous northeast corner of Reef Bay watershed and the western portion of Hawksnest Bay watershed. Mangrove stands in Reef and Fish Bays, rocky headlands on the western sides of Hawksnest and Fish Bays, and all shorelines, also experienced limited human impacts. Figure 13 presents an estimate of areal land use intensities within the three watersheds during the historic era (1718-1950), based on anal- ysis of statistical data in the land tax records, soil types, historical documentation and maps. The area of most "intensive use" (white) was depicted as cleared on the Oxholm map of 1800. Much of it continued in use until after 1850. Overall, this zone experienced almost continuous cultivation for about 150 years. The “moderate use" area (lightly shaded) was shown as woodland by Oxholm, but can be documented or reli- ably estimated as having been cleared either before or after his map. The “limited use" area (dark shading) designates land where it is pos- Sible that little or no direct human modifications occurred. It is unlikely, however, that the forest cover currently found in the “limited use" area contains any relics of the original climax for- est, or even eighteenth century secondary growth. The historical record strongly suggests that most, if not all, indigenous vegetation was re- moved for fuel, lumber or land needs of the colonial population. What escaped the attention of man, undoubtedly fell victim to natural disrup- tions - periodic fires, droughts and, above all, hurricanes. Though there can be little doubt that the present distribution and composition of watershed vegetation has been greatly influenced by past human environmental manipulations, the effect of pre-1950 cultural ac- tivity on watershed sedimentation discharge may have been far less profound. Analysis of prehistoric and historic evidence (‘Table 13) suggests that the overall impact of human activity on sedimentation rates within the watersheds has been variable during the past two millennia, with significant stresses confined to relatively brief periods, and overal| effects being relatively mild. This inference from historical documen- tation gains substantiation from recent studies of sedimentation impacts on watershed salt ponds ‘(Nichols 1987) and reef systems (Hubbard, et al. 1987> that found little measurable evidence of man-induced impacts during the historic era. 47 TABLE 13. Estimated impact by human activities on sedimentation in Fish Bay, Reef Bay and Hawksnest Bay watersheds, A.D. 100 - 1950 Fa a a a a a a eh er nen repens eo pen ened amen pean meen pepe Era Impact Primary casual factors A.D. 100 - 1200 Low Limited occupation leveis 1200 - 1717 Non-Existent No human occupation 1718 - 1750 Heavy to moderate Land clearance for plantation development 1750 - 1850 Moderate to low Intensive monoculture; Mitigation by plantation management strategies 1850 - 1900 Moderate to low Reforestation; breakdown of terrace system and slow succession process 1900 - 1950 Low Reforestation Oe OE 8 SE RF EE EH LY OO OAD 60S ae Om a a ae ey a ate a lle dO oe ee Od es ee et While man’s role in shaping past and present watershed ecosystems cannot be denied, care must be taken not to overestimate the human im- print. On St. John the plantation system certainly did not overwhlem and transform the landscape to the same degree it did on more amenable Caribbean islands, such as St. Croix. Rather, due to chronic shortages of capital, manpower and technology, it made many accomodations with, and adaptions to, constraining environmental conditions. And, to a con- Siderable extent, St. John planters and peasants strove to mitigate adverse environmental impacts in order to sustain the productive capa- bilities of the limited resources available to them. Conversely, strong evidence exists that periodic natural disrup- tions, particularly hurricanes, were as destructive to terrestrial and marine ecosystems as man during the historic era. Photographic evidence showing the virtual annihilation of the re-emergent St. John forest by the severe hurricane of 1916 makes it clear that the current St. John wilderness is probably as much a product of this violent storm, and, to a lesser extent, that of 1924 as of two centuries of prior land use activites. Moreover, in addition to their devasting effect on vegeta- tion cover, recurrent hurricanes (at least 40 struck St. John between 1718 and 1950), generate massive sedimentation discharges, and their associated ground seas can wipe out entire coral reef systems, as appears to have happened in Hawksnest Bay in 1916 (Hubbard, et al. 1987). 48 Although man’s long-term impact on the landscape might sometimes pale in comparison with the destruction wrought by a single cataclsymic event, it must also be borne in mind that extensive human environmental re-arrangements can enhance storm destruction and significantly effect the inherent ability of tropical ecosystems to adapt to and recover from such disasters. In sum, the conclusion remains inescapable that man and nature, in tandem, have brought St. John to its current state of development. Too much emphasis on one dimension or the other can only distort our under- standing of the past and undermine our ability to shape a reasonable future. St. John is neither a pristine wilderness nor a ravaged victim of human over-exploitation. To imagine that it is either would be a case of historical ignorance. To try to manage it into one or the other would be equally misguided. Despite some recent excesses, the essence of the place resides in the precarious balance achieved there by the complex interaction of man and nature - from man’s creative adaptations to the insular environment and nature’s adjustments to human endeavor. Understanding, maintaining and celebrating that delicate equilibrium, that mutual accomplishment, ought to be the focal point of the Virgin Islands National Park, as well as the St. John Biosphere Reserve. 49 LITERATURE CITED Barrett, Ward 1965 Caribbean Sugar-Production Standards in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries. In John Parker, ed., MERCHANTS AND SCHOLARS. Minneapolis, Minnesota. Borgesen, F. 1906 Indtryk fra en Rejse til Vestindien i Vinteren 1905-1906. ATLANTEN, 1:534-535. Copenhagen, Denmark. Bradstreet, Theodore 1975 Ceramic Culture Site Location Parameters of the Virgin Islands. JOURNAL OF THE THE VIRGIN ISLANDS ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY, 2:5-11. Frederiksted, St. Croix, U.S.V.I. Bullen, Ripley P. 1962 CERAMIC PERIODS OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN ISLANDS, VIRGIN ISLANDS. William L. Bryant Foundation of American Studies Report No. 4. Tallahassee, Florida. Figueredo, Alfredo E. 1978 The Virgin Islands as an Historical Frontier Between the Tainos and the Caribs. REVISTA/REVIEW INTERAMERICANA, 3:393-399. San Juan, Puerto Rico. 1982 Agricultural Systems of the Aborigines of the West Indies. 12th ANNUAL AGRICULTURAL FOOD FAIR OF THE VIRGIN ISLAND. St. Croix, U.S.V.I. 1986 Personal Communication, May 20th. Hatch, Charles E. Jr. 1971 VIRGIN ISLANDS NATIONAL PARK, ST. JOHN ("The Quiet Island"), WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO ANNABERG ESTATE, CINNAMON BAY ESTATE. National Park Service. Washington, D. C. Hubbard, Dennis, Stump J. and Carter B. 1987 SEDIMENTATION AND REEF DEVELOPMENT IN HAWKSNEST, FISH AND REEF BAYS, ST. JOHN, U. S. VIRGIN ISLANDS. Virgin Islands Resource Management Cooperative Technical Report #21. St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. Johnson, Clarence L. 1950 ST. JOHN AND ST. THOMAS, VIRGIN ISLANDS OF THE UNTIED STATES. National Park Service. Washington, D. C. Johnston, Barbara R. 1981 A SURVEY OF THE PREHISTORIC ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES OF ST. JOHN, U.S.V.1I. Virgin Islands Planning Office. St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. 51 Johnston, Barbara R. and Emily R. Lunberg 1983 Archaeological Survey of the United States Virgin Islands: A Preliminary Report. Paper presented to THE TENTH INTERNATION- AL CONGRESS FOR THE STUDY OF PRECOLUMBIAN CULTURES OF THE LESSER ANTILLES. Fort-de-France, Martinique, 25-30 July. Koester, Stephen 1986 SOCIOECONOMIC AND CULTURAL ROLE OF FISHING AND SHELLFISHING IN THE VIRGIN ISLANDS BIOSPHERE RESERVE. Virgin Islands Resource Management Cooperative Technical Report #12. St. Thomas. Larsen, Leif Calundann 1986 THE DANISH COLONIZATION OF ST. JOHN 1718-1733. Virgin Islands Resource Management Cooperative. St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. Marfeldt, Christian c.1765 THE BAYS ON ST. JOHN. Translated by Frederik Gjessing from the original in the Westergaard Transcripts, Library of Congress. Washington, D. C. n.d. Samalinger. Vol. 4. Generaltoldkammeret Arkiver. Rigsar- kivet. Copenhagen, Denmark. McGuire, J. W. 1926 GEOGRAPHIC DICTIONARY OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS OF THE UNITED STATES. Department of Commerce, U. S. Coastal and Geodetic Survey Special Publication #103. Washington, D. C. NARS, (National Archives and Records Service), Washington, D. C. 1913 E. W. Marsh to Government, 21 Feb. 1913. Record Group #55, Box 1201. 1933 An Investigation to Determine the Immediate Need for Food, Clothing, or Steady Employment of People Living in the Coral Bay and Bordeaux Mountain Sections of St. John. Enclosed in Morris N. Nichols to Boyd J. Brown, June 15, 1933. Record Group #56, General Files 1932-1934. 1934 List of Cattle in Saint John. Record Group #56, General Files 1932-1934. Nichols, Maynard 1987 MAN’S LONG-TERM IMPACT ON SEDIMENTATION: EVIDENCE FROM SALT POND DEPOSITS. Virgin Islands Resource Management Cooperative Technical Report #23. St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. Olwig, Karen Fog 1986 CULTURAL ADAPTATION & RESISTANCE ON ST. JOHN. THREE CENTURIES OF AFRO-CARIBBEAN LIFE. Gainsville, Florida. 52 Oxhoim, Peter L. 1780 Report on the Military Structures of St. John to the Royal Westindian Chamber, 30 August 1780. English translation by Per Ydmark of origina! in Rigsarkivet, Copenhagen, Denmark. 1800 CHARTE OVER DEN DANSK OF ST. JAN I AMERICA. Copenhagen. Prokopetz, A. Wayne and C. Hamilton 1977 SURVEY AND ASSESSMENT OF THE PREHISTORIC ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES IN VIRGIN ISLANDS NATIONAL PARK, ST. JOHN, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS. Southeast Archaeological Center, Tallahassee, Fla. Public Record Office, London 1717 Governor Waiter Hamilton to Lords of Trade and Plantations, 7 October 1717 in Colonial Office, Leeward Islands, 152/12. Pickwood, Miss A. 1986 Interview with George Tyson. June 10th. St. Thomas, U.S.V.1. Reeves, Roy 1987 Personal communication, February 25th. Rigsarkivet, Copenhagen, Denmark 1728-1915 St. Thomas-St. John Landlister and Matriculs. 1763-1775 Registrerings -og vurderingsprotokoller. Landfogeden pa St. Jan, #126. Vestindiske Lokalarkiver. 1765-1786 Skylddokumenter vedk. de hollandske Fordringer paa Vestindien. Diverse Dokumenter, Den vestindiske Gjaelds Likvidations Direktion 1786-1816. Finansarkiverne. 1775-1796 St. Jan Skifteprotokoller. Landfogeden pa St. Jan funnumbered]. Vestindiske Lokalarkiver. 1786-1816 Taxationet over Planternes II. Den vestindiske Gjaelds Likvidations Direktion 1786-1816. Finansarkiverne. 1797 St. John Plantation Census. Diverse vwordnede sager 18.-19. arh (bl. a. skattesager or negerlister ca. 1770-1818). Vestindiske Lokalarkiver. 1804a St. John Plantation Census Returns. St. Croix Skatte- Lister 1804. Vestindiske Lokalarkiver. 1804b St. John Plantation Census 1804. Dokumenter vedr. Slaven- handelkommissionen, 1783-1806. Generaltoldkammeret Arkiver. 1832-1845 Landretssager. Landfogeden pa St. Jan, #85. Vestindiske Lokalarkiver. 1835-1911 Folketaellingslisterne for St. Jan: 1835, 1841, 1846, 1850, 1870, 1880, 1901, 1911. 53 Rivera, Luis H., et. al. 1970 SOIL SURVEY OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS OF THE UNITED STATES. U. S. Department of Agriculture. Washington, D. C. Shaw, Ear] 1940 The Virgin Islands of the United States. In William H. Haas, ed., THE AMERICAN EMPIRE: A STUDY IN THE OUTLYING TERRITORIES OF THE UNITED STATES. Chicago, Illinois. Sheridan, Richard 1973 SUGAR AND SLAVERY: AN ECONOMIC HISTORY OF THE BRITISH WEST INDIES 1623-1775. Baltimore, Maryland. Sleight, Frederick W. 1962 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECONNAISSANCE OF THE ISLAND OF ST. JOHN, UNITED STATES VIRGIN ISLANDS. William L. Bryant Foundation of American Studies Report No. 3. Tallahassee, Fla. Swainson, 0. W. 1919 Descriptive Report, St. John, Central Section. Department of Commerce. U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey. Mss. Tyson, George F. Jr. 1984 A HISTORY OF LAND USE ON ST. JOHN, 1718-1950 (Preliminary Report). Virgin Islands National Park. St. Thomas, U.S.V.1. U. S. Bureau of the Census, Washington, D. C. 1930 Agricultural Census Returns, St. John, U.S. Virgin Islands. U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey, Washington, D. C. 1919 Fieldmap of St. John, Central Part. Register No. 3772. Mss. U. S. Geological Survey, Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 1954 Aerial Photographs of the Virgin Islands. 1958 WESTERN ST. JOHN, V. I. Topographic Map. U. S. Navy, Photographic Division, Washington, D. C. 1947 Aerial Photographs of the Virgin Islands. Westergaard, Waldemar 1917 THE DANISH WEST INDIES UNDER COMPANY RULE. New York, N. Y. 54