Mark P. Leone . Jocelyn E. KnaufEditors

Hi sto rical Archae o I o gi e s

of Capitalism

Second Edition

ä Springer

EdilorsMark P. LeoneUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkMarylandUSA

Jocelyn E, KnaufWashingtonDistrict of ColumbiaUSA

rssN r574-0439Contributions To Global Historical ArchaeologyISBN978-3-319-12759-0 ISBN978-3-319-12760'6(e-Book)DOr l 0. l 007/97 8-3-3 t9-127 60-6

Library ofCongress Control Number: 2015936385

Springer Cham Heidelberg New York Dordrecht London@ Springer In g Switzerland 2015

This work is AII rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part

of the materi cifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,

recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or

information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilarmethodology now known or hereafter developed.The use ofgêneral descriptive names, registered names, tradema¡ks, service marks, etc. in this publication

does not imply, even in the absence ofa spec¡fic statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant

tions and therefore free for general use.

and the editors are safe to æsume that the advice and information in this book

accurate at the.date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the

editors give a wananty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors

or omissions that may have been made.

Printed on acid-free paper

Springer is part of Springer SciencetBusiness Media (www.springer.com)

Acknowledgements

This is not a second edition in any usual sense. This is a whole new book for a

,changed, maturing field' Historical A

and was read quite a lot. It was the pr

Research in Santa Fe and came from

dent of the School, to see historical archaeology think through a problem' Eliot Wer-

ner published the book through his series at Plenum, Parker Potteq Jr', and I edited

the book for the series edited by Charles Orser.

Our to use the twins of capitalism and Marx-

ist appr society and to viviôi a new approach for

historic commitment to working in and with com-

munities to an economic and political analysis of how their needs and conditions

came to be.

The foil for the book was Leone's dissatisfaction with the archaeologies of Stan

South and Jim Deetz, of whose major founding initiatives linked neither the rela-

tively recent past to the present, nor the self-evident needs of communities today to

their recent origins.Parker Potter, Jr. coedited the first version ofthe book. He initiated the opera-

tion of Archaeology in Public in Annapolis, pulled it off successfully, published it

as his dissertation at Brown, knew the archaeology, and did lots of the flreldwork,

the thinking, and organizing. He did the networking and much of the organizing

forthe conference. He kept both the peace and the sense ofpurpose at the Santa Fe

conference. He provided the balance for those we invited who did not agree with a

Marxist approach.This new book is fully Marxist and is composed of the third generation of schol-

ars in our field who are freed from the history of how the field began, but who have

done good field work with lots of data behind them. They are active internationãlly.

The first edition of this book was limited to North America, This book includes

archaeology from the North Atlantic, Scandinavia, Ireland, West Africa, the Carib-

bean, and Latin America. Historical archaeology has broadened out and this volumeis intended to report how that expansion shows the impact of capitalism's processes.

As you read essays whose subjects are beyond North America, you will see a sure-

footedness that comes from the use of ideas from European social theory as we have

Chapter 16

The Politics of Work, "Poor Whites,"and Plantation Capitalism in Barbados

Matthew C. Reilly

Introduction

The plantation is an emblematic space of early New world capitalism representingtransatlantic flows in the form of goods and bodies. Despite common features andbasic tenets in production and rnanagement strategies, the plantation as a unit ofanalysís varied across space and time. This chapter explores a unique facet ofplan-tation development and operation within the English caribbean: the role of ,,poor

white" Barbadians on the plantation landscape and their relation to processes ofagrarian capitalism. Since their arrival, primarily as indentured servants in the sec-ond and third quafters of the seventeenth century, the "white" underclass in Barba-dos has been an anomalous demographic in New world societies, which are primar-ily characterizedby a "white over black" so.cioeconomic hierarchy (Jordan l96g;Amussen 2007). within contemporary Barbadian society they are marginalized andlargely portrayed as a destitute, degenerative, idle, and insular population, regardedas inconsequential to the broader plantation infrastructure in the past and present.As free plantation residents, however, they raise significant questions about the na-ture of plantation capitalism, especially with regard to questions of Iabor, and howsuch residents negotiate their roles within production processes.

Archaeological plantation studies in the caribbean, as well as throughout the NewWorld, have traditionally focused on the lives of enslaved laborers. Given that race-

M. C. Reilty (X)The Joukowsky institute for Archaeology and the Ancient World, Brown Universit¡Providence. ni. Usne'mail : rnatihew_rei I ly@brown.edu

O.Springer Intenìational PubIishing Srvitzerland 20 I 5M. P. Leone. .1. E. Knaul(ed s.), Itßroricat Archaeologies oJ Oapircrlisnr,Lontriburions 'fo Global Historical Archaeology, Doi 10.1007/97 8-3-3lg-t2760_6 t6

375

3.76 M. C. Reilly

navigated the socioeconomic contours of the plantation landscape and their posi-

tions within plantation capitalism. Due to their perceived insularity and cultural/ra-cial distinctiveness from the enslaved Afro-Barbadian population, the plantocracy,

along with island visitors, were reluctant to acknowledge the role of "poor whites"in plantation socioeconomic schemes. Instead, they preferred to emphasize an ap-parent isolation and detachment from productive labor practices, ln sharp contrast,

following Vinay Gidwani (2008), ì argue that "poor white" plantation tenants ad-

hered to a "politics of work." With labor practices that were not entirely harnessed

by capitalist forces, "poor whites" or "Redlegs" utilized their labor, as well as theirfreedom, on their own terms through informal and intirnate economies, in addition

to their involvement in plantation production.Before proceeding, however, terminological caveats deserve attention. "Poor

whites" and "Redlegs" will continue to be bound by quotation marks to first de-

note their pejorative natule within contemporary Barbadian society and primaryhistorical sources. ln essence, the terms are used for both rural and urban Barbadian

descendants of English, Irish, and Scottish indentured servants who continue tostruggle with varying degrees of poverty, The term "Redleg" is first visible in the

historical record in the late eighteenth century, but possibly originates in the sev-

enteenth century when indentured servants suffered sunbum on the backs of theirlegs as they labored in the scalding tropical sun (Sheppard 1977, p. 3). There is,

however, a likely connection between "Redleg" and "Redshank," a term used forScottish settlers in Ulster, [reland in the seventeenth century. Additionally, "poor'

white," in addition to its pejorative characteq utilizes specific economic and racial

identity markers that come to define and bind the demographic explicitly. Poverty

is still a significant challenge faced by many of these individuals and it has a direct

association with historical processes and the plantation economy, making its study

(in contemporary and historical contexts) all the more consequential for archaeolo-gists (Richard 2011, p. 167).If, however, we allow poverty to define the groups

and individuals being studied, an unintended consequence can be the attachment ofnegative social stigmas associated with poverly to the very processes and inequali-

ties we are combatting and the people whose stories and situations we are attempt-

ing to make known.When used independently, I also choose to place "white" within quotation marks

to illustrate its contested character in select Barbadian historiography rather than

an objective and essentializedracial identity (Lambert2005; Jones 2007). In shott,

miscegenation was a common, even if often denied, aspect of Barbadian society.l

Therefore, conceptualizing race as a pure identity or one that adheres to the binary

model of white or black is a political exercise that need not (and often does not) cor-

respond to ancestry or phenotype (see Monahan 201l). Finally, the moniker "poor

16 The Politics of work, "poor whites," and plantation capitalisrn in Barbados 37i

white" is an explicit commentary on class and racial status that also guides andstructures the subjectivities which come to the fore of this analysis lSmittr ZOO+;Richard 2013, p.60). In other words, although similarry relevant aù significantsubjectivities, specifically gender, are inextricably linked to race and class withinthis context, the discussion is Iimited to the latter analytical categories.

Capitalism and the Plantation

Having historically been dependent on unwaged slave labor, plantation productionhas a contested relationship with capitalism, As Dale Tomich has argued, ,,[l]t

isneither a 'traditional' social relation nor a formally capitalist relation of pròãuc-tion," but rather, "a generalized form of commodify production effected through

, specific relations of dom ination" (2004, p. 3; see also Graeber 2006 for the relation-ship between capitalism and slavery). It has been amply illustrated since the workof Eric'ù/illiams (1994119441), however, that plantation production, specifically inthe caribbean, was the fulcrum upon which Atlantic capitalist networks developedand flourished. Additionally, in his classical study of Cuban agricultural production,Fernando Ortiz illustrated the industrial character of sugar production includingthe exploitative use of unskilled labor, the division of rabor, and commodity massproduction (199511947D. Archaeologists have also explored the early geographicaltransformations that reshaped Caribbean landscapes to warrant the construction ofspaces keen for capitalist production (for recent studies see woodward 201 1 ; Arm-strong and Reilly 2014). Despite the obvious entanglements between caribbeanplantation production andAtlantic capitalist networks, the role of the laborer is stilltenuous with i'espect to capitalist production processes.

In fact, Marx seemingly had difficulty in situating enslaved laborerc within capi-talist modes of production despite his acknowledgment of the centrality of enslavedlaborers in the success of the American cotton industry. ln capital vot. I (1967)New world slavery is infrequently mentioned, often serving as a juxtaposition towage labor (pp. 165, 226; for plantation management of labor see pp. 253-255 and710-7ll). Reflecting on this ambiguity, along with the early origins of the planta-tion system in the life cycle of capitalism, croucher and weiss have suggested that"As boundary drawing is attempted around what capitalism ls, plantations occupythe borderlands" (20 I 1 , p, 7 , emphasis in the original), Despite this claim, historicararchaeology in the caribbean has, for decades, analyzedthe experiences ofthe en-slaved in plantation capitalist contexts. ultimately, the debate as to whether slaveryconstituted a form of capitalist labor obfuscates more pressing matters including therealities of slave labor and the relationships between the enslaved, modes of produc-tion, the plantocracy, and nonenslaved plantation laborers and residents, issues notlost on archaeologists.

Plantation spaces were typically zones designed to optimize production andprofit while controlling and monitoring laborers (Delle 1998; Hauser 20l la; Lenik2012), however, the activities undeftaken in marginal spaces, sr¡ch as the tenantry

I Given the nature of and politicat rnotivatiorrs inherent within census data, such an argument is

difìÌcult, il'not impossible. to quantify. Hancller (1974) illustrates that'lnulattos" or "free people

of color"' only represented a small fi'action of the official Barbadian population iu the decades

leading up to emancipation. However, Cecily Forde-Jones (1998) illt¡strates that the perceived

maintcnance ofracial bounclalies ivas essential to lhc succcss olraoial hiolarchics ancl idcologies'

3'78 M. C. Reilly

discussed below, demonstrate that different forms and permutations of economicwork and labor were underway, simultaneously, This suggests that capitalism func-tions at different levels and to various degrees of success (which include failures)synchronically and diachronically. Along similar lines, Mark Hauser argues thatplantation spaces were home to "a diversity of practices that are not easily aggregat-ed into such monolithic rnodels of capitalist development and modernity" (20llb,p. 122). Expanding from this observation, this case study demonstrates that these

diverse activities involved diverse actors who are not neatly accommodated by cat-egories of planters and the enslaved. The degree to which "poor white" plantationresidents were enveloped by, or swept ÍÌom, processes of capitalist production wasdependent on relations between community members, plantation laborers (includ-ing enslaved and free Afro-Barbadians), management, and ownership.

On the Caribbean plantation landscape archaeologists have successfully demon-strated how enslaved laborers exhibited degrees ofautonomy and resistance as wellas their capabilities in creating escapes from plantation capitalism and enslavement,whether ephemeral or more sustained. In paúicular, studies have highlighted the sig-niftcance of household activities (Armstrong 1990), village household organization(Armstrong and Kelly 2000), the use of gardens and provision grounds (Pulsipher1994; Handler and Wallman2014), foodways (Armstrong 1999), ceramic produc-tion, consumption, and markets (Wilkie 1999,2000; Wilkie and Farnsworth 2005;Loftfield 200 I ; Hauser 2008,201I a; Finch 20 I 3; Lenik 2009), religious beliefs andburial practices (Handler and Lange 1978), alcohol consumption (Smith 2008a),marronage (Agorsah 2007), localized economic activities (Gibson 2009; Handlerand 'Wallman 2014;; Galle 2011), acts of resistance (Delle 1998, 2014), and the cre-ation of localized "creole" cultures (Armstrong 2003; Kelly 2008), to name a few.As a framework, archaeologists have utilized a multiscalar approach to demon-strate the active roles played by the enslaved in forging lives for themselves thatchallenged planter control and, via these escapes, offered them access to diversesocioeconomic realms. As such, multiscalar approaches opèrate economically toillustrate the dialectical relationship between the local and global in emergent net-

works of Atlantic world capitalism in addition to positioning "the individual withinbroader social milieu" (Hauser 2009,p.4; see also Wilkie and Farnsworth 1999;

Curet and Hauser 201 l; Lenik 2009; Hauser and Hicks 2007).Represented in this case study, however, is the most obvious and complete es-

cape from slavery by plantation residents: not being enslaved at all. Despite the

freedom of "poor white" Barbadians (in terms of legal status), significant quagmiressurround their presence on the plantation landscape. For instance, although they

occupied unique and nuanced positions in broader plantation capitalist productionprocesses, as discussed below, they have been historically and contemporarily por-

trayed as being severed from such economic networks and cast as idle and isolated,

As becomes evident, plantation spaces are not adequately reducible to binary ten-

sions between planters/management and the enslaved or white ownership and blacklabor, Rathe¡ operating at multiple scales, plantation capitalism entails diverse,

nuanced, and entangled relations among free, enslaved, white, black, mixed race,

16 The Politics of work, "poor \4i¡¡1.r,,, and plantation capitalisnr in Barbados 3:,g

wealthy, and impoverishedm,en, women, and children, as well as the materials theyproduce, consume, use, and discard.

The complexities of these networks entail inherentry localized and power-radenrelationships between.historical aqors, structures of râpital,

""d Jth;, individualssimilarly navigating their place *ithin tt,.r, p.o..rr.i. at .onr.r'ifis of moder-nity and modernizing processes (Scott 2004), prantation ¡nrrauitanüiere invari-

ably inculcated within the processes' capitalist production. Despite ìmposed legal(and often racial) statuses, they were, however, responsibte foi conrtituting theirown identities in this sy:lem and how they rerated to such processes and other ac-tors. Therefore, Gidwani's (200s) notion ðf the ,,poritics orwork,' offers a pafticu_larly attractive route for archaeology to distance itseH from tired debates couched

are based upon a refusal ofbeing dialecticaily defined by capital as ,not-capital,,,(p. 213). In other words, activity conducted under the uurpi"., of the poritics ofwork is, conceptually speaking, severed from its entanglements and tensions withcapital. Therefore, "poor whites" participated in a diveÃe range of socioeconomicactivities that ranged in scale from direct associations with plaãtation production toinformal and intimate economies based on the politics of work.

"On the Fringes of Barbadian Society": positioningthe 66Poor \ühites"

officially settled by the English in 1627, Barbados quickly became a prototypi-cal colonial venture. In a relatively short time span t-he islãnd colony was trans_formed from a tropical wilderness to the ,,jewel in the English crown.', In theearly years of settlement, land was cleared for the establishment of small, l0-20acre, plots for the cultivation of tobacco, cotton, and indigo primarily under-taken by European indentured servants. Following the sugairevolution that wasinitiated in the 1640s, the island shifted to a plantation economy that housednumerous large (100+acre) sugar estates increasingly reliant on the labor ofenslaved Africans.2 Although the nature of these geographical, political, eco-nomic, and social transformations is as nuanced as it is significant, the declinein use of European bonded labor in the second half of the seventeenth centüry(see Beckles 1989; Sheppard 1977) is more pertinent as we explore how the"poor white" minority fared in Barbadian society following the trànsformationsassociated with the sugar revolution. ln general, those who remained on theisland were no longer desirable plantation laborers and many sought refuge in

2 l'herise ofthe sugar and slave plantation system has received substantial scholarly attention. Foro'en'iervs scc Dun¡r 1972; Bccklcs 1989; Shc'i<.lan 2000; Menartl 20061 Newrnan i013.

380 M. C. Reilly

the urban center of Bridgetown or on tenantries established at the margins of theplantation landscape. ìn some cases, during the period of slavery, "poor whites"served as militia tenants who were excused from paying rent in exchange fortheir service in the island's defensive folce (see Sheppard 1977,p.38), but mor.e

commonly, residents rented small plots from plantels and made their living as

small farmers, plantation wage laborers, or fishermen, Below Cliff was one suchtenantry.

As the name implies, Below Cliff is situated directly beneath Hackleton's Cliff;a massive geological feature that spans a substantial distance along the island's eastcoast (Fig. 16,l). The land above the cliff encompasses a flat plateau that is home tosome of the flattest and most fertile soil on the island-prime real estate for sugarproduction which still continues to this day, Conversely, the land below the cliff isextlemely steep and unaccommodating for large-scale agricultural production. Theregion surrounding Below Cliff is one of the few remaining locales on the islandthat is home to a sizable population of "Redlegs," making it an ideal location toconduct ethnographic and archaeological research. Dates associated with importedceramics collected during excavations plovide evidence that the village tenalltrywas established in the 1750s at the latest. Archival data, however, suggest that itmay have been settled as early as the 1650s when the land below the cliff is listedas "leased land" on a transfer of deed fol Clifton Hall plantation, the plantation thatowned much of the "rab", or undesirable, land below the cliff (Barbados Depart-ment of Archives [BDA] RB3/3, l1). Based on oral traditions, estimates based onnumber of household ruins observed during walking surveys, and individuals listedin parochial baptismal, marriage, and burial registries, it seems likely that duringits occupation as a tenantry, Below Cliffwas home to roughly 100 residents at anygiven time.

Archaeological excavations were undertaken from November 2012 to July 2013in the former "poor white" tenantry of Below Cliff, which was abandoned in theearly 1960s. More than 20 shovel test pits were placed in the interior, as well as sur-rounding the exterior of six house sites in the now densely forested former tenantry,in order to judge material and stratigraphic presence. House sites were determinedby the limestone foundation ruins upon which boarded homes sat during the ten-antry's occupation. Foundations varied in size, but the core structures, which werefrequently expanded upon depending on financial means and number of residents,typically measured seven by four meters. Excavations were predominantly focusedat one house site in particular, the childhood home of Wilson Norris, a former BelowCliff resident, now in his 70s, who currently lives in a neighboring tenantry atop the

cliff.3 A total of 2l one-by-one-meter excavation units were placed on a grid withinthe structut'e's interior and in select locations outside the structure's foundation.

In situating the excavation of Below Cliff households, the tenantry's position on

the landscape (under the cliffand out of sight from Clifton Hall) bears significance

16 T'he Politics of Work, "Poor Whites,', and Ì)lantation Capitalism in Barbados 3gl

I Excavation units were placed at three different house sites, but given nraterials present and the

invaluable ethnographìc insightprovided by Wilson Norlis. his childhood honre became the focus

oltlrc projcct.

Below Ctiff

Fig' l6'l Map of Barbados with palish boundaries illustrating the location of thc Ltelorv Clifftenantry along the island,s east coast. (Map by author and SaraliCraft)

for interpreting the physicality of the space as well as those who lived ther.e. There-fore, margins have multiple meanings and significant conceptual irnplications for.the archaeological study of a "poor lhit"" tenantry. Rhysically, the space encoÍì-

0 0,75 1,5 3 4.5 6

-Miles

382 M. C. Reilly

passes land at the rnargins or boundaries of three large sugar plantations: CliftonHall, Newcastle, and Colleton, with the majority of the tenantry resting on landbelonging to Clifton Hall. In addition, the space was marginal to sugar produc-

tion given its removal from zones associated with production (fields and works).Once sugar production had consumed island geography, politics, economy, and so-ciety, the "white" underclass was viewed as unnecessary for the functioning of the

colonial economy. The dissociation of "poor whites" from the island's dominantproduction scheme sparked island visitors, planters, and administrators to cast thepopulation aslazy, idle, isolated, degenerate, malnourished, alcoholic, inbred, andracially arrogant. One nineteenth-century observer commented that, "[T]he great-

est paft of them live in a state of complete idleness, and are usually ignorant anddebauched to the last degree", continuing that, "They are proud as Lucifer himself,and in virtue of their freckled ditchwater faces consider themselves on a level withevery gentleman in the island." Many were said to refuse to work for wages andinstead, wandered from plantation to plantation seeking the charity of the enslaved(Coleridge 1826, pp. 27 2-27 4).

The discourse of marginality is central to how contemporary historiography has

reified historical stereotypes that have seamlessly seeped into mainstream percep-

tion of the "poor whites." As one Barbadian historian has recently noted, "A smallgloup of descendants of the white indentured servants, the 'poor whites,' existedon the fringes of Barbadian society in total isolation, mainly in the rural districts ofSt. John and St. Philip. They were so proud of their racialpurity that they resisted

assimilation into the mainstream of Barbadian society, especially with the blackpopulation" (Browne 2012,p.16; see also Hoyos 1978, pp. 96-98). The landscape

observed below the cliffcertainly makes such claims of "poor white" marginalityappealing and in the broader scheme of plantation production their roles may indeed

have been secondary given the reliance on slave labor. Fieldwork undertaken inBelow Cliff, however, sought to interrogate discourses of marginality and isolationto position more comprehensively "poor white" economic activity in relation toplantation capitalism and localized networks that made use of capital's boundaries.

"Folly and Habitual ldleness": Economic (In)Activity

Archaeological, archival, and ethnographic evidence recovered from the BelowCliff tenantry and neighboring communities directly counters narratives of isolationand instead suggests that residents of Below Cliff were, for centuries, imbricatedin local industry, trade, social networks, and institutions in a number of capacities,

but not necessarily to a degree that was acceptable to or condoned by planters and

authorities. Archaeological evidence confirms that "poor whites" and, more specifì-cally, Below Cliffresidents were participating in local pottery markets. Despite a

preponderance of imported ceramics collected from three Below Cliff households,

domestic coarse eafthenwares accounted for over 25%o of all sherds (Table 16.1).

Mark Hauser (2008, 201 lb, p. 134) has demonstrated that local markets were sites

16 The Politics of Work, ,,poor Whites,,, ancl plautatio¡ Capitalisnr in Barb¿¿¡, 3g3

Table 16.1 Ceranlic sherds coll iflhouseholds accor.dirrg to nurnericaì quan_titv and percentage. rndustriar ea r.d i" tr;.;;;;;orr¿r.i.iräåess. but mayhave had secondary uses in dom by author)

lylg!l-"-L1l"ÞP-t ,Arnounr I percenrasc

Imported refined earrhenwares lllt | ìo.g =

Industrial coarse earthenrvares i2l i , O

l;i:'t'' coarse earrhenwares

i?i:, i r3l,

no way dependent upon, nor solely determined by, racial identity

a, Most of the inrported ceramics dated to the immediate decades prior to, and following, emancipa-tion, ln addition, a high proportion ofthe sherds were scottish-made rpong.*ur.. ln general. thesewares were ofpoorer quality in tenus olproduction than their Englisir counterparts à¡d were lessexpensive (see Cruikshank 2005).

I L:ft!.19 notes thal although rnany of the hollowware vessel fonrs found in Barbados may haveroots.in Eulope, "[their] use in Barbados. however, is most likely associated r.vith African loocl-

u,a1,s" (2001, p.226).

384

Fig, 16,2 Sampling ofmonke¡ conaree, and gogtethollowwares housed at theSpringvale Folk Museum,St. Thomas, Barbados (lop).Hollowware sherds includ-ing con'rplete base, likelyfrom a monkey jar recoveredfrom a domestic context inthe Below Clifftenantry( bo tto n). Hol lowwares wer.epredominantly used for stor-age and food prepæation. Forexantple, nronkeys common lyheld water, whereas conareestypically stored salted meats.Comnronly associated withAfro-Barbad i an produ cti onand consumption. these ves-sels were similarly utilizedby "poor white" Barbadians.(Photos by author)

M. C, Reilty

Analysis of spatial organization and functionality also points to the diversity ofsocioeconomic activity undertaken by Below clifriesidenìs. In general, the Belowcliff landscape wourd have appeared disorganized and erratic tå'praniers and oth-ers committed to plantation efficiency. As illustrated by James oËlle lteos¡ in trisanalyses of Jamaican coffee plantations, the plantation was a space ìn which thestate of nature was to be hamessed, controlled, systematically orgånized, and rigidrymanaged to maximize labor. efficiency and profit (see arsó nÃlst.ong and Keily2000; Lenik 2012). Although the natural landscape, natural disasters, and acts ofresistance on the part ofthe enslaved were all contributing factors in the successesand failures of elite attempts at organization and control 1-for a systematic analysisof plantation efficiency see Bates N.D.), it is undeniable that there was a particurarlog.ic to plantation organization that hinged on power relations and ímposed order,This was reflected not only in the great house, the works, and fierds, but in thevillages inhabited by the ensraved. A far cry from the rinearity una ,igio boundar-ies that were characteristic of planter-dominated and designéd plantiion spaces,the Below cliff tenantry (Fig. r6.3) appears to be disorganized and hapha)ardryconstructed. Households are grouped in small clusters and, although it is tenuous

16 The Politics of Work,,.poor Whites,,,aud plantation Capitalism in Barbados

Ainsley Norris

Viney Gibson

Leslie LaYneAgard Norris

Wilson Norris Rogers

LayneBarney Gibson King

Goddard

Hampton GibsonHouse on Boulders

Fenty

Fitz'BaileY House Near Path

Mayers

House on top of Cliff

Monkey Jump

Bradshaw

Fig t6'3 Map of abandoned house foundations in the Belorv Cliff tenantry.Names associatedwith households were the last known inhabitants of the structures. Such inf'ormation was providedby local infonnants. The tree line to rlte southwest illustrates the edge of the cliff. Additionally,entrances to pathways to travel up and dowr the cliffare rnarked (The tadders a¡d Monkey Jurnp).Excavations were concelltrated àt the Wilson Nonis household, but units were also placed in theHantpton Gibson and Fitz-Bailey homesteads. (Points plotted by the author and base nrap courtesyofESRI)

386 M. C. Reilty

to project such patterns into the past, in the decades before the tenantry was aban-doned, these clusters were associated with kinship networks,

The spatialorganization of individual households facilitated small farming sub-sistence practices that diminished reliance on broader island markets. The yard areaof Wilson Norris'household provides evidence of such activities. Excavations wereundertaken predominantly within the interior of the household. However, articu-lated stones delineated the boundaries of a small garden area in which yams andpotatoes were grown, a detached kitchen where food was prepared, pigpens, anda small parcel where sugarcane was harvested to be sold to adjacent plantations.Small farming practices or selÊprovisioning would have facilitated the operationof informal as well as moral economies based on kinship and community networks,The informal economic activities and the unsystematic tenantry organization belowthe cliffand the plantation operation taking place on top of the cliffrepresent a starkjuxtaposition of spaces of capitalism. The quotidian nature of such activities, as wellas their archaeological signatures, bear testament to everyday ways of life that werenot dependent on the plantation, but were, nonetheless, affected by its operation andby those living and working there.

In describing spatial organization and use at the slave village at Seville Planta-tion in Jamaica, Armstrong and Kelly note similar uses of space and associate itwith a degree of autonomy on the part of Afro-Jamaican slaves. In discussing theactivities undertaken in the surrounding household areas, they suggest that iTheyard activities should od preparation areas, gather_ing areas, animal pen This description is strikinglysimilar to the spatial and the associated activitiesthat took place in such spaces. Historical evidence also points to these practicestaking place in Barbados contemporaneously with the inhabitation of the Sevilleslave village. Transcriptions of interviews that were part of a parliamentary com-mittee report on the slave trade and commerce in the American colonies describeobservations made by Barbadian elites about the practices oî',poor whites." In 1790Rev, Nicholls was asked by Parliament if "white people even labour in the openair in the island of Barbados." His response was in the affirmative, with specificreferences to the "poor whites," claiming that "Those who are called tenants, beingmen who serve in the militia for a small allotment of land, and persons in similarcircumstances as to the quantity of land they occupy, do commonly work in theirgrounds with their negroes, if they have any, or else cultivate the whole with theirown labour; that ground is commonly in provisions, not in canes" (parliamentaryPapers 1790, pp. 334-335). Rev. Nicholls'asseftion that the grounds were not insugarcane aligns with Jerome Handler's (1966) research on small-scale cane farm-ing, which illustrates that such practices became more popular beginning in theearly-to-mid twentieth century. Therefore, it is likely that subsistence agriculturewas a common feature of life below the cliffthroughout its occupation, with small-scale sugar farming picking up during the twentieth century.

Despite significant evidence of diverse subsistence and economic activiry, itwas argued that "poor whites" refused to work in occupations which had typicallybeen slated as "slave labor," Again, these discourses serve as a reminder that this

16 The Politics of work, "poor whites," and plantation capitarism in Barbados 3g7

demographic is consciously and consistebounded from the Afro-Barbadianperíod (1838)6 Thome and Kimbalstood at about 8000, Of this population,of blacks more provident and industrioupoultry and rob their provision grounds at night; but they would disdain to associ_ate with them" (1838, p' 57). Towards the close of the previous century, Barbadianreformer and planter Joshua Steele would comment that ,,The meanest of the white

starving to death than of working like Negroes,, (citedSteele, through his establishment of the Society for theanufactures and Commerce, sought to bolster the socio_

. 'poor whites" by stimulating local industry. The effort,however, met with limited success and was largery viewe¿ to be a fairure because ofinherent laziness on the part of "poor whites,;(såe Lambert 2005t. ihi, per"eiv"aproblem lingered into the postemancipation period. rn rg47, fo[owing a massivedrought, an anonymous author presented a letter to the council of Barbados in re-sponse to a plea for aid for those suffering in the parish of St. Joseph (roughlytwo miles from Below cliff). In noting that it is pred-ominantly ,,poor whites,' whowould be the recipients of aid, the author I otes:

The. system tasks [the poor whites] to imagine the labouring popuration [Afro_ Barbadians]of the Island inferior beings to themselves when their mãårs an¿ u,,*¡À."ã are nor awhit better, and the consequences that the resources ofemploynrent *rtl.rr

"rr"ìåì the one acomfortabl avoided an rather than descend to

such mean ch they con ey indutge in f.olly andhabitual id nd destitutiand vice (BDA Council Minutes 1g47). ext step is inrmorality

Again, the '¿poor whites" are pitted aglazy demographic. They were said to reincluding many of the labor-intensive agrproduction, such as the cutting ofthe cane,the cane, and skilled positions such as wor

. The rhetoric employed by commentators suggests that elites had a particular

ethos_concerning productive labor that was not necessarily shared across classlínes.? As the passages above indicate, in the opinions of eighteenth anà nineteenthcentury commentators, a refusal to participate in the island's sugar industry signaledthe status of the "poor whites" as that of beggars. croser exãmination, however,reveals a particular image of how "Redlegs" made their living that didn't neatly cor_respond to roles traditionally associated with sugar productiJn. In expanding on his1790 comments on the diverse economic activities of ,,poor whites,, quoted above,

the enslaved. would not be capable of successfully transitioning from slavery tod ofapprenticeship was imposed in lg34 and was supposed to'last for six yåarsshort in 1838 for a host ofreasons including laborei unrest as well as pr.r.r."

s.

l"fluetrtr durirrg the same period a sinrilar discourse was ìeveled against the rvhite underclass inqrs /\rìrencan South (see Hartigan 2005. C,hap. 2).

M. C. Reilly

Occupations of Below Cliff Residents (1825-1965)

Table 16'2 Occupations of Below Cliff residents compiled by the author frour parish baptismalregistries (BDA and St. Margaret's Church Registries).The data illustrate that roughty half ofBelow Clif'f residents who were given occupations were identified simply as "laborers." The regis-tries, however', were unable to account for individuals participating in multiple econonric actìvitiesor who had several occupations, which nlore accurately represents how plantation residents nladetlreir livings and interacted with other contmunity ntembers

Barbadian-born Rev. Nicholls would note that many "poor whites" were employedas, "[C]arpenters, joiners, masons, coppelsmiths, blacksmiths, shoemakers, taylors,and others; and also some of the poorer whites spin cotton for the lamps in the boil-ing houses; whites are also employed in the coasting vessels, and as fishermen"(1790, pp. 334-335). 'lhe patterns of employment observed by Rev. Nicholls aremarginally represented in local baptismal registries from the Below cliff area be-ginning in the decades preceding emancipation ( 1834), but more aptly reflect a dis-tinct contrast in how labor was quantified and identified in the historical record andthe more complicated and multiple ways in which "poor whites" actually subsisted,

For the records analyzed from 1825-1965, there were 878 individuals baptizedwith a place of residence given as Below cliffor clifton Hall.8 parental occupation(father's activities mostly, but those of mothers are included in select instances)were provided for 462 individuals, or roughly 52.6% of children baptized, Of theoccupations listed, "laborer" was the most common mode of employment of Belowcliff residents, accounting for 222 (or roughly 48%) of the 462 occupations given.Other common occupations listed were planters (small farmers), carpenters, fisher-men, shoemakers, bookkeepers, and policemen (Table 16.2).

Laborers (48%)

r Planters (15.6%)

r Fishermen (8,4%)

Carpenters (4.3%)

Shoemakers (3.9%)

I Police, shop keepers, bookkeepers,plumbers, domestics, distillers, etc,(r9.8%\

16 The Politics of Work, ,,poor W'ites,,,and plantation Capitalism in Barbados

The occupatíons listed for Below Cli

:i::Com

chel-Rolph Trouillot,s concept of .,ide

other official registries) as one of theand regulrelations,Laborersprovided.

is impossible to determine whether indíworks, as mechanics on machinery, or aavailable in the r.egion. Cast simply aswhites" are officially documented âs be

'case of those simply left out.In addition, patterns emerge when gaps are observed and anaryzedin the regis_tries. For instance, throughout pa.ticurãr date ranges, when occupations are serdomIisted, an occupation was far more likely to be re vidual had askilled occupation such as a carpenter, shoemakeq rman, or po_lice offìcer, Therefore, the registry data r.eflect a p of capitalistlabor where individual identities aie attached to sing hin the labor

ramics (Leone 1999,2005) can be repre_deq possessive individualism, and disci-also Glennie and Thrift 1996; Thompson

attempt by figures of authority tongular perceived role in capitalistr such classifications were inter_nalized or accepted by Berow criff residents. we can arso view the omission of

contributive forms of labor,Despite the fact that those recording this information were not planters, parishpriests were centrar figures in the politñal infràstructure, given that the estabrishedchurch held considerabre power in Barbadian society. Though significant, these in-

record that contains purposeful ande, I share Ann Laura Stoler,s assess_

of writing and as a force field that ani_ulls on some ,social facts,and convefts

some ways of knowing while repel_Although some fonns of knowleclgen (and, in solne cases, the interprè_

E In the post-etnancipation era (after I 83S) it is possible that those listed as residents of CliftonHall wel'e residing on top of the cliffin the ner.vly-established tenantry. However, given that St'

John's parish church is in close proxinrity to the post-emancipation site, it is likely that those resid-ing on Clifton Flall lands and being baptized at St. Margaret's were living below the cliff. This u'as

oonfirnred by f'ormer village residents.

389

390 M. C. Reilly

tation) of the historical record, archaeological and anthropological methodologiesare well suited to provide alternative perspectives that more aptly describe localprocesses and activities.

Working In and Out of Capital

the post-ationshipee, t'poor

capitalistmode of production associated with the sugar agroindustry. Rather, as the evidencepresented above demonstrates, many worked as wage laborers on plantations, somewere subsistence farmers, some occupied skilled positions in the community, somewere fishermen, and others suppofted themselves and their families by any meansnecessary. Therefore, the complicated relationship between Below Cliff residentsand capitalist processes demands an approach that views historical actors not aspassive subjects to totalizing forces ofcapitalism or as explicitly resistant insubor-dinates to such forces. Outlined below is such an approach that carefully afticulatesthe tensions between "poor white" ways of life and capitalism.

The approach taken here follows vinay Gidwani's (2008) interpretation of rurallabor transformations in western central lndia, as read through Marx,s Grundrisse(1973)' Gidwani provides trenchant readings of and facilitates critical dialogue be-tween orthodox Marxists such as David Harvey (1982), as well as more culturallyinformed Marxisms stemming from postcolonial theory and subaltem studies suchas those of Dipesh chakrabarty (1992,2000). These readings inform his observa-tions of changes in local labor patterns at the hands of the multiple shifts and formsof capital. His geographic and ethnographic methodologies iilustrate the ability oflaborers to cause interruptions to or baniers for the fluid motion of capital. In ajarringly similar fashion to the way in which "poor whites" are described, Gidwanipresents one interlocutor in particular, Ajibhai, who is a small farmer, part-time la-boreq distiller of local liquor, and is known to have a penchant for alcohol (which hefreely admits). Despite his local reputation as an idle drunkard, Ajibhai interestinglyretofts, "Yes, I drink. ...I enjoy myself. If people don't like it, it's their problem. Iam not anybody's servant. I work when I want to and rest when I want to. we don'thurt anyone" (Gidwani 2008, p. 208).

Gidwani utilizes Ajibhai's particular position in local socioeconomics to berepresentative of how laborers choose to relate to changing terrains of capitalistproduction while simultaneously providing challenging forces to such productionschemes and processes.

He [Ajibhai] ananges to use his labor and h mption in time and spaceat úls pleasure. Ofcourse, this is not always is ¿ol outside the gravita-tional pull ofcapital. But he seenrs to be try mode ofexistence that isnot readily conducive for the circulation ofvalue, and so earns the ire ofa¡ agrarian elitethat waltts to conscript his land and labor (p.213;emphasis in original).

16 The poritics of work, "poo'whites," and pta'tation capitarism in Bar.bados

istence do not necessarily have to take therocesses, but can, in fact, be partially so.against capital_an individuai in any casehe is producing a crisis in one molecular

poinfthrough which capirat as value must pass. call it a;ñ;;;;;;. it i, ,..rirtunr.in that sense" (p. 213; emphasis in origiconscription or resistance, Gidwani viewresentative of his distinction between the

Using Marx's interpretation of the uGidwani suggests that a politics of workare not hamessed by capitalist modes ofwords, labor that has not been conscriptthe use value of labor to accumulate profifor alternative purposes. In this fonnulati,labor" and be conceived of ,,positively.

tions and/or becomings" (196). As such, capitar can react in a number of ways. Mostsuitable from the vantage point of capital, capitalists may develop any number ofstrategies to appropriate such labor for its own benefit. Àlternateìy, tile failure ofcapitalist processes to harness labor power may be projected as the'áilures of suchindividuals or groups due to personal inadequacy, poor wor.k ethic, or other per-ceived defìciencies harbored by the working classes, what Gidwani terms ,.waste,,f'om the perspective of those committed to capitalist production (200g, chap. r ).Archaeological and historical evidence suggests that Below Cliff residents devel-oped modes of subsistence and economic systems that parallel Gidwani's ,,politics ofwork." Although w pi{falls and perils of ethnographiò analogy,I briefly tum to, the ite', community in observiãg inflections ofthe politics of work similar economic relations in the past. TheFentys live in a two-story walled house along the windy road in Newcastle, leadingdown to Martin's Bay (in view of the now-abandoned Below clifftenantry). Now anelderly couple with a son who lives in a house next door and relatives scattered aroundthe island and the world, Mavis and Alvin recall ,,simpler',

times (a time during whichselect families still occupied Below cliff) when informal and moral economies werethe dominant means by which local residents made a living. Despite their nostalgia,their contemporary means of subsistence reflect the persistance of such economies inthe wake of substantial transformations in the broadei capitalist economy.

I frequently visited with the Fentys after I had concluded excavátions f.or theday' More times than not, I found Mavis (Aunt Mae) in the kitchen preparing fishor vegetables or conducting other household chores. Alvin, who was lôsing a bitof his memory in his old age, was still active in the yard area where he could befound painting the house, pruning the fruit trees, retriÀving ripened breadfruit, andpicking ackee and bananas. These fruits were consumed by the Fentys and sharedwith family and neighbors. Additionaily, given their small stock of banana trees,every Tuesday Alvin and Mavis would climb into their worn volkswagen hatchbackand sell a batch of bananas at a local market. on one occasion, their niece walkedinto thei'home, where we sat chatting, and dropped off a srnall batch of yams and

391

392 M, C, Reiily

peppers that had recently been harvested from her own small garden parcel. Thesesubsistence and market activities consumed much of their time and, in general, hadprovided them with what they felt was a comfortable life.

In conjunction with these subsistence and informaI economic activities, the Fen-tys, along with their friends and relatives, took part in various forms of wage labor,from work on the plantation to various part-time or full-time positions they ac-quired in Bridgetown. These diverse economic activities are the methods and matri-ces through which "poor whites" lived their daily lives. As tangential or temporaryparticipants in the plantation economy, however, their labor habits were perceivedto be lackadaisical or nonexistent and they were inscribed as such in the historicalrecord. It is, therefore, imperative that we recognize not only the inadequacy of suchhistorical renderings of laboq but the realities of the alternatives that were manifestin the forces of modernity.

Conclusion

This evidence suggests that residents on the plantation landscape had dynamic,complex, and dialectical lelations to capitalist processes. As discussed at the foreof this chapter, beginning in the seventeenth century in the Caribbean and SouthAmerica, sugar production epitomized profit accumulation through large-scaleagroindustry that has come to be representative of Calibbean modernity (see James1963; Scott 2004,p. 125;Palmié2002,pp.4142;Mintz 1974, pp. 9-10). Despirethe tenuous relationship between enslaved labor and capitalist production, laborexploitation was a central, if not the central, tenet of plantation production. Yet, de-spite underlying principles of capital accumulation, the intricacies of capitalism donot necessarily manifest themselves evenly or monolithically across space and time(Harvey 1989; Smith 2008b; McGuire 2002). Understood this way, it is possible toobserve various manifestations of capitalist processes unfolding concomitantly, as

well as their successes and failures in attempts to take hold within certain spacesand communities. In contrast to spaces on the plantation representative of the gro-tesque labor regimes associated with large-scale agricultural production (such as

the works and the fields), seemingly marginal spaces on the plantation, Iike the

Below Cliff tenantry, represent arenas in which free residents chose their own |evelof involvement in production systems. Despite resistance and levels of autonomyexpressed in villages inhabited by the enslaved, tenantries such as Below Cliffof-fer the potential to observe the choices made by nonelites, whose bodies were notowned or legally tied to the plantation. Rather than an exit from capitalist systems(Hirschman 1970) or an explicitly antipodal alternative (Leone 2005, Chaps 7 and

8), inhabitants of such spaces were tangentially associated with such networks and

were, therefore, perceived as ambivalent and troublesolne.Within this space of agroindustry were the irking of behaviors and ways of life

that did not neatly comport with planter and administrative ideas and assumptionsabout proper or acceptable forms of labor. Following Foucault's (1991) approach

16 The Politics olwork, "poor whites," a'. prantatio¡r capitarisnr in Barbados 393

References

394 M. C. Reilly

Annstrorrg, D. V. (2008). Excavating Africar American heritage. Historical Archaeologt, 42(2),123-13'7.

Artnstrong, D. V., & fìauset, M. W. (2004). An East lndian laborers'household in nineteenth-century Jarnaica: A case lor undelstanding cultural diversity through space, chronology, andnraterial analysis. Hislorical Archaeologt, 38(2),911 .

Armstroug, D, V., & Kell¡ K. G. (2000). Settlernent pattems and the origins of Aflican Jamaicansociety: Seville plantation, St, Ann's Bay, Jamaica. Ethnohistoty,47(2),369-397.

Armstrong, D. V., & Reilly, M. C. (2014). Recovering evidence of initial settler fanns and earlyplantation life in Barbados . Slavery qnd Abolition,lorthconr ing, 35(3), 399411 .

Armstrong, D. V., Hauser. M. W., Knight, D. V/., & Lenik, S. (2009). Variations in venues ofslavery and freedom: lnterpreting the late eighteenth-century cultural landscape of St. John,Danish West Indies using an archaeologicalGlS. InternationalJournal of Í{istoricol Archaeol-ogt, 13(l),94-l I l.

Barbados Department of Archives (BDA). Black rock, St. Michael, Barbados.Bates, L. (N. D.). 'The landscape cannot be sa¡d to be really perfect': A comparative investiga-

tion of plantation Spatial organization on two British coloniai sugarestates. In L,W. Marshall(ErJ,)The archaeolog,,of slavery: A contparolive opproach lo capli'rtity and coercion. SouthernIllinois University Center forArchaeological lnvestigations, SIU Occasional Paper #41.

Beckles, FI. M. (1989). Ilhite servitude and black slovery in Barbados, 1627-1715. Knoxville:Uuiversity of Tennessee Press.

Browne, D. V C. (2012). Race, class, politics and the sÍruggle for enpowennent in Borbados,I9I4-l937. Kingston: Ian Randle Publishers.

Chakrabarty, D. (1992). Postcoloniality and the artifice ofhistory: Who speaks for'lndian'pasts?Represenlalions, 37, l)6.

Chakabarty, D. (2000) Provincicrlizing Durope: Postcolonial thought ancl hisloricctl dilÍerence.Princeton: Princeton Uuiversity Press.

Cohn, B. S., & Dirks, N. B. (1988). Beyond the liinge: The nation state, colonialisrn, and the tech-nologies of Power. Journal of Historical Sociologt, 1(2),224-229,

Coleridge, H. N. (1826). Six months in the l4te,st Indies in /825. London: John Murray,AblemarleStreet.

Comaroff, J., & Conraroff, J. (1991). Of revelation and rcvolulion: Chrisrianity, colonialism, andconsciottsness in South Af ica. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Croucher, S. K., & Weiss, L. (2011). The Archaeology of Capitalism in Colonial Corìtexts, an

Introduction: Provincializing Historical Archaeology. In S. Croucher & L. Weiss (Eds.),The archaeologt o/ capilalisn in colonial contexls: Postcolonial historical archaeologies(pp. l-38). NewYork: Springer.

Cruickshank, G. (2005). Scottish pottery. Buckinghamshire: Shire Publications Ltd.Curet, L.4., Hauser, M. W. (2011). Islands ot the uossroqds: Migration, seafaring, and interoc-

lion in the Caribbeon. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.Delle, J. A. (1998). An archaeologt of sociol spoce: Anolyzing cofee plantations in Jamaica's Blue

Mounta i ns. New York: Plenum.Delle, J. A. (2014). The colonial Caribbean: Landscapes of power in the plantation system.New

York: Cambridge University Press.

Dickson, W. (1814). Mitigalion of slaver¡, ¡n tuo parts. London: R. and A. Taylor.Dunn, R. (1972). Sugar and slaves: The rise ofthe planter class in the English Ilesl lndies, 1624-

lTl3.Chapel Hill: University of Noúh CarolinaPress.Finch, J. (20l 3). Inside the pot house: Diaspora, identity, and locale in Barbadian Ceranics. Jour-

nal of Art'ican Dictspora Archaeologt and Het'itage, 2(2), I l5-l 30.Forde-Jones, C. (1998). Mapping racial boundaries: Gender, race, and poor rel¡ef in Barbadian

plarrtati on sociely. J ou r na I of l(o nt e n b H i s t o ry, I 0(3), 9-3 1.

Foucault, M. (1991). Govenlmentality. ln G. Burchell. C.G. Gordon, & P. Miller (Eds.),The Fou'coult elfecl: Studies in governrnentality (pp. 87-10a). Chicago: University of Chicago Press'

Galle. J. E. (2011). Assessing the impacts of tinre, agricultural cycles, and demography ort ilreconsunler activities ofenslaved men and wonren in eighteenth-century Janraica and Virginia'

16 The politics of work, "poor whites," a'd prantation capitalisrn in Barbados 3g5

'ong

ci '^t¿ t

ntio

Gidwani, v. (2009). capitar, intetnpred: Agrrtricrn deveropnten¡ qnct the poritics qrMirrneapolis: university of Minnesota pr.ess. ielopmertt qn¿ ¡he politics 6¡work itr Ltrtiot'

HaÍtigan, J. (2005). odd lribes; '[bwatd ct cultural anolysis ofwhite people. Durham: Duke uni_versity Press.

llarvey, D, (2006U9821). The linits ro capital. Nerv york: Verso.Ha'ser, M. .kets; Local cerctttics ancl econotnies in eigh_teenlh-c press of.FloridaHauser, M. bbean: Historical archaeology. lnternotiona!Journul

Hilsclrman, A. O. (1970). Exit, v Responses to decline in frnrs, organizations,ond stoles, Cambridge: Harva s.

I{oyos, F. A. (1978). Barbados; A ,indions îo independenc¿, London: MacMillanCaribbean.

Jarnes, c. L, R. (1963). T'he Btack Jocobins; 'l-oussaint L'ouvertute ciltd the sútr DonringoRevolution. New York: Randont House,

'I ; Wh isnt in Barbados ttnd North

r :f:llnen Negro,1550-lgl2.chapelss.

396 M. C. Reilly

Lenik, S. (2012). Mission plantations, space, and social control: Jesuits as planters in FrenchCaribbean colonies and frontiers. Journal o/Social Archaeologt, l2(l),51-71.

Leone, M. P. (1999). Ceramics from Annapolis, Maryland: Ameasure of time routines and workdiscipline. ln M.P. Leone & PB. Potter (Eds.), Historicalarchaeologies of capitalisrn (pp. 195-2l 6). Nerv York: Springer.

Leone, M. P. (2005). The archoeolog,t of liberty in an American capital: Excavations in Annapolis.Berkeley: University of Califbrnia Press.

LoftfÌeld, T. C. (2001). Creolization in seventeenth-centuty Barbados: Two case studies. In p.

Fanrswortlr (F.d.), Island lives: Historical archaeologies of the Caribbean (pp. 207-233). Tus-caloosa: University of Alabama Press.

l\4arx, K. (1967). Capital vol. l: A critical qnalysis of capitalist ptoduction. NewYork: Intema-tiona[ Publishers.

Marx, K. (1973). Grundrisse: Foundations of the clitique of political economy. New York:Penguirr Books.

McGnire, R. H. (2002). A lV[orxist archaeologt (2nd Ed.). Clifton Corners: Percheron.Menard, R. R. (2006). Sreet negotiolions; Sugar, slovery, and plantation agricullure in early

Bar bados. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.

Mintz, S. W. ( I 974). Caribbecm transfortnations. New York: Coluurbia University Press.Monahan, M. (201l).l'he ueolizing subject: Race, rcason, dnd the pol¡t¡cs of purit'tt, New York:

Fordham University Press,

Nervttran, S. P. (2013). A new v,orld of labor; The development of planturion slavery in the BritishA t la nt ic. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Ortiz,F. (1995U9471). Cuban counterpoittt: Tobacco and sttgar. Durhar¡: Duke University Press.Palmié, S. (2002). llizards and scienlists: Explorarions in Afro-Cuban Modernity and lrodition.

Durhanr: Duke University Press.

Parliamentary Papers. (1790). Vol. 88, Accounts and papers 30. London, UK.Ptrlsiphe¡ L. M. (1994). The landscapes and ideational roles ofCaribbean slave gardens. In N.F.

Miller & K.L. Gleason (F.rJs.),'fhe cu'chaeologt of garden andJìeld (pp.202-226} Philadel-phia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Rìchard, F. G. (20.l1). Materializing poverty: Archaeological reflections from the postcolony.H is tor ica I A rchaeo lo gt, 4 5(3), I 6Ç1 82.

Richard, F. G. (2013). Hesistarrt geographies of power: The materiality of colonial rule in the Siin(Senegal), I 85 0- I 9ó0. Jou rn a I of Soc ia I A rc ha e o I o gy, I 3(l\, 5 4-7 9.

Scott, J. C. (f 988). Seeing like a slate: Hov) cerlain schemes to improve the hunan condition have

failed.New Haven: Yale University Press.

Scott, D. (2004). Consuipts of modernity: The tagedy of colonial enlightennent. Durham: DukeUniversity Press.

Sheppard, J. (1977). The "Redlegs" ofBarbados: Their origins and history. New York: KTO.Sheridan, R. B. (2000[974]). Sugar and slarery: An economic history ofthe British West Indies,

1623-1775. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Snrith, M. M. (1994). Counting clocks, owning time: Detailing and interpreting clock and watchowrrership in the Arnerican South, 1739-1 865. Tine and Society, 3(3),321-339.

Snrith, A. T. (2004). The end of the essential archaeological subject. Archaeologica! Dictlogtes,I 1(t\, t-20.

Smith, F. U. (2008a). The archaeolog,of alcohol and drinking. Gainesville: University Press ofFlorida.

Snrith, N, (2008b[ 984]). Uneven development: Nature, capital, and rhe production qfspace. Ath-ens: University olGeorgia Press.

St, Margaret's Parish Church Registries. (2013). Housed at St. John's Parish Chr.rrch, St. Joltn,Barbados. (Accessed April-May 201 3).

Stoler. [,. A. (2009). Along the archival grain: Epistetnic anxieties and colonial comnon sense,

Princeton: Princeton University Press.

T'honre. J. 4.. & Kimball, J, H. ( 1838). Emancipalion in the Ll/est Indie.ç; A .tix nonths'totu' in Anti-gtrcr, ßarhado.s, and ,Jouctico, in the tryar /8-lZ. New York: The Anrerican Anti-Slavery Society.

16 Thc poritics orwo.k, "poor whites," and prautation capitalisnr i' Bar.bados 3g7

tnirl;?r,E. P (r967). Time, wo.k-disciprine and indusrriar capirarisnr. post antr present, 38,'fomich, D. w (2004). Tbough. the prisnr of ,sravery; Labor; capitar, a,d worrd ecoronty. r,at.,tant:Rownran and Littlefield publishers.'frouillot, M. R. (r995). sirencing the past; power and Íhe pt.oduction of hisørv.Boston: geacon,Trouillot, M. R. (2003), Global tl.ansþr.,,tcttions; Anthtopolog,t ar¿,ní,iïîíri,r,i,Yà. N.n yorL,

Palgrave Macmillan.wilkie' L' A' (1999)' Evidence of african continrities in the nlateriar culrure of.clifton planta-tion, Bahanras, In J.B. Haviser (Ed.),A,û.ican s;ites: Archaeorost ¡,,iìöi,it)ùrjr. princeron:Markus Wiener.

reolizatiolt in the colrsurlrer. goods ol au F)u_J/(3), lG 2ó.

struction of Bahamian identity: A ntulti-rclta e o I o gy, 3, 283-320.

tcttty ¡tofs: tln ot,cltaeolog,,of ntenoty ancl tracli_

wiriarns, F.. (tss4tts44t). capitatisnr ",n

,,,,,),1,)ri'åilir:i"åïlLiîll;,,, "rNorrh carorinaPress.

Wo haeology ofthe eally sixteenth_D.V. Armstrong (Eds). Out of

raica (pp. 23-40). Tuscaloosa: