|Location:||Seville Plantation, St. Ann Parish, Jamaica|
|Occupation Dates:||1670s-1850s. Phasing and mean ceramic dates can be found on the Chronology Page.|
|Excavator(s):||Dr. Douglas V. Armstrong|
In 1987, excavations at Seville Plantation, an 18th-century sugar plantation situated on the north coast of Jamaica at St. Ann’s Bay, were initiated by the Seville African Jamaican Archaeological Project. Led by Douglas Armstrong of Syracuse University, these excavations concentrated on two slave villages, one dating from the early-to-mid 18th century and the other dating from the late 18th-through mid-19th century. Houses 15 and 16 are located in the first-period African settlement of the plantation. These structures are located to the southwest of the planter’s residence.
Excavations occurred at House 15 between 1987 and 1993. Archaeological features such as structural postholes (F01-F11) and probable stone foundation walls confirm that this dwelling was constructed of wattle and daub. Unlike other house areas in the early village, House 15 did not have an associated human burial. Both European and locally-made artifacts were recovered, and they represent a wide range of activities from food production and consumption to spiritual practices.
The early African village at Seville, where House 15 and 16 are located, is represented on a 1721 map of St. Ann’s Bay. This map included a number of accurate details, such as navigational vectors used to guide mariners entering St. Ann’s Bay. In addition, the early map locates the village behind and upslope from the main house. Two linear rows of tightly spaced houses are arrayed along a road or path. The road heads south from the planter’s residence. This is the only identified map showing the location of the early village and the approximate locations of Houses 15 and 16 (Armstrong 1990, 1991).
A 1792 estate plan shows the location of a second slave village that dates from the last quarter of the 18th-century. The later village on this map indicates the houses were clustered together, with each house oriented independently, and with significantly more yard space between each house (Armstrong and Kelly 1992).
These maps are the main textual sources for Seville. In 1982, Armstrong conducted several oral histories with Mr. Carpy Rose, who was born in one of the last houses to remain standing in the later village. These interviews are discussed in a number of presented papers and publications (Armstrong 1990, 1991).
Excavation history, procedure and methods
Archaeological and historical research associated with the early slave village at Seville was initiated in 1987. It built on an initial survey of the area conducted by Armstrong in 1981 (Armstrong 1991). This early survey indicated that there were two distinctive village areas at Seville. Prior to that time only the more recent slave village was recognized. The later village is clearly shown on a map dating to 1792. It was assumed that an earlier 1721 map of St. Ann’s Bay (which at the time was misattributed by the National Library as being made in 1691), was thought to simply show the same village. In examining this map, Armstrong was able to determine that it was made in 1721. Based on this map, he decided to survey not only the area to the west of the planter’s residence, where ruins of a village were known, but also the area uphill and behind the planter’s house, as indicated on the map. Slipware, delftware, and local earthenware were present on the surface and Armstrong hypothesized that this may have been the location of an early village site on the property.
When the Seville African Jamaican archaeological project was initiated in 1987, the idea was to first define the boundaries of both slave settlements and then compare data relating to early and late residences on the property. An intensive walking survey in 1987 confirmed the findings from the 1981 survey: there were two distinct loci of slave occupation on the property. The area uphill and behind (south and southwest) of the planter’s residence was included in the preliminary walking survey, even though it was owned by the St. Ann’s water company rather than the National Trust. At the time, the Jamaica National Heritage Trust owned all of the other areas associated with industrial production and residential life on Seville sugar estate. When the study began in 1987, local farmers were in the process of expanding their banana fields into the area of the early village site. The project convinced them to expand in another direction and ultimately got support from the land owner for the protection of the property. This information was used by the JNHT to later acquire this area and include it in the heritage park.
The house sites were identified via a walking survey traversing the study area. House 15 was located in the same line of houses as House 16, with another house, House 20, located between the two structures (DAACS did not analyze House 20). Located along the western row of houses, it is believed to have been constructed near the middle of the village.
The objective was to define both the house structure and any associated features. Excavation was initiated with a single test unit then expanded for aerial coverage. A grid of 1-x-1 meter quadrats was laid across the site. Grid north was 35 degrees east of magnetic north. Excavation units were labeled using an alphanumeric system with each one-meter unit designated using a letter and number. In most cases, the letters increase to the north and numbers increase to the west (i.e. A1, A2, B1, B2, and so forth). The exceptions at House 15 are transects Y and Z. These transects were the southern most transects on the site, so the north/south transect labels proceed as follows: Y, Z, A, B, C, etc. The southeasterly most quadrat at House 15 was Y11.
In order to generate spatial distribution data that was compatible with DAACS, DAACS analysts assigned a new coordinate system, expressed as northings and eastings, to Armstrong’s existing alphanumeric grid. DAACS established a datum (0/0 as opposed to A1) that was located to the south and west of the excavated area. Quadrat boundary data in DAACS for House 15 are therefore represented in the number of meters away from the DAACS datum, i.e. E9N1.
A total of 81 1-x-1 meter units were excavated at House 15. All units were excavated by hand and all sediment recovered was passed through screens with 1/8 inch mesh. Every unit was excavated following a combination of natural and arbitrary stratigraphic designations. Each level was dug to a maximum of 10 centimeters unless a cultural feature was encountered or until there was a natural change in soil color and/or texture. In most cases the upper 10 centimeters included a mix of materials that dated from the 17th century through the 20th centuries. The second level, 10-20 centimeters in depth, contained primarily early material culture. The third level was of variable depth and it was in this level that the foundations and features of the house were fully exposed. Given the slope of the hill, generally the northern units, or down-slope portions of the house site, had structural features that were exposed on or near the surface. However, features in the southern units, or upslope portions of the house, were covered with 20-30 centimeters of sediment.
Levels are represented numerically. For example, C11.1 stands for level 1 in unit C11. C11.2 stands for level 2 in unit C11, and so forth. In the original field records, 0 (zero) was used to represent surface levels. DAACS replaced the 0 with a “S”, therefore C11.S in DAACS represents the surface level in unit C11.
One area of the early village was later reused in the mid-19th century when a house thought to be associated with East Indian laborers was constructed. This later occupation, identified as a distinct later assemblage, overlays part of the early village. This East Indian household, defined as House Area 14, provides an important comparative base for studies of ethnicity and social cultural attributes associated with laborers on the property (see Armstrong and Hauser 2003). Fortunately, even though the site has relatively shallow stratigraphy, only two of the early African context house sites (Houses 12 and 13) were directly disturbed and even these two retained stratified contexts and sequential layers of house construction materials. Although only Houses 12 and 13 were directly impacted by this later 19th century occupation, the presence of these later contexts, along with other more casual discarding of materials in the area, accounts for more recent materials found in the upper layers of all house sites in the early village.
Site plans and detailed photographic documentation was done for all excavated house sites at the early village. Dates were compiled in the field using field recording forms and transferred to a dBase 4 database in the field. The data were downloaded into AUTOCAD and SURFER in order to carry out spatial analyses. Much of the data was then compiled and analyzed using Lotus spreadsheet and graphs. Artifacts recovered from House 15 are curated by the Jamaica National Heritage Trust.
Summary of research and analysis
House 15 was initially identified by a row of rocks that defined the northern foundation wall. The structure appears to have originally have been two rooms of the same size, similar to House 16, and was most likely occupied around the same time. At some point during its use, a third room was added. The house was of wattle-and daub construction using post construction on a stone foundation. All features identified at House 15 are postholes (F1-F11), the majority belonging to the structure. None of the identified House 15 features were excavated. As a result, there are no context records or artifacts associated with the postholes. They are only represented on the final site plan.
Like all of the other houses in the early village, the floor of House 15 was leveled using limestone to build up the lower (northern) end of the house. Hence, the more formally constructed north side of the house was most easily recognized and the less formally constructed post holes on the south side were less easily defined.
This house site had a hearth in the yard and a distribution of artifacts that suggested informal yard boundaries between houses. Evidence suggests that this house, like all houses along the path, were aligned in a similar fashion and that they utilized relatively narrow spaces between the houses as a means of entry into their yards. Unlike House 16, House 20, and several other house-yards, House 15 did not have an associated burial. Remote sensing was done on the site in 1993 confirming the absence of the type of anomaly represented by burials dug into the bedrock of the site
Analyses of materials from this site are included in the DAACS database. Analysis of them has shown distinct patterns of material use including reuse of items such as gun flint and raw flint for strike-a-light fire starters, reworking of local and imported ceramics for gaming pieces. The distributions of artifacts around the edge of the yard support the importance of the yard as a place in which activities of the household and community took place. Artifacts like ground cowry shells, local earthenware, and locally made tobacco pipes provide clues as to the importance of both continuities of African traditions and the generation of goods and trades by persons of African descent in Jamaica. Patterns of material use, including imported and local wares reflect a household with limited financial means particularly when compared with materials from managerial contexts at Seville. There is greater reuse of items such as glass bottles. This house and its neighboring house sites provide a solid picture of early life within a laborer household under conditions of slavery.
The study of Seville has been published in a series of articles that have addressed thematic issues relating to the plantation. These include an overview of the cultural landscape of Seville Plantation which focuses on the African Jamaican settlements and their interpretation through time (Armstrong 1999), a comparative analysis of the processes of internally defined transformations within society (Armstrong 1998), landscapes and settlement patterns in relationship to social relations (Armstrong and Kelly 2000), house-yard burials (Armstrong and Kelly 2000, Armstrong and Fleischman 2003), and comparative studies related to the material record of race, ethnicity and labor conditions (Armstrong 1998 and Armstrong and Hauser 2003). Comparative analysis of African and East Indian laborer contexts are presented in Armstrong and Hauser 2001 and 2003. In addition, details related to a refined analysis of temporal contexts using both mean and variable measures of variance from the mean using whisker plots is described in a methodological paper (Armstrong 2005). Now the DAACS database is presenting detailed analysis of selected sites on the property so that data can be compared and shared. Several recent conference papers that use Seville data are available through the DAACS website’s Research page (Galle 2007a, 2007b; Nelson, Neiman, and Galle 2007). With this renewed interest in the project related to the DAACS project, a synthetic analysis of the project is being prepared by Armstrong and Mark Hauser.
Douglas V. Armstrong and Jillian Galle
Syracuse University and The Digital Archaeological Archive of Comparative Slavery
Things you need to know about House 15 before you use the Data
The following sections contain important information about the Seville House 15 excavations and artifact collections. They provide guidance on how to approach the the artifact and contextual data, and provide information on unprovenienced artifacts as well artifacts that were missing from the collection. It is essential that researchers review this information carefully before beginning their analysis.
- Field measurements are in meters and centimeters.
- All of the features identified at House 15 were either postholes and postmolds. None of the identified features at House 15 were excavated. As a result, there are no context records or artifacts associated with the postholes/postmolds. The features are also not represented on the site-wide Harris Matrix. Our conversations with Douglas Armstrong, and evidence from field maps, indicate that the postholes were found at subsoil. The location and size of the House 15 features are taken from Armstrong’s final measured site map drawn in the field.
- Seville House 15 site maps: DAACS attempted to include all stones drawn in the field on quadrat and sites plans. However, it is clear from the context records that differential mapping of stones by quadrat and by field season occurred. This means that the absence of stones on the digital site map is not necessarily evidence for absence of stones in the quadrats.
- Armstrong’s excavation units were labeled using an alphanumeric system with each 1-x-1 meter unit identified using a letter and number, with lettered N/S transects and numbered E/W transects. In most cases, the letters increase to the north and numbers increase to the west (i.e. A1, A2, B1, B2, and so forth). The exceptions at House 15 are transects Y and Z. These transects are on the southern most of the site, so that N/S transect labels proceed as follows: Y, Z, A, B, C, etc. The southeasterly most quadrat at House 15 was Y11.
- In order to generate spatial distribution data that was compatible with the DAACS database, DAACS analysts laid a numeric grid over Armstrong’s original alphanumeric system. DAACS established a datum (0/0 as opposed to A1) that was located to the south and west of the excavated area. Quadrat boundary data in DAACS for House 15 are therefore represented in the number of meters away from the DAACS datum, i.e. E9N1.
House 15 Artifact Collections
The Seville Plantation collections have been curated solely by the Jamaica National Heritage Trust since the completion of Armstrong’s excavations in 1993. The collections were initially housed at the JNHT’s Naval Hospital Facility in Port Royal. In 2004, Hurrican Ivan severly damaged the Naval Hospital and the Seville collections were moved to Headquarter’s House, the JNHT’s main offices in Kingston, for assessment and rebagging. The Seville collections are currently stored at Headquarter’s House.
DAACS analysts cataloged to DAACS standards all of the artifacts from House 15 except for artifact types that fall into the “All Other Artifacts” category. This means that all beads, buckles, buttons, ceramic vessels, glass vessels, tobacco pipes, and utensils that were present in the collection were physically examiend and cataloged by DAACS staff. Data about objects that fell into the “All Other Artifacts” category, such as brick, nails, mortar, window glass, tools, metal pots, etc. (See All Other Artifacts for complete listing of all artifact forms.) were entered into DAACS from Armstrong’s catalog. This means that any artifacts with “DArmstrong” as the Cataloger/Editor will have basic attribute data, such as form and material type, but not the complete set of DAACS attributes.
We also encountered a number of discrepancies between Armstrong’s artifact catalogs and the artifacts that we saw and cataloged while working at the JNHT. There were quite a few artifacts listed in Armstrong’s catalog that could not be located at the Trust.
When we returned to the DAACS Lab at Monticello, we reconciled the artifacts DAACS cataloged at the JNHT with the artifacts listed in Armstrong’s catalogs. When we encountered an artifact in Armstrong’s catalog that we did not catalog in Jamaica, we entered that artifact into the DAACS database with the information that Armtstrong had collected in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
When using the Seville House 15 data, please note that any artifact types with “DArmstrong” as the Editor/Cataloger will have basic attribute information such as form and material type but not the complete set of DAACS attribute data. If you receive data that does not contain measurements or decorative data, please use an advanced query (such as AQ5) to see who cataloged the artifact.
The downloadable files on this page provide basic information for all beads, buckles, buttons, tobacco pipes, and utensils found at House 15. All artifacts with “DArmstrong” as an editor were not cataloged by DAACS analayst.
Expansion in geographic coverage has required that DAACS staff work outside of the Chesapeake region and move beyond our laboratory at Monticello. DAACS undertook its first international project during the first five months of 2006 when it moved its lab to Kingston, Jamaica. DAACS staff analyzed the Seville archaeological collections at Headquarter’s House, the main offices of the Jamaica National Heritage Trust, located in downtown Kingston. The DAACS Jamaica team at the JNHT consisted of Ms. Leslie Cooper, DAACS Archaeological Analyst, Mr. Henry Sharp, DAACS Archaeological Analyst, Ms. Karen Hutchins, Monticello/DAACS Archaeological Analyst, Ms. Karen Smith, Monticello’s Curator of Archaeological Collections and Dr. Jillian Galle, DAACS Project Manager.
The DAACS-Jamaica project’s work at the Jamaica National Heritage Trust could not have occurred without the generous help and unstinting support of many individuals. Dr. Douglas Armstrong at Syracuse University immediately agreed to collaborate with the Archive. He has given freely of his data, time, and knowledge of the island. We could not have accomplished our work without him. Sincere appreciation also goes to Mr. Roderick Ebanks, Emeritus Director of Archaeology at the Trust, and the Board of Directors of the Jamaica National Heritage Trust for approving the DAACS permit and supporting this project.
The JNHT’s Department of Archaeology generously provided us with laboratory space as well as the assistance of several staff members. Mrs. Ann-Marie Howard-Brown, director of the Finds Department, was an invaluable coordinator of space and staff. Miss. Green and Ms. Topping helped us catalog and sort artifacts for the duration of the project. Mr. Tyndell and Mr. Murphy were always there to help us sort and move collections. Mr. Dorrick Gray, Deputy Director of Archaeology at the JNHT, and Dr. Philip Allsworth-Jones, the former Senior Lecturer in Archaeology at the University of West Indies, Mona, each gave us invaluable advice and support.
Every staff member at the Trust welcomed our daily presence at Headquarters House with warmth, especially Miss. Brooks, Mrs. Howard-Brown, Mr. Grant, Mr. Gray, Miss. Green, Mr. Murphy, Miss. Paula, Ms. Thompson, Mr. Tyndell, Ms. Topping, Mr. Walters, Mrs. Rosie Whittaker, Jasmine Whittaker, and Mrs. Williams-Simpson. Mr. Tyndell and Miss. Green provided essential guidance in downtown Kingston as well as invaluable culinary advice. We are exceptionally grateful to all Trust staff for providing us with such an enriching and successful experience.
The Digital Archaeological Archive of Comparative Slavery
The original excavators of the House 15 site did not assign numbers to individual features. DAACS staff has assigned feature numbers using the original excavation records. Feature Numbers assigned by DAACS have a F-prefix, which precedes the number (i.e. F01 equals Feature 1).
Excavated contexts that belong to the same depositional basin (e.g. a posthole and postmold or the layers in a single pit) have been assigned a single feature number. In addition, single contexts have been given feature numbers when the original field records indicate that the excavators recognized a context’s spatial distinctiveness from surrounding contexts.
Please note that at Seville House 15 a number of quadrats and contexts are also labeled with a F-prefix (F11, F12, F14, F15, F16, F18, F22, F23). Since none of the features at Seville House 15 were excavated, all artifacts associated with “F” contexts belong to non-feature contexts. Please see below for more details.
Features at Seville House 15
All of the features identified at House 15 are postholes and postmolds. None of the identified House 15 features were excavated. As a result, there are no context records or artifacts associated with the postholes/postmolds. The features are also not represented on the site-wide Harris Matrix but the site map and conversations with Douglas Armstrong indicate that the postholes were found at subsoil. We know the location and size of the House 15 features since they were represented on the final site map.
Feature groups are sets of features whose spatial arrangements indicate they were part of a single structure (e.g. structural postholes, subfloor pits, and hearth) or landscape element (e.g. postholes that comprise a fenceline). Feature Groups assigned by DAACS have a FG-prefix, which precedes the number (i.e. FG01 equals Feature Group 1).
DAACS Seriation Method
DAACS has developed an uniform set of methods to infer intra-site chronologies for all of the sites included in the Archive. These methods, which include frequency-seriation and correspondence analysis, were developed by DAACS (see Neiman, Galle, and Wheeler 2003 for technical details). The use of common methods for all sites in the Archive is designed to increase comparability among temporal phases at different sites. The methods and the phase assignments they produced are summarized below. For some sites, the original excavators developed intra-site chronologies and where these exist, they are included on the Background page for the site. Archive users may also use the Mean Ceramic Date queries provided on the DAACS query page to calculate MCDs for individual contexts or features.
Seville House 15 Chronology
This section summarizes the frequency-seriation based chronology for House 15 at Seville Plantation. At House 15, DAACS seriated ceramic assemblages with more than 5 sherds from individual excavated contexts. Please note that at House 15, ware types, not mean-ceramic-date types, were used in the frequency seriation, correspondence analysis, and in developing the dates for each occupational phase. Please click here for more information on the differences between ware types and mean-ceramic-date types.
DAACS computed the frequency of ceramic ware types in each individual context. The seriation chronology is derived from a correspondence analysis of the ware-type frequencies. Seriated contexts were assigned to four phases. Phases are groups of assemblages that have similar correspondence-analysis scores and are therefore inferred to be broadly contemporary. Phases assigned by DAACS have a P-prefix that precedes the phase number (e.g. P01 equals Phase 1).
The stratigraphic relationships among contexts are summarized in the Harris Matrix for House 15. Phase assignments from the seriation are shown on the Harris Matrix in color, facilitating comparison of the seriation chronology and the stratigraphic chronology of the site.
Seville House 15 Phases
Based on the correspondence analysis, DAACS divided the House 15 occupation into four phases. Ware-type mean ceramic dates with start dates of 1600 were used to compute MCDs for each phase. The MCDs for the four House 15 phases are given in the table below.
The table also includes three estimates of the ceramic TPQ for each phase. The first TPQ estimate is the usual one – the maximum beginning manufacturing date among all the ware-types in the assemblage. The second estimate — TPQp90 — is the 90th percentile of the beginning manufacturing dates among all the sherds in the assemblage, based on their ware-types. The TPQp95 provides a robust estimate of the site’s TPQ based on the 95th percentile of the beginning manufacturing dates for all the artifacts comprising it. These last two TPQ estimates are more robust against excavation errors and taphonomic processes that might have introduced a few anomalously late sherds into an assemblage.
|Phase||MCD||TPQ||TPQp90||TPQp95||Total Ceramic Count|
A Seriation Chronology for Seville House 15
The following table presents a seriation chronology for House 15. We use the indefinite article to signify that it is not the only chronology possible, nor even the best one possible.
|G15.2, B14.1, B16.2, B14.2, E19.3, B13.2, B13.1, H11.1, B12.2, G15.1, G14.2, G14.1, Z16.2, B15.2, C14.2, H20.2, Y14.2, H18.2, C13.1, H19.2, H14.1, H12.1, C12.1, H18.1, Z15.2, H16.2, A14.2, H15.2, Y13.2, Z14.2, H15.1, H25.2, E20.3, D13.1, D14.2, A13.1, D12.2, H10.1, E19.2, D15.2, D16.2, E11.1, E12.1, E12.2, E14.2, D12.1, C17.2, E21.3, E22.2, E23.2, H22.2, Z13.2, E20.2, F18.1, Z12.2, E17.2, E18.2, H24.2, E21.2, E15.2, G12.2, F12.1, F12.2, E16.2, F14.2, F16.2, A17.2, F15.1, G11.2|
|D11.1, E18.1, Y13.S, F16.1, Z13.1, G10.1, F15.2, E21.1, A11.1, H25.1, F10.1, E20.1, E17.1, G12.1, E22.1, B11.2, G11.1, Z10.1, B12.1, H22.1, Y12.1, Y14.1, Z12.1, H19.1, H21.2, B11.1, H20.1, H24.1, Y13.1, G16.1, A12.2, E15.1, H21.1, E19.1, E14.1, C16.2, C11.2, F11.1, C15.2, E16.1, H16.1, H14.2, C14.1, D14.1, F14.1, A12.1, D16.1, D15.1, B17.2, G16.2, A10.1, C11.1|
|Z14.1, E16.S, Z15.1, A17.S, B16.1, C16.1, A14.1, C17.1, Z16.1, F23.1, B17.1, A15.1, C15.1, H23.1, B15.1|
|A17.1, A16.1, B17.S, B16.S|
|H12.S, H14.S, D15.S, C17.S, C16.S, D16.S, C15.S, C14.S, E10.1, E11.S, F13.2, A16.2, A16.S, H11.2, A13.S, A13.2, A14.S, H11.S, G16.S, A15.S, F16.S, A15.2, C13.2, E11.2, E12.S, H15.S, B15.S, F15.S, B14.S, B11.S, B13.S, B12.S, G11.S, G15.S, F12.S, F11.2, F11.S, C13.S, E13.S, E13.1, C12.2, E15.S, C12.S, C11.S, G14.S, H16.S, G12.S, H12.2, D10.1, Z11.3, H13.1, F22.2, H13.S, Y12.S, Z11.2, H18.3, Y14.S, H13.2, Z11.1, Z16.S, A16.S, F20.1, G13.2, E23.1, E13.2, G13.1, H25.S, F13.1, E20.4, Y12.2, D13.2, H22.S, A12.S, E22.S, H19.S, D12.S, D14.S, G10.2, F10.2, D11.S, H10.2, Z15.S, D11.2, E14.S, D13.S|
Seville House 15 Harris Matrix
The Harris Matrix summarizes stratigraphic relationships among excavated contexts and groups of contexts that DAACS staff has identified as part of the same stratigraphic group. Stratigraphic groups and contexts are represented as boxes, while lines connecting them represent temporal relationships implied by the site’s stratification, as recorded by the site’s excavators (Harris 1979).
Boxes with color fill represent contexts and stratigraphic groups with ceramic assemblages large enough to be included in the DAACS seriation of the site (see Chronology). Their seriation-based phase assignments are denoted by different colors to facilitate evaluation of the agreement between the stratigraphic and seriation chronologies. Grey boxes represent contexts that were not included in the seriation because of small ceramic samples.
See the House 15 Chronology for stratigraphic and phase information.
This Harris Matrix is based on data on stratigraphic relationships recorded among contexts in the DAACS database. It was drawn with the ArchEd application. See http://www.ads.tuwien.ac.at/arched/index.html.
For a printable version, download the Harris Matrix [785.66 KB PDF].
PDF of composite excavator’s plan, compiled by DAACS from original field drawings, with excavation units and features labeled.
PDF of composite excavator’s plan, compiled by DAACS from original field drawings, with only excavation units labeled.
PDF of composite excavator’s plan, compiled by DAACS from original field drawings, with only features labeled.
PDF of composite excavator’s plan of Houses 15, 16, and 20, compiled by DAACS from original field drawings, with excavation units and features labeled.
PDF of Seville Plantation schematic showing relationship of slave houses to sugar works and main house, compiled by DAACS.
CAD site plan in .dgn format.
CAD site plan in .dxf format.
CAD site plan of Houses 15, 16, and 20 in .dgn format.
CAD site plan of Houses 15, 16, and 20 in .dxf format.
CAD site plan of Seville Plantation showing relationship of slave houses to sugar works and main house in .dgn format.
CAD site plan of Seville Plantation showing relationship of slave houses to sugar works and main house in .dxf format.
House 15 Bead Data (TXT)
Armstrong, Douglas V., and Kenneth Kelly
1992 Spatial Transformations in African Jamaican Housing at Seville Plantation. Paper presented at the Society for Historical Archaeology Meetings, Kingston, Jamaica.
Armstrong, Douglas V., and Kenneth Kelly
2000 Settlement patterns and the Origins of African Jamaican Society: Seville plantation, St. Ann’s Bay, Jamaica. Ethnohistory 47 (2):368-397.
Armstrong, Douglas V.
2005 Refining the Temporal Dimension in Historical Archaeology: Dating Seville Plantation., In Archaeology Without Limits: Papers in Honor of Clement W. Meighan, edited by Brian D. Dillon and Matthew A. Boxt. Labyrinthos Press, Lancaster, California. Pp. 213-232.
Armstrong, Douglas V.
1991 Recovering an early 18th century Afro-Jamaican Community: Archaeology of the Slave Village at Seville, Jamaica., Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Congress for Caribbean Archaeology, , edited by E.N. Ayubi and J.B. Haviser. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Congress for Caribbean Archaeology, , edited by E.N. Ayubi and J.B. Haviser. Reports of the Archaeological-Anthropological Institue of the Netherlands Antilles, No. 9, Curacao, Netherlands.
Armstrong, Douglas V.
1991 The Afro-Jamaican House-Yard: An Archaeological and Ethnohistorical Perspective. Florida Journal of Anthropology. Special Publication 7: 51-63.
Armstrong, Douglas V.
1990 The Old Village and the Great House: An Archaeological and Historical Examination of Drax Hall Plantation, St. Ann’s Bay, Jamaica. University of Illinois Press.
Armstrong, Douglas V.
1999 Archaeology and Ethnohistory of the Caribbean Plantation., I, Too, Am America: Archaeological Studies of African American Life. In I, Too, Am America: Archaeological Studies of African American Life, edited byTheresa Singleton. University of Virginia Press. Pp. 173-192.
Armstrong, Douglas V.
1998 Cultural transformation within Enslaved Laborer Communities in the Caribbean., Studies in Culture Contact: Interaction, Culture Change, and Archaeology. In Studies in Culture Contact: Interaction, Culture Change, and Archaeology, edited by James G. Cusick. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Occasional Paper No. 25., Southern Illinios University.
Armstrong, Douglas V., and Mark Fleischman
2003 House-Yard Burials of Enslaved Laborers in Eighteenth-Century Jamaica., International Journal of Historical Archaeology. International Journal of Historical Archaeology, 7(1):33-65.
Armstrong, Douglas V.
2003 Creole Transformation from Slavery to Freedom: Historical Archaeology of the East End Community, St. John, Virgin Islands. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Armstrong, Douglas V., and Mark Hauser
2004 An East Indian Laborer’s Household in Nineteenth-century Jamaica: A Case for Understanding Cultural Diversity through Space, Chronology, and Material Analysis. Historical Archaeology, 38(2) 9-21.
Galle, Jillian E.
2007a Conspicuous consumption and gendered social strategies among slaves in 18th-century Jamaica and Virginia. Paper presented in the session: Approaching Darwin’s Bicentennial. The State of the Art in Evolutionary Archaeology at the Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Austin, Texas.
Galle, Jillian E.
2007b Consumption and gendered social strategies among slaves in Jamaica and the Chesapeake: an archaeological perspective. Paper presented at the World Archaeological Congress Intersession, Kingston, Jamaica, May 2007.
Harris, Edward C.
1979 Principles of Archaeological Stratigraphy. Academic Press, London, England.
Neiman, Fraser D., Jillian E. Galle , and Derek Wheeler
2003 Chronological Inference and DAACS. Unpublished paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Historical Archaeology, Providence, Rhode Island. On file at the Department of Archaeology, Thomas Jefferson Foundation, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Nelson, Louis , Fraser D. Neiman , and Jillian E. Galle
2007 Archaeological Counterpoint: Jamaica and the Chesapeake in the 18th century. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Historical Archaeology,Williamsburg, Virginia.