Visualizing the Landscape of Drayton Hall's Enslaved

In 1738, John Drayton purchased 350 acres of land adjacent to the Ashley River. On that land, enslaved and free craftspeople would build Drayton Hall, a Georgian-Palladian style house designed by Drayton. The house served as the center of a network of Drayton-owned properties totaling about 76,000 acres. At its largest, the Drayton Hall plantation grew to about 700 acres, although it was still notably smaller than some of the other Drayton family properties such as Jehosse.

While the number of enslaved people at Drayton Hall fluctuated over time, records such as inventories list the enslaved population as averaging about 45 to 60 individuals, although it was not uncommon for people to travel between the Draytons’ different plantations. Many of the enslaved people at Drayton Hall had specialized skills. In the diaries of Charles Drayton (son of John Drayton), he mentions individuals such as Carolina, who was a bricklayer, and Quash, who was a carpenter.

John Phaley, bricklayer finished my reverbarotory [sic.] kiln Furnace for burning shells to Lime… The Furnace took him & my brick-layer Carolina, 10 days to lay the bricks- including Carolina one day to deepen the hole into the earth. Two other fellows were at the same time employed in carrying water, tempering & carrying mortar & handing bricks. -An excerpt from Charles Drayton’s diary dated November 5, 1798.

While we know some of the names and occupations of the enslaved people who lived and worked at Drayton Hall, the exact location of their dwellings is not yet known. Charles Drayton’s diaries detail the construction of new enslaved dwellings in 1804. In addition, various archaeological surveys, including a 1990 survey by Brockington and Associates Inc. and a series of testing led by Martha Zierden in 2003, have uncovered additional evidence of enslaved occupation at Drayton Hall. The goal of this project is to assemble this evidence and propose potential enslaved dwelling sites using 3D modeling and mapping in ArcGIS ArcPro.

Reconstructing the historic landscape of Drayton Hall is aided by historic maps of the property and LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) scans. Unfortunately, none of the historic maps give a clear picture of the location of the enslaved dwellings. However, using the maps to reconstruct the historic landscape can help us determine which areas of the property were planted or left as woods, helping us narrow our search.

In addition to understanding which areas of the historic landscape would have been planted versus those areas left in woods, it is also helpful to understand some of the spatial patterns associated with enslaved dwellings in the Lowcountry. As the eighteenth century progressed, enslaved dwellings tended to move further from the main house. However, surveillance and control remained a theme in the arrangement of housing for the enslaved. In cases where the dwellings were not in the immediate vicinity of the main house, it was common for an overseer to live amongst the dwellings in order to provide a means of surveillance for the owner of the plantation. It was also common for dwellings to be located near where enslaved people were working.

The layout of these dwellings varied based on the plantation. Lowcountry examples dating to the eighteenth and early nineteenth century found in extant examples and in paintings exhibit dwellings laid out in a row. One such example which survives today is Boone Hall, whose eighteenth century enslaved dwellings are laid out in a row. In addition, the painting View of Mulberry, House and Street (ca. 1800) depicts a row of enslaved dwellings at another Lowcountry plantation, Mulberry. In other instances, dwellings were grouped in a compound-like formation, which on occasion mimicked the layout of villages in parts of Africa. This arrangement was more common when enslaved people were given more power over the construction of their dwellings. 

With an understanding of the historic landscape and common spatial patterns for Lowcountry enslaved dwellings, the next step of the project was digitally reconstructing a dwelling. Two different designs were created in Autodesk Revit, a building modeling program chosen for its compatibility with ArcGIS ArcPro.

Digital reconstruction began with the dwellings at Proposed Site 1. In late 1989, cleanup efforts following Hurricane Hugo revealed artifacts and brick foundations in the vicinity of the “BG Field” notated on the Charles Drayton envelope map (the location of Proposed Site 1). These findings prompted a visual survey of the area, which was conducted by Drayton Hall staff and volunteers in January and February 1990. In their 275 acre survey area, eighteen potential house sites were identified. Many of the identified artifacts date to the late nineteenth to early twentieth centuries, suggesting that the house sites could have dated to after the Civil War.  

In 1997, a visual survey of one of the house sites was conducted to document the remains of the structure. Six brick foundation piers were identified, along with fragments of the structure’s wood frame. The most intact portion of the structure was its brick chimney; the main stack and firebox of the chimney survive, although it is missing approximately two feet at the top of the chimney, as well as its front and rear hearths. At this point in time, brick piers were also still intact; the dimensions of these piers and the spacing between them indicated the dwelling had a perimeter of 20’ 6” by 10' 6". The survey team also recorded the dimensions of wooden framing members such as the sill, corner post, rafter, and joists. Along with the perimeter of the structure, the dimensions of the framing fragments could be used to virtually reconstruct the dwelling’s frame.

Once the frame was assembled in Revit, cladding was added according to typical measurements and cladding types provided within the 1997 report, as well as an artistic rendering of the dwelling drawn from an interview with Richmond Bowens (1908-1998). Bowens was born and raised on the Drayton Hall property, was the grandson of Caesar Bowens, who was enslaved at Drayton Hall, and served as the first gatekeeper when the site opened to the public. The buildings would most likely have had clapboard siding, a wood siding with a lesser degree of finish than weatherboards. In the virtual model, this material is visible from both the exterior of the structure as well as the interior. It was not uncommon for structures of this type to be unfinished on the inside, leaving the framing and backside of the clapboards visible on the interior of the building. For roofing, cedar shingles were the most common material used in the Lowcountry for these types of structures. Therefore, the decision was made to clad the roof of the digitally-reconstructed building with wood shingles despite remains of later roofing material being found at the site.

The resulting digital model represents a functional dwelling that would have been built at a low cost. It used materials such as clapboards and wood shingles which were less refined, and therefore cheaper than materials which would have been found in the main house. While the building detailed in the 1997 survey report may date to after the Civil War, it would have been similar in size and design to an enslaved dwelling, especially a later dwelling which tended to be smaller and intended for a single family. Therefore, the dimensions of this structure were still used in the digital reconstruction despite the question of the building’s age, which is discussed more in the section “Proposed Sites for Drayton Hall’s Enslaved Dwellings.”

The digital reconstruction of the dwellings used at Proposed Sites 2 and 3 began with the model from Proposed Site 1 as a base. The decision was made to increase the size of the original model from 20’ 6” by 10’ 6” to 20’ 6” by 16’ in order to represent the dimensions of potential enslaved dwellings denoted on the back of the Charles Drayton envelope map. It has been debated whether or not this map of enslaved dwellings represents those at Drayton Hall or another site. The map has few distinguishing features to help locate it on the modern landscape.

While the true location of these dwellings is unknown, the dimensions listed in the map could have been the dimensions of the enslaved housing at Drayton Hall. In his diaries, Charles Drayton describes the construction of new “barracks” and “negroe-houses” in 1804. The largest type of housing for the enslaved was commonly known as “quarters,” which were dormitory-like buildings used to house a large group of people in one space. These buildings would not have separated people by family unit. By the mid-eighteenth century, this type of dwelling was becoming less common. At the opposite end of the spectrum, “cabins” were much smaller structures used to house an individual family.

“Barracks” and “houses,” such as those referenced by Charles Drayton, tended to be smaller than quarters but larger than cabins. Therefore, it can be assumed that the enslaved dwellings built in 1804 ranged somewhere in size between the two extremes. In addition, Charles noted in his diary that the dwellings were not divided, providing evidence for the theory that the dwellings were intended for a larger group rather than a single family. This makes 20’ 6” by 16’ entirely plausible as the dimensions of the 1804 dwellings. 

While the dimensions of the digital model for Proposed Sites 2 and 3 differ from the model for Proposed Site 1, the wood frame and cladding material were reused in the new model. Charles Drayton described the dwellings as “frame” construction in his diaries, and so the wood frame was only modified to match the new dimensions. Wood clapboards were once again used to clad the new structure.

In addition to the wood frame and cladding, the model for Proposed Sites 2 and 3 also reuses the brick foundation piers and chimney, modified to fit the dimensions of the new model. Charles noted in his diary that an enslaved individual named Carolina was involved in the underpinning of the dwellings. Carolina was described in the diaries as a bricklayer, and so his involvement suggests the dwellings had brick foundations. Charles also described the chimneys of the dwellings being laid out in the Rumford plan, a fireplace design developed in the 1790s. This type of fireplace and chimney were typically constructed from brick, not mud covered wood frames like in some examples of enslaved dwellings. This provides evidence that both the foundations and chimneys of the dwellings were brick, which could account for the bricks found during archaeological digs that are cited as evidence for the different locations of dwellings.

The first proposed site for enslaved dwellings is within the vicinity of MacBeth Road. This site lies approximately 750 yards to the south of the main house. The 1997 visual survey referenced in the “Virtually Reconstructing Lowcountry Enslaved Dwellings” section documented the remains of one of these house sites in more detail, including the single standing chimney in this area. 

This chimney provides evidence for the presence of enslaved dwellings on this site. Microscopic analysis has indicated that the chimney’s mortar appears remarkably similar to mortar used during Charles Drayton’s ownership of the property in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. This may indicate that the chimney was built prior to the Civil War for an enslaved dwelling. 

On the other hand, the lintel which supports the masonry above the firebox opening dates to after the Civil War. It is made up of two eighteen pound iron rails from the light rail system that would have been in place during the phosphate mining-era at Drayton Hall. While this may indicate that the house was built after the Civil War, it may be possible that the chimney was an earlier chimney that was repaired with the iron rails or made from bricks salvaged from an earlier structure. 

Due to the possibility that the chimney could date to the antebellum period at Drayton Hall, the area was chosen as a potential site for enslaved dwellings. While no standing brick pier foundations survive and the wood frame remains have since rotted away, the single chimney and a number of brick scatters remain along MacBeth Road which may correspond to the location of dwellings. 

To propose the placement of the dwellings, a team of two used the ArcGIS Collector app to drop GPS pins at the location of each brick scatter in early June 2023. During this survey, nine brick scatters were identified. These scatters appear in a cluster rather than a row, which could indicate they were arranged in more of a compound form.

In order to digitally reconstruct the site, the points were loaded into ArcGIS ArcPro, which placed them at their corresponding location in the virtual landscape. The digitally-reconstructed dwellings using the dimensions from the 1997 survey were imported from Revit and placed on the landscape using the points.

The second proposed site for enslaved dwellings sits at the base of the ridge which divides the high ground and the rest of the property. In 1991, colonoware, creamware, and brick foundation piers were found in this area. According to the Digital Archaeological Archive of Comparative Slavery (DAACS), colonoware is an “unglazed, low-fired ceramic” that is associated with pottery traditions of both the enslaved and indigenous people of Virginia and the Carolinas. The presence of colonoware can be an indicator of the presence of enslaved people, suggesting that there may have been dwellings in the area. 

The area where the colonoware was found falls within the “Spring Field” region on the Charles Drayton envelope map. As such, the dwellings were placed in a line facing the main drive within this region on the digital landscape. The dwellings in this location are larger than the dwellings at Proposed Site 1. Research has shown that the size of enslaved dwellings tended to decrease over the course of the eighteenth century and into the nineteenth century. While the dimensions of the structures at Proposed Site 1 are taken from the remains of dwellings possibly dating to the phosphate mining era, they closely resemble the dimensions of later enslaved dwellings, which tended to be smaller and house either a single family, or two families in the case of a duplex. 

On the other hand, the dwellings used at this site are approximately sixteen feet by twenty feet, six feet deeper than the structures at Proposed Site 1. As mentioned in the previous section, these dimensions are taken from a map of enslaved dwellings drawn on the back of the Charles Drayton envelope map, though it is unclear if these dwellings were actually located at Drayton Hall. These dimensions correspond to a barracks-style dwelling, which would have housed a larger number of enslaved people in one room rather than dwellings for individual families.

The third proposed site for enslaved dwellings is near the Grand Oak, which sits only about 100 yards from the main house. The buildings here are suspected of dating to the eighteenth century. The location of these dwellings provides evidence for this date. There was record of buildings on the property before John Drayton purchased the land; the enslaved dwellings at the site may have been built under the direction of one of the previous owners of the property. In addition, it is likely that the enslaved people who were making the bricks and working on the construction of the main house in the late 1730s and 1740s would be housed close to the worksite. This is supported by evidence of borrow pits derived from 2022 ground-penetrating radar (GPR) data in the vicinity of where these dwellings may have been located. Clay would have been dug from these pits to make the brick used in the construction of the main house.

In 2003, Martha Zierden of The Charleston Museum led the Field School in Historical Archaeology offered by The Charleston Museum and College of Charleston in an investigation of this site.  During this investigation, additional evidence was found to support the location of dwellings in this area. Brick and soil stains caused by wooden posts which have rotted away suggest the presence of past structures. Additionally, a significant quantity of colonoware was found in the area. The project found strong evidence to suggest that the site was the location of an eighteenth century enslaved dwelling; however, only small five feet by five feet test units were opened as part of the dig. In order to clearly determine the nature of the site, larger-scale excavations will be necessary. 

The three sites proposed in this project are the locations for which we have the strongest evidence to suggest the presence of enslaved dwellings. The maps are not intended to definitively prove the location of the dwellings; further archaeological investigation will be necessary to find more evidence. These maps intend to help visualize the historic landscape in order to better understand the areas where these dwellings might one day be found.