Journal of Undergraduate Research
Volume 9, Issue 3 - Spring 2008

Feature 4: A Zooarchaeological Analysis of the Domestic Chicken Burial Excavated at Kingsley Plantation

Kelly M. Christensen

ABSTRACT

In the summer of 2006, an archaeological field school directed by Dr. James M. Davidson was held at Kingsley Plantation, a historic sea island plantation site located on Fort George Island along the northeast coast of Florida. During the course of excavations, we discovered a nearly complete, articulated, and well-preserved domestic chicken (Gallus gallus) skeleton buried under the floor of Cabin W-15. The objective of this report is to supply a descriptive osteological analysis of the chicken interment, with the intent of complementing ongoing research into the significance of this unique feature in the context of the slave culture of Kingsley Plantation. The lack of human modifications, the pristine condition of the specimen when it was unearthed, and the inclusion of a chicken egg and ferrous object buried underneath the skeleton suggest that the chicken interred was not used as a subsistence animal. Instead, it was probably buried whole as part of a ritual that had its roots in the African cultural traditions of the slaves who inhabited the cabin site in the early 19th century.

INTRODUCTION

Site History

Kingsley Plantation is a historic plantation site located on Fort George Island along the northeast coast of Florida, part of the modern Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve National Park in Duval County. While the property passed through many hands during the 19th century, it is named for Zephaniah Kingsley, who initially leased the land from John Houston McIntosh in 1814 (Stowell 2000:4) and then bought and resided on the property from approximately 1817 to 1839 (Stowell 2000:40-42). The plantation’s main crops were Sea Island cotton and other provisions, all tended to by slave laborers who resided in a semi-circle of 32 tabby cabins constructed just south of the main house on the property (Figure 1). These slaves were organized using the “task management” system that assigned slaves a number of tasks each day, after which they were allowed to plan their own time, some of which might have been spent in food subsistence activities; Kingsley notes in one of his writings in 1829 “after allowance, their time was usually employed in hoeing their corn, and getting a supply of fish for the week.” (Stowell 2000:69)

Such a labor arrangement was not uncommon among southeastern cotton plantations. What makes the plantation of special interest compared to similar sites in the Southeast is Kingsley’s many unconventional thoughts on slavery. Kingsley was pro-slavery and a one-time slave trader, yet he also believed in the humane treatment of slave laborers. He maintained a “hands-off” approach to managing his slaves by not interfering in personal and family matters, and encouraging leisure activities, which might have involved some continuance of African traditions (Davidson 2006: 10-11; Stowell 2000:69; Walker 1988:50-51).

Figure 1. Excerpt from U.S. Coastal Survey map of Fort George Island, highlighting the Kingsley Plantation complex circa 1853, with cabins and main house labeled (US Coast Survey 1853 “Entrance to St. Johns River” Map; Anonymous 2004:31).

Excavation History

Dr. Charles Fairbanks, of the University of Florida, was the first archaeologist to examine the slave history of Kingsley Plantation. In the summer of 1968, he excavated the ruins of Cabins W-1 and E-1, situated nearest Palmetto Avenue, which bisects the center of the arc of slave cabins (Fairbanks 1974). His report chiefly provided a basic survey of the artifacts and features in and around Cabin W-1, which were occupied around 1814 to 1900 (Fairbanks 1974).

Though his report was mainly meant to be descriptive in nature, Fairbanks also hoped to recover evidence of “Africanisms,” or evidence of the transmission of African cultural traditions, within the artifact assemblage, as Kingsley was known to be a permissive slave owner (Fairbanks 1974:90, Fairbanks 1984:2). However, he identified no such evidence at Kingsley Plantation.  Fairbanks’s initial work at Kingsley Plantation was groundbreaking in a time when most plantation archaeology focused on white occupation at plantation sites, and provided a baseline for more substantive work that would be done at the site in the 1980s.

Karen Jo Walker revisited Kingsley Plantation in 1988 as the subject of her master's thesis for the Department of Anthropology at the University of Florida. She based her research on the fieldwork performed by John Bostwick in 1981 on Cabins W-3 and W-6, as well as Fairbanks’s previous work. Walker sought to reconstruct the environmental and socio-historical context of Kingsley Plantation so as to critically evaluate whether the high quality of life that historical sources reported of the slave labor population was historically accurate (Walker 1988:2-5). In addition to her thesis, which covered the multivariate aspects of Kingsley Plantation, she also published a report in the Essays in Memory of Charles H. Fairbanks, specifically dealing with comparing the subsistence patterns of slaves on Southeastern coastal plantations with that of Kingsley Plantation (Walker 1985).

Walker concluded that while early histories of life on Kingsley Plantation should be considered with caution, slaves appeared to have lived in a private, family setting in which they were allowed to own their property and hunt and farm small plots in their free time (Walker 1988). Zephaniah Kingsley’s unique attitude towards his slaves certainly influenced their quality of life; yet underlying economic and environmental factors at Kingsley Plantation must also have played their part in shaping the conditions under which slaves labored (Walker 1988: 164).

Research Goals and Objectives

This report utilizes material from the most excavations to take place at Kingsley Plantation thus far. In 2006, Dr. James M. Davidson conducted an archaeological field school that examined multiple locations on the Timucuan National Park property, most importantly Cabins W-12, W-13, and W-15 along the western arc of the slave cabins. The goal of this ongoing research is to further explore the social dynamics between slave and master on the plantation through analysis of material goods, subsistence evidence, and historical records- “Africanisms,” as Fairbanks sought, were not expected to be an important part of this new investigation (Davidson 2006:7).
The main focus of this report is the single test unit that was excavated in Cabin W-15 (Figure 2). Cabins W-12 and W-13 were torn down some time after their abandonment in the 1840s and subsequently buried over time (Davidson 2006: 42). In order to understand the subsurface architecture of the tabby cabin buildings, we excavated a 1 x 1 m test unit into the floor of Cabin W-15, which still has extant ruins (Davidson 2006: 26). Not only did Unit 34 provide insight into the nature of the floor of the slave cabins, but it also yielded Feature 4. This feature was composed of an articulated, intact domestic chicken (Gallus gallus) skeleton, with a broken egg and ferrous object directly below it, interred underneath the historic floor surface of the cabin.

The objective of this report is to use zooarchaeological methods of faunal analysis to give insight into the nature of this unique archaeological feature. A descriptive analysis of the Gallus gallus specimen will be presented that includes observations on preservation, completeness, sex and age, and taphonomic markers of the specimen. These data are then utilized as a complement to the preliminary cultural research Dr. James M Davidson has done on African religiosity (Davidson 2006) to determine whether the Gallus gallus interred underneath Cabin W-15 was a subsistence animal raised and eaten by the slaves at Kingsley Plantation or whether it was purposefully buried as part of an African sacrifice ritual.

Figure 2. Overview of 2006 West Cabin Excavations (Davidson 2006: 15) with Unit 34 highlighted.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Materials

The focus of the faunal analysis was limited to the intact domestic chicken (Gallus gallus) skeleton and associated egg, designated Feature 4, buried within Unit 34. As stated above, Unit 34 was a 1 x 1 m test unit excavated in Cabin W-15. Feature 4 was located in the southern half of Unit 34 at approximately 24-36 cm below surface, with one element, the right carpometacarpus of the chicken, being found 10-20 cm below the surface.

Figure 3. Feature 4 in situ (Davidson 2006: 28)

In situ, the body of the chicken (Figure 3) was constricted and roughly aligned with the eastern wall of the cabin, approximately on a north/south axis, and does not appear to have been disturbed by the tabby footing of the cabin (Davidson 2006: 29-30). The neck vertebrae were still fully articulated from synsacrum to cranium, extending north from the body then curling back south in a loop; all major elements, including femora, humeri, and radii/ulnae were also in proper articulation and alignment (Davidson 2006: 30). The chicken egg uncovered with the skeleton was located directly underneath the rib cage of the bird, sitting almost flush with the top of the keel of the sternum, partially inside the chest cavity (see Figure 5).

The preservation of the bone throughout the site was excellent. The chicken skeleton was situated within a layer of sterile sand that was well drained and leeched of most of its organic matter (Davidson 2006: 29). The lime and crushed oyster shell in the soil, a byproduct of the cabin’s tabby construction, aided in the preservation process as well (Davidson 2006: 30).

Associated material artifacts with the faunal specimen include the irregularly shaped ferrous object that was buried underneath the Gallus gallus skeleton and the egg. Its exact nature is unknown, but it may be the byproduct of the blacksmithing process, known to have taken place at the plantation (Davidson 2006: 30). There was also an amber-colored glass bead, which may or may not be associated with the burial (Davidson 2006: 29). These artifacts are considered in conjunction with the faunal specimen.

Only elements related to this individual specimen were present at the 24-36 cm level; no other faunal remains are directly associated with it. While other faunal material was present in the levels above Feature 4 within the unit, they are not analyzed here. The other specimens from Unit 34 are typical of the rest of the faunal assemblage from the excavated cabins on site, and are most likely not associated with this feature.         

Excavation Methods

The faunal material analyzed from Feature 4 was excavated using trowels, paintbrushes, and other delicate tools to minimize damage to the faunal material as it was removed. All fill from the unit was screened using ¼” mesh. Unit 34 was excavated in a mix of arbitrary and cultural levels. It was first excavated from 1-20 cm below surface using arbitrary 10 cm levels, with Level 1 consisting of the entire 1 x 1 m unit from 0-10 cm and Level 2 being bisected into North and South halves, each measuring 1 m x 50 cm, from 10-20 cm below surface. Once Feature 4 was first uncovered around 24 cm below surface, the southern half of the unit was excavated as a single cultural level to 36 cm below surface to remove the entirety of the chicken skeleton and associated artifacts.
Soil samples were taken from each level of the unit, including around and inside Feature 4. They will be analyzed at a later date, and may yield more elements from the chicken burial.

Analysis Methods

After removal from the site, the skeleton was prepped for analysis by dry-brushing all the elements to remove excess dirt clinging to them. Those elements such as the cranium and the egg that were still embedded in a soil matrix were carefully removed from it using small picks and paintbrushes. The identity of the Gallus gallus specimen and its constituent parts were verified utilizing modern skeletal specimens from the comparative teaching collection available from the Florida Museum of Natural History, Gainesville. As required, supplementary references for identification of specific elements of the chicken anatomy were gleaned from Anatomy of the Chicken and Domestic Birds by Tankred Koch (1973).

In addition to the basic identifications, the Gallus gallus was examined for indicators of sex, age, and taphonomic markers that might indicate whether the specimen was used as a subsistence item or as part of a cultural ritual. Osteometric measurements were also taken for all the major elements of the specimen using electronic calipers. These measurements were derived from A Guide to the Measurement of Animal Bones From Archaeological Sites written by von den Driesch (1976:103-129). Comparative Osteology of the Chicken and American Grouse by Hargrave (1972) was also consulted for a measurement standard for the furcula, which was not defined by the von den Driesch publication.

RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

The Skeleton

Figure 4 shows the overall completeness of the skeleton while Table 1 summarizes the weight, portion, and the taphonomic signatures of all the elements. All of the major elements of the chicken were recovered during the excavation. The only elements missing were some of the digits of the wings and the feet, as well as fragments of ribs and other delicate bones that may have been disintegrated or been crushed in the ground over time. No bones associated with common meat cuts of the chicken, such as the breast, buffalo wing, or drumstick, were missing.

All long bones, except the left tibiotarsus which was broken during recovery, were whole. This is the same for many of the vertebrae and phalanges. None of the elements of the specimen displayed any pathology. The synsacrum, skull, and egg were held together in situ by the soils around then, so when cleaned in the lab they fragmented into several pieces. They probably fell apart because of a combination the weight of the soil overburden pushing down while it was buried (Lyman 1994: 425) and drying of the bone in open air once it was removed.

Figure 4. Diagram of Gallus gallus Elements Present

Sex and Age

The specimen was determined to be a female based on two sex-specific traits that female avians are known to possess. One of these was the absence of a spur on either tarsometatarsus of the leg, which most male chickens possess. The other was the presence of medullary bone in the shaft of the left tibiotarsus (broken during recovery on site.) The presence of medullary bone not only indicates that the specimen was female, but was also ovulating at its time of death; medullary is stored in the long bones of a hen’s body for the creation of eggs during ovulation, and disappears when the hen is no longer producing eggs.

All of the elements in the skeleton were fully fused, indicating that the specimen was mature when it died. Birds are difficult to age with more accuracy than this because of the early ossification of their bones and indeterminate growth thereafter. For reference, the average age at which the bones of a modern Gallus gallus are completely ossified is around 5-8 months of age (Reitz and Wing 1999:75). They can lay eggs for approximately two years after they are sexually mature.

Taphonomic Signatures

According to Bickart (1984) bird carcasses not protected or rapidly buried fall quick prey to disturbance by scavengers. The preserved, fully articulated state of the skeleton suggests that the specimen was buried not long after it was killed. Almost all of the elements recovered displayed a light degree of root etching and discoloration caused by the roots growing in the soils around them (see Table 1). This is a natural process and is consistent with the condition of the rest of the faunal material recovered at the site.

None, however, display any evidence of butchery by humans such as cuts, hacks, burning, or gnawing, and are otherwise very clean in appearance. Some elements possess accidental breaks, scratches, and cuts that occurred while Feature 4 was being excavated (such as the synsacrum which, while intact in situ, broke apart into several pieces when removed from its supportive matrix). These marks are clearly of modern origin, were noted as such during analysis, and have no bearing on the conclusions drawn from the feature. The exceptions to this are the right and left carpometacarpuses of the chicken. While they appear to have fresh breaks, they were already broken when recovered. How and when these breaks occurred is indeterminable.

Osteometric Measurements

The osteometric data recorded from the elements of the specimen are available in Appendix 1. The goal of recording these measurements was to determine how the size of the specimen compared to others of its sex and age, with the possibility of ascertaining the breed of the specimen based on ratios unique to certain domestic breeds common to North America.

Unfortunately, no such database of knowledge appears to exist. While the A Guide to the Measurement of Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites by von den Driesch supplies a standard by which to measure the various elements of avians, it does not provide any data to evaluate the measurements derived. The closest to a list of comparative measurements to be found was a brief tabulation of figures (not of the same definition as von den Driesch’s) that Hargrave (1972: 25) supplies in his book Comparative Osteology of the Chicken and American Grouse. These are sparse and unhelpful, as the male and female measurements taken are from two different breeds, and from only one individual each. Research was also done on chicken fancier’s associations and clubs such as the American Poultry Association.These organizations set breed standards for raising competition chickens, ducks, and other fowl. However, this was also unfruitful, as the breed standards are very vague and unsuitable to a zooarchaeological analysis.

It is unclear whether breed, or even sex, can be determined through the measurement of the elements of the chicken or any other domestic fowl. Despite this, the measurements derived from the specimen in Feature 4 are included within the report for the sake of thoroughness and the hope that in the future they can be compared to other chicken specimens and provide more information about this aspect of the feature.

The Egg

The total weight of the eggshell fragments from Feature 4 was 3.9 g. No fetal chicken bones were found when the egg was cleaned in the lab, thus it is impossible to determine whether the egg was fertilized or not when it was buried. It was also not possible to determine for certain whether the egg was inside the Gallus gallus at the time of burial or not. While the egg unearthed under the chicken skeleton in Feature 4 appeared almost flush with the sternum in situ (Figure 5), this does not necessarily indicate that the egg was within the chicken when it was buried. The chicken was female and laying down at its time of death. However, it is also a distinct possibility that the egg was originally buried outside and below the hen, and over time depositional forces on the site such as water or burrowing animals pushed the egg up into the chest cavity of the chicken. Over half of the chicken’s sternal keel is missing, leaving plenty of room for the egg to move up and in without being severely damaged. Thus it is impossible to be definite about the original placement of the egg.

Figure 5. The egg and the sternum of the chicken, being processed in the lab.

DISCUSSION

The relatively pristine condition of the chicken skeleton makes it difficult to draw any complex conclusions from the remains. That being said, the data acquired from the faunal analysis of Feature 4 points to a non-subsistence explanation for the interment of the specimen. First, if the chicken had been used as a food item, some taphonomic signatures from the butchery processes would be present in addition to those caused by the roots and soil in the ground. Also, if it had been eaten and then discarded (even whole), there is no reason for it to be buried in sterile sand below the occupation level when other vertebrate faunal material is present in the 0-20 cm range below surface, above and within the historic level of the cabin floor. Lastly, the presence of the chicken egg, ferrous object, and amber-colored glass bead in such specific association with the specimen make it very improbable that they were accidental as opposed to intentional inclusions within Feature 4.

In his preliminary report of the 2006 excavations, Dr. James M. Davidson discusses some of the cultural explanations for the presence of the feature, focusing on traditional African sacrifice ceremonies that may have been recreated by the slaves on the plantation (Davidson 2006: 32-34). The sacrifice of chickens and other fowl on important occasions marking births, deaths, and household dedications was performed as part of African and creolized religious ceremonies (Davidson 2006: 33).  Records left by Zephaniah Kingsley concerning slaves he lost after his Laurel Grove Plantation was raided in 1812 reveal that most of his slaves were African in origin, and even name specific tribal groups such as the Ibo, Calabari, Rio Pongo, and others. These records are an excellent direction for further research.

CONCLUSION

There is no zooarchaeological evidence that suggests that the domestic chicken interred underneath the floor of Cabin W-15 was a subsistence animal. Its condition in situ was pristine, with all major elements still in articulation. It lacks butchery marks that would indicate partial dismemberment and consumption of any part of the specimen. The sex and presence of medullary bone in the specimen leave open the possibility that the chicken egg interred beneath it was inside the bird at death, but this cannot be confirmed from the data obtained. Further research along the lines of that done by Davidson needs to be done to ascertain a definitive cultural explanation for its burial.

---

REFERENCES

1. Bickart, K.L. 1984 A Field Experiment in Avian Taphonomy. Journal of Vertebrate Palentology 4: 525-535.
2. Davidson, James M. 2006 Preliminary Report of Investigations of the 2006 University of Florida Archaeological Field School at Kingsley Plantation Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve National Park, Duval County, Florida. Report submitted to the United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Southeast Archaeological Center.
3. Driesch, Angela von den 1981 A Guide to the Measurement of Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites:  as developed by the Institut für Palaeoanatomie, Domestikationsforschung und Geschichte der Tiermedizin of the University of Munich. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.
4. Fairbanks, Charles 1974 The Kingsley Slave Cabins in Duval County, Florida, 1968. Conference on Historic Sites Archaeology Papers 7: 62-93.
5. Fairbanks, Charles 1984 The Plantation Archaeology of the Southeast Coast. Historical Archaeology 18(1): 1-14.
6. Hargrave, Lyndon L. 1972 Comparative Osteology of the Chicken and American Grouse. Prescott College Press, Prescott.
7. Koch, Tankred 1973 Anatomy of the Chicken and Domestic Birds, trans. By Bernard H. Skold and Louis DeVries. Iowa State University Press, Ames.
8. Lyman, R. Lee 1994 Vertebrate Taphonomy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
9. Reitz, Elizabeth J., and Elizabeth S. Wing. 1999 Zooarchaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
10. Stowell, Daniel W. (editor) 2000 Balancing Evils Judiciously: The Proslavery Writings of Zephaniah Kingsley. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
11. US Coast Survey 1853 “Entrance to St. Johns River.” Map. Collections of the Library of Congress,
    Geography and Map Collection, Washington, DC.
12. Walker, Karen Jo 1985 Kingsley Plantation and Subsistence patterns of the Southeastern Coastal Slave. In Indians, Colonists, and Slaves: Essays in Memory of Charles H. Fairbanks, edited by Kenneth W. Johnson, Jonathan M. Leader, and Robert C. Wilson, Publication No. 4, Gainesville.
13. Walker, Karen Jo 1988 Kingsley and His Slaves: Anthropological Interpretation and Evaluation. M.A. Thesis. Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville.

---

REFERENCES

Appendix 1. Osteometric Measurements of the Chicken Measurements

(as defined by von den Driesch 1981)

---

--top--

Back to the Journal of Undergraduate Research