The Importance of Chattel Houses Part 2: Advancement and Culture
It is tempting to view chattel houses as a one dimensional vernacular dwelling, however it is so much more. This article will further examine the folk triumphs surrounding chattel house architecture and culture. A particular focus must be leveled at the advancement of chattel houses. As mentioned previously the circumstances of the society greatly affect the design, and culture surrounding their housing. In order to do this therefore, this article will focus on the tenantry system, the cultural norms and opinions surrounding the chattel house as well as the diminishing role of chattel houses today.
Normally around the size of 18 x10 feet (Watson and Potter 1992, 7) chattel houses were built in such a way that they were constantly expanding as the family grew older. An older family provided more wage earners who in turn provided capital for materials. It is here we see the cultural and socioeconomical aspects of folk architecture at play. After the abolition of slavery in 1834 and the ending of apprenticeship in 1838. Unlike the other Caribbean territories such as Jamaica, Trinidad or Guyana whom due to their large size found the newly emancipated unwilling to stay on plantation land, or the Lesser Antilles which had a lower slave population (O’Neill 2020) in general, Barbados found itself slow to develop a peasantry. This was owed to the small size and absolute prosperity of the sugar plantation, whose planters had appropriated all suitable land, which accounted for 81% of the island (Bolden 1982, 12), including both farmland and the gullies as well, which they used to grow their fruit. Coupled with the high slave population, this left a cruel population to land ratio heavily skewed in the planters’ direction. In order to gain any abode, the former slaves were required to labour once more for their former masters. (Watson and Potter 1992, 7)
The tenantry system was created by planters to take advantage of this inequality. Here laborers were accommodated with land, generally less than a quarter acre (Bolden 1982, 14) located on infertile tracts called ‘rab’ (Watson and Potter 1992, 7). Payment for this land was usually a set amount of labour, five days a week at 9 hours a day. Workers who were located on the plantation toiled for less pay than the workers who were not located on the plantation. Furthermore, anyone who lived on this land that could work was expected to, or there would be a reduction in the earner’s pay, therefore the workers family (including children) were often required to work for free. In addition, labourers could be kicked off at any time. While African culture already valued the extended family (Mafumbate 2019,10), this forced landlessness served as a barrier, preventing individuals from leaving to go out on their own. After all, it was more economically viable to stay with the family and expand the house so that one could start their own (family).
Bishop provides a guide to how the houses were expanded upon despite the rigid restrictions put in place by tenantry. The initial house would be divided into two rooms, the front house and the bedroom. Then upon the first expansion, the shed and shed roof would be divided into a dining room and bedroom. If a third complete section was added, it would provide a kitchen and a dining room. Sometimes only a section half the normal size would be the only addition, serving as a kitchen (Bishop 2007, 21). This version of upgrading according to Watson and Potter is called quasi self-help because of these restrictions. Upgrading was a slow process, both due to the time and cost of upgrading. However, this was beneficial as homeowners were content to simply pay in cash or purchase the materials on builders’ credit to upgrade their homes as they got the money rather than seek loans (Watson and Potter 1992, 10).
Chattel house showing all three expansions
Noel, Vernelle. Barbados Chattel House. Photograph. Flickr. June 11, 2011. https://www.flickr.com/photos/thinkinginsomniac/5907200631/in/photolist-9ZZWWK-JVVFmV-cELTJ-edA1uJ-bNHeL6-boXJLB-4SY5xR-sw9ZS-4T3hib-6rqvW8-5gi3g-mUzLra-4SY3G2-8wQ4an-XMWZ-47fpZK
Yet there were indeed some hard limits that could not be resolved during tenantry. Initially, the pit latrine was located on the outside and the standpipe was used as the bath (Bishop 2007, 21). Potter and Watson explains that the tremendous insecurity of the tenantry system proliferated this use of the pit latrine as permission for a water borne sewage disposal system was hardly ever granted by the landowner. As such, well into the 1980s over 52% of homes still utilised this system (Watson and Potter 1992, 9). Another hard limit was the limestone rock foundation, which as long as the insecurity remained could not be removed. A situation identified and ignored by the government until 1980, when the Tenantries Freehold Purchasing Act which allowed individuals living on tenantries for five years or more to effectively purchase the land (Watson and Potter 1992, 19).
Bishop says that the front house or living room was an area of sanctity reserved for special guests, it was a place that was intended to show the ‘properness’ of the family. As such children were not allowed to enter unless they were assisting with the cleaning of this area, it was decorated with the finest decorations they could afford including curtains, rocking chairs, tub chairs and cane bottom chairs all of which were made of mahogany. In addition, as with the case throughout the Caribbean, some persons had a dinner wagon also constructed of mahogany in which the fine china was kept. The dining room often used as a reading room as well, it often found families gathered together to eat, with the adults at the table and the children on the floor, pine made furniture such as the table chairs and larder were the furnishings of this room (Bishop 2007, 21-22).
The bedroom initially contained grass beds supported by iron or mahogany bedsteads. Furthermore, it always contained a potty, a washstand with a basin and ewer as well as a two-drawer table housing small lamps and the occasional glass on top if the further expense could be afforded. Lastly a press built out of boards was used to place clothes in and those who could not afford, used the rafters to press, by running a piece of wood and hanging clothes from it (Bishop 2007, 22)
Prior to the extensions, the kitchen, bath and outhouse would be built off of the main house, each serving their purpose. The kitchen in particular was viewed as a public space, containing a fire hearth and cornery jar made from clay with which meat was stored as well as a Dutch oven over the hearth to bake bread or cake. It was not unheard of in latter times for individuals to bake pork in earth pits as well, along with the coal pot of both iron and earthen make. Of course, if the shed roof extension could be constructed, the kitchen would be moved to this area (Bishop 2007, 22).
Vintage Cast Iron Dutch Oven made in the 1950s. Photograph. Ebay. (n.d.). https://www.ebay.com/itm/133514515863
Cooking fish on an earthenware / pottery coal pot. Photograph. BajanThings. (n.d.). https://www.bajanthings.com/cooking-on-a-cast-iron-coal-pot-stove/
The yard was also a public space used for washing clothes in a galvanised tub and jucking board as well as raising livestock, (talk about the article). The fence was used to bleach clothes, soaking and balling them on Monday, bleaching on Tuesday and Wednesday, rinsed and starched on Thursday and pressed on Friday. (Bishop 2007, 22)
It could be said however, that despite its long, storied and vital role in Barbados, chattel houses are still underappreciated in Barbadian society. The cause of which seems to be mainly due to the class of individuals who lived within them. Unfortunately, it could be said that this perception exists even today, too often individuals are judged because they live in a chattel house, a ridiculous thing to do given its immense historical and cultural purpose as a facet of folk experience. Indeed, many of these houses are nearing or are in fact more than a hundred years old, serving as a living reminder of the endurance of their ancestors. Bishop explains that individuals viewed wall houses as an indication of upward ability, driving them closer to the middle class (Bishop 2007, 21). She posits that due to the association of chattel houses with the poor, being only really culturally significant to individuals who came from ‘slave huts’ (who while being the largest population class, were still denied the ability to influence much outside of their class by a society still dominated by white supremacy), the government did not attempt to have any adequate policies to increase housing conditions and roads. It was not until the 1920’s with the availability of better paying jobs for labourers that the government start to focus on housing and other social factors (Bishop 2007, 25). Despite this, the government often dragged its feet on these matters, even when requesting a consultancy report on housing and finance in 1963 from Charles Abrams. Upon completion of his report, he recommended state housing for the low income class or at the very least land security. The government ignored his advice wholesale and chose rather to provide state houses for low-middle and middle class individuals whilst providing half measures such as the ‘Tenantries Control and Development Act’ (1965) which provided some security but not enough to which tenants owned the land. Therefore, tenants still lived under the fear of eviction until the aforementioned ‘Tenantries Freehold Purchasing Act’ (Watson and Potter 1992, 19). It would be irresponsible to not acknowledge the obvious benefits of a wall house, which was sturdier and required less maintenance than a chattel house (Bishop 25). However, the role of cultural opinion cannot be ignored.
The role globalization plays in the decline of folk culture is of importance as well. As folk culture develops in isolation, due to the relatively little contact the particular society has with any others, the rise of globalization and its popular cultures expose society to many different ideals, materials, food, clothes, language and most importantly housing styles. These styles are constantly changing, which should come to the surprise of no one, however with the increased speed with which ideas are disseminated as well as the cultural imperialism which Barbados and the wider Caribbean is subject to. The chattel house is left behind as newer more modern and sounder construction are built. This is not to say that this is a bad thing though, newer and fresher ideas are beneficial for society as it provides opportunity for advancement. However, the uniqueness of a design so obviously a culmination of Barbadian folk culture is diminished, and the intangible aspects surrounding the houses is lost. Now, it is unlikely that the chattel house archetype will ever be completely eradicated as Bishop (Bishop 2007, 26) explains it is being incorporated into newer building styles as seen here.
Dr Hillary Beckles remarks that tourism in Barbados often attempts to romanticize the colonial experience, to diminish the cruelty and unjustness of slavery (Beckles 2018). The treatment of the chattel houses is no different, often described in the quaintest of ways and sanitised from the cruel conditions which demanded its necessity. It is strange to acknowledge the cultural importance of chattel houses, to build them for the sake of converting them into gift shops for tourism i.e. Chattel House Villages, while simultaneously doing very little to ensure their survival, assist individuals who live in these houses , or at the very least combat the stigma around them. Ergo, as long as the country continues to profit from this cultural heritage, it should be protected.
Chattel House Village, Holetown. Photograph. Stay Barbados. (n.d.). http://www.staybarbados.co.uk/shopping/chattel-house/
In conclusion, it is clear to see how chattel houses advanced via the self help of the workers as they attempted to better their living situations, particularly how the impact of tenantry system and its effects on advancement and extension. In addition, the cultural norms and opinions associated with the chattel houses and the lifestyle of its owners. As well as the diminishing influence of the chattel house today due to globalisation and tourism.
Bibliography
Beckles, Hilary. “On Barbados, the First Black Slave Society.” AAIHS, April 12, 2017. https://www.aaihs.org/on-barbados-the-first-black-slave-society/.
Bishop, Sheryl. The Evolution and Development of the Chattel House in Barbados. Cave Hill Libraries, 2007.
Boldin, Phinorice. The Barbados Chattel House. Hamilton , New York : Colgate University, 1982.
Mafumbate, Rachel. “The Undiluted African Community: Values, The Family, Orphanage and Wellness in Traditional Africa .” Information and Knowledge Management 9, no. 8 (2019): 7–13.
O'Neill, Aaron. “Slave Arrivals from Africa to the British Caribbean by Region 1606-1842.” Statista, December 7, 2020. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1150546/number-slaves-arrived-in-each-region-of-british-caribbean-from-africa/.
Revill, George. “Folk Culture and Geography.” obo. Oxford University Press. Accessed January 17, 2022. https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199874002/obo-9780199874002-0092.xml.
Watson, Mark R., and Robert B. Potter. Housing and Housing Policy in Barbados: The Relevance of the Chattel House. London; Egham: University of London, 1992.