RootsWeb.com Mailing Lists
Total: 2/2
    1. Re: Jamaican slave names 1817
    2. Guy Grannum
    3. Cecilia Since the information was found in the slave registers I suggest that the double names are plantation name and baptismal name - this format was quite common in Jamaica and is very useful for tracing slave families. Unlike Barbados where even if the slaves were baptised you do not find their baptismal name alongside their slave name (or rather I haven't found any yet) in the registers. It may be difficult finding out why the baptismal names were chosen because this information was found in the first register (1817) - you will need to find personal plantation accounts for place of birth and previous owners. For example it is possible that Osonoko and Dawson came from the Dawson household on the marriage between Francis's daughter and James Hewitt Massy-Dawson; similarly was Briton on Pallmer's estate/household (he and his mother and others could have been gifted on the marriage between Pallmer and Francis's daughter)? It is also possible that the names were chosen to favour the son in-laws - you should check the parish registers to find out when they were baptised - there may also be clues in the church register. I haven't found out how baptismal names were chosen - were they chosen by the slave, the slave owner or by the church - you don't find too many African sounding names, eg Quamin, in baptismal entries, which makes me think that either the slaves wanted a new name or because the church saw such names as heathen. In the few examples I have of slave baptisms most usually kept their slave name (if English) but expanded diminutives eg Eliza became Elizabeth and Tom became Thomas - so I am not surprised that Alexander stayed Alexander but why did Frederick become William? You are lucky that the Jamaican registers give baptismal names because if you were researching William Hamilton I doubt that you'd think that he was called Frederick, especially if there were other Williams, Wills, Billys etc on the estate! Barry Higman has undertaken detailed research into the Jamaican registers in 'Slave population and economy in Jamaica, 1807-1834' which might explain local naming practices. Guy Grannum ----- Original Message ----- From: "cecilia" <myths@ic24.net> To: <CARIBBEAN-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2003 12:07 AM Subject: Jamaican slave names 1817 > Looking at slave names listed in the 1817 Register for St Mary's > Jamaica at the National Archives, Kew, London, I noticed that the > names were listed as > nameA nameB nameC > and looked very much as if each person had two names. > > Another plantation listed names as Original name and Baptismal name, > and I wondered if something like that was going on. > > Examples of the names were > Briton Charles Nicholas Pallmer aged 28 > Quamin Richard Davis 31 > Alexander Alexander Logan 16 > Osonoko James Dawson 31 > Dawson John Dawson 19 > Beckford James Smith Lawes 36 > Frederick William Hamilton 24 > > As well as wanting confirmation that my feeling that each had two > names is correct, I was puzzled by some of the names used. > > The owner of the plantation, to Dec 1795 when he died, was Francis > Dennis. His wife was Mary Burke (or Bourke), and his heirs were his > young daughters, aged 13 and 11 when he died. One married James > Hewitt Massy-Dawson, the other married Hugh Ingoldsby Massy in 1801, > and then (he having died in 1805) Charles Nicholas Pallmer (who was > born in 1772, according to > http://www.hmc.gov.uk/NRA/searches/PIdocs.asp?P=44819). > > A lot of the names in the previous paragraph appear in the slave > names, Charles Nicholas Pallmer being very obvious. But the heiress's > husband was not a member of the owner's family when Briton was born, > and was only 17 or so at the time. (References to him on the web deal > with his adult life.) > > Briton's mother is named (Jane Simmons), so it seems likely that he > was born on the plantation (I did not have time to read all the > names). > > Is it likely that there was a great renaming sweep across the > plantation (or even island(s)?) in the early 19C - after 1805, and > possibly after 1812? (I cannot remember the date of the Pallmer > marriage). > > > ==== CARIBBEAN Mailing List ==== > The CARIBBEAN-L FAQ can be found at http://www.rootsweb.com/~caribgw/mailinglistfaq.htm. > >

    06/22/2003 01:24:09
    1. Re: Jamaican slave names 1817
    2. cecilia
    3. Guy Grannum wrote: >... In the few examples I have of slave baptisms most > usually kept their slave name (if English) but expanded diminutives eg > Eliza became Elizabeth and Tom became Thomas.... >.... >Barry Higman has undertaken detailed research into the Jamaican registers in >'Slave population and economy in Jamaica, 1807-1834' which might explain >local naming practices. From those names that obviously could be kept (out of the 47 I have transcribed), 8 were of the Alexander-Alexander or Ned-Edward type, but 12 were of the Frederick-William type. This is not counting changes from Samson, Emanuel and Moses, because I don't know if those names would have been considered acceptable anyway, but if they would have been, then the incidence of the Frederick-William type change increases. The sample is not large enough yet, of course. I don't want to get too involved in this (finding myself obsessionally transcribing other plantations as well, looking in baptismal records for all churches, checking plantation records - where might I find the last?) as I only started because of a vague desire to see if I could find out what happened to the named slaves left in 1795 to the two daughters of the 18C owner. As I cannot read all the names on the probate copy of the will, it seemed easiest to transcribe all the names from the register, and then consider things at leisure, using a sortable list. It may be that my queries will be answered if I can find the particular slaves (for whom the will does not give baptismal names) - since I will know where they were in 1795 - but it will be some months before I get a chance to finish. The only one that I (may) have found has (like the majority) a surname that does not appear to relate to the owners' names. Meanwhile I will have a look at BW Higman's book - thank you for the reference, and for your comments.

    06/22/2003 04:05:26