A Historical-Linguistic Analysis of Monumented Slave Names in Jamaica

Slave Names Memorialized: A Historical-Linguistic Analysis of Monumented Slave Names in Jamaica

Diane M. West A Research Paper in fulfilment of Master of Arts in Linguistics University of the West Indies, Mona Campus

June 30, 2017

Slave Names Memorialized: A Historical-Linguistic Analysis of Monumented Slave Names in Jamaica

Diane M. West

Abstract

A historical-linguistic examination of slave names engraved on two monuments marking the heritage sites of former slave plantations – the Mona and Papine Estates, has revealed onomastic patterns and principles of slave-naming. Patterns involve the classification of slave names while principles provide interpretations of their significance and symbolism. The study accounts sociolinguistically, for taxonomies and distribution of slave names as well as the retention, appropriation, and orthographic variabilities of Akan Day-names. Methodologically, a linguistic evaluation of the names memorialized exposed numeric, sequential, and orthographic errors of transcription as well as errors of gender-name misrepresentation and name-length demarcations. The linguistic evidence also challenges the historical accuracy of the inscribed slave-population census on both monuments, each recalculated to represent the number of enslaved persons ‚deemed to have been alive on the eve of emancipation‛ in 1832.

Acknowledgements

Sincere thanks and acknowledgements are expressed to Professor Hubert Devonish for both introducing and supervising this research project and more so, for advocating its publication. I am indebted to Dr Suzanne Francis Brown, UWI Curator, for her seminal role in the establishment of the monuments of slave names and for her gracious and generous support in providing me guidance and primary sources throughout. Especial thanks to Professor Emeritus Barry Higman for invaluable mentoring and willingness, amidst many projects, to prioritize my enquiries and provide comments and review of this work.

‚All glory to God for making this the end and start of a wondrous journey.‛ ~DM West

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ...... 7 RATIONALE OF STUDY ...... 7 METHODOLOGY ...... 7 Physical Location of the Monuments on the Estates ...... 8 Capturing the Data ...... 9 Photographic Files ...... 9 Data Processing ...... 11 Transcription Method ...... 11 Tallying Names ...... 11 Classifying Names ...... 11 Bracketed Names ...... 11 BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT ...... 12 Areas of Background Research ...... 12 Authenticity of the Monumented Lists ...... 12 A Brief Linguistic History of the Slave Plantations...... 13 The Mona Estate ...... 13 The Papine Estate ...... 14 Historical Map ...... 16 LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 17 Magnitude of Slave Registries ...... 19 Jamaica’s Exceptional Status ...... 20 PRESENTATION OF THE DATA ...... 22 The Data: Papine Estate ...... 23 Data Description: Papine Estate ...... 25 The Data: Mona Estate ...... 27 Data Description: Mona Estate ...... 29 The Combined Data: A Count of Slave Names ...... 30 Mona Estate ...... 30 Papine Estate ...... 31 Issues with the methodology of the count ...... 31 Peculiarity of the Monumental Data ...... 31 Historical Description versus Linguistic Analysis of Data ...... 31

ANALYSIS ...... 32 Name Format: Photographic Images ...... 32 Name Format: Original Manuscripts ...... 32 Alternate Classification of Secondary Names ...... 33 Christian ‘Names-of-Influence’ ...... 34 Cultural Typologies: Akan-Day Names and the Names of African Slaves ...... 35 Distribution of Akan-Day Names ...... 36 Distribution of Names of Africans (Mona Estate) ...... 36 Distribution of Names of Africans (Papine Estate) ...... 37 An Analysis of Akan-Day Names ...... 37 The Case of Phoebe ...... 38 An Analysis of Descriptive Names ...... 39 Symbolic Names ...... 39 Descriptive Place Names ...... 39 Descriptive Names of Age, Size, Occupation, and Skin Colour ...... 40 Descriptive Symbolic Names ...... 41 The Distribution of Classical Names on Two Estates ...... 42 Orthographic Variation ...... 42 CONCLUSION ...... 43 APPENDIX ...... 44 REFERENCES ...... 45

LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Fluctuations of slave population at Papine Estate from 1816-1832 ...... 15 Table 2. List of Slave Names on the UWI Monument for the Papine Estate...... 23 Table 3. Slave names from 1817 list which do not appear on the UWI Monuments ...... 46 Table 4. List of Slave Names on the UWI Monument for the Mona Estate: ...... 27 Table 5. Slave names from 1817 list which do not appear on the UWI Monuments ...... 30 Table 6. Slaves on the Mona Estate Registered with ‘Names-of-Influence’ ...... 34 Table 7. Slaves on the Papine Estate Registered with ‘Names-of-Influence’ ...... 34 Table 8. Slaves on the Mona Estate Registered with Akan-Day Names (1817) ...... 35 Table 9. Slaves on the Papine Estate Registered with Akan-Day Names (1817) ...... 46 Table 10. Linguistic Chart of Akan-Day Names (Mona and Papine 1817-1832) ...... 37 Table 11. Descriptive Place-Names on the Mona and Papine Estate (1817) ...... 39 Table 12. Descriptive Symbolic-Names on the Mona and Papine Estate (1817 ...... 46 Table 13. Classical Slave-Names on the Mona and Papine Estate (1817) ...... 46

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Map of Papine Estate ...... 8 Figure 2. Map of Mona Estate ...... 8 Figure 3. Papine Estate Male Slave-Names ...... 9 Figure 4. Papine Estate Female Slave-Names ...... 9 Figure 5. Papine Estate Monument Legend ...... 9 Figure 6. Mona Estate Male Slave-Names ...... 10 Figure 7. Mona Estate Female Slave-Names ...... 10 Figure 8. Mona Estate Monument Legend ...... 10 Figure 9. Historical Map of the Hope, Papine, and Mona Estates (1826) ...... 46 Figure 10. Image of Slave Registers for the Mona and Papine Estates (1817) ...... 17 Figure 11. Photo File of Slave Register for Papine (1817) ...... 17 Figure 12. Extracted Table of Slave Registration Dates ...... 19 Figure 13: Total count of slave names (1817) for Papine Estate ...... 25 Figure 14: Total count of slave names (1817) for the Mona Estate ...... 29 Figure 15. Papine Slave Register (1817) ...... 33 Figure 16. Classification of secondary names as Aliases: ...... 33

INTRODUCTION Research on the lists of slave names memorialized on the historic sites of proximal estates - formerly the slave sugar-rum plantations of Mona and Papine, commenced as an open experiment to tour, inspect and gather, two lists of slave names. The experiment began without pre-set formulation of research questions and was designed to test linguistic applications in finding trends, patterns, and other underlying information within the list of slave names engraved on the monuments.

A structured linguistic assessment of the data presented a range of research possibilities involving examining heritage research processes in the compilation of slave names, confirming the accuracy of transcribing historical data against archival sources, and formulating and analysing taxonomies of names. Organizing the research required specific methodologies for deconstructing the body of data while background investigations provided valuable perspectives for the sorting and subsequent reclassification of the slave names.

The ensuing study therefore provides a guide as to the rationale and context of researching the primary data, it describes the methods of enquiry into researchable areas of historical linguistics and outlines useful observations and findings. The research results though illuminating and original in parts, builds upon findings of earlier studies. It is corrective only where necessary and offers more usefully, new linguistic insights and approaches to discovering what’s in a slave-name and hopefully to illustrate the historical value of knowing these facts.

RATIONALE OF STUDY The research focus and lessons derived from this study are meant to be instructive and provide experiential knowledge of research methods. The approach is learner-centred, the discovery process intuitive, observations are rigorously documented, and the findings and conclusions are evidenced by triangulation. Clarity, accuracy, and precision of linguistic transcriptions are paramount for limiting errors as the research process itself demonstrates the unavoidable likelihood of human omissions, erroneous recording, and the non- exhaustive requirement of revisiting the data for inaccuracies. The historical nature and special qualities of the chosen research therefore, is of greater significance than its substantive content; it is after all, a lesson in linguistic investigative methods, research processes, research design, critical assessment, and the treatment of historical data.

METHODOLOGY The methodological procedures taken in the data gathering, processing and analysis phases are outlined in sequence, from identifying the location of the monuments to documenting the findings.

Physical Location of the Monuments on the Estates1 Figure 1. Map of Papine Estate

Papine Monument

Figure 2. Map of Mona Estate

Mona Monument

Capturing the Data Photographing the monuments, was the principal method agreed upon, before touring the sites. Once photographic files were completed for Papine Estate site for Female and Male Names as well as the plinthed legends, the same process was repeated for the Mona Estate site. Photographic files proved convenient, economical, and accurate. The images can be seen in the following figures: Photographic Files Figure 3. Papine Estate Male Slave-Names Figure 4. Papine Estate Female Slave-Names

Figure 5. Papine Estate Monument Legend

Figure 6. Mona Estate Male Slave-Names Figure 7. Mona Estate Female Slave-Names

Figure 8. Mona Estate Monument Legend

Data Processing Transcription Method Transcription of the data was completed by four paired teams, each team responsible for writing out and cross-checking the names of the two groups of females and males on both estates. Each list was submitted to a fifth team of data processors, who themselves, constructed a master list against which the four submitted lists were cross checked. The method involved overlapping transcriptions, however it enabled the transcribers to both gain familiarity with the data as well as minimise errors. It also enabled researchers to observe the names and make notes about aspects of the naming systems that were interesting or unusual. Tallying Names The final transcriptions produced a total of ninety-seven (97) females and ninety-three (93) males, a total of one hundred and ninety (190) slave names for the Papine Estate. The Mona Estate produced lists of one hundred and eight (108) females and ninety-seven (97) males for a total of (205) slave names. These final figures, it must be noted, represented adjustments made after recognising and eliminating errors of repeated name-sequences in the data list; for example, sets of names were duplicated and triplicated within the list of female names on the Mona Estate, bringing the original count of one hundred and thirteen (113) down to one hundred and eight (108). The adjustments will be explained in greater detail within the analysis section of the document. Classifying Names In verifying numbers, the commas placed after each name or name-sets, were used as principal demarcations. Names essentially differed in length, from a single entry, to single entries with bracketed second-part, to double entries, double entries with bracketed third-part, to triple entries, names with initials and so forth. Consequently, the lists which were first transcribed in their original order, was then arranged in alphabetical order and according to name length. This ordering made it easier to identify and note common trends on both estates of name pairs, name clusters, frequencies of doubling, tripling, initializing, and classifying original Akan names, descriptive names, and other abstract or symbolic names. Bracketed Names One principal task emerging was finding out the significance of bracketed names and using background research to explain the nature, systems and/or symbolism of names found in brackets. At the transcription stage, it was at least clear that bracketed names appearing on the plinths were not singular entries as they never stood alone demarked by commas; instead they always appeared as second-part to either a preceding or post-positioned name. The alternate placement of the bracket – that is, before or after a name, was a curious development, as positioning and placement of brackets potentially signified different things. It was also necessary to verify through comparison with the original sources, whether bracketing appeared only on the captured monuments or within the slave registries themselves. These questions were eventually addressed and resolved as the research progressed.

BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT

Areas of Background Research The supporting research comprised varied streams of investigation; firstly, the sourcing and cross-checking of original Jamaican Slave Registers against transcriptions; secondly, reviewing topical historical sources for contextual insights and finally, interviewing persons principal researchers of the monumented lists. The latter source involved several conversations and exchange of communication with Dr Susanne Francis-Brown, author of the book Mona Past and Present: The History and Heritage of the Mona Campus University of the West Indies. Francis-Brown, now Curator of the UWI Museum, in her capacity as research lead was along with Dr Dalea Bean and others, responsible for authentically generating the monumented list of names. They undertook this task by using the baseline list of slave registers of 1817 with adjustments reconciled from the Slave Returns from 1823 - 1832 after which time, no further additions were made. The monuments were launched in 2007 as part of a Heritage tribute organized by the UWI and the Jamaica National Bicentenary Committee, in celebration of the 200th anniversary of the 1807 abolition of the slave trade.

Authenticity of the Monumented Lists It is important to note therefore that the names appearing on the plinths represent an original set of names, representing slaves who were deemed to be alive on the named estates, in 1832 – ‚the eve of emancipation‛. The baseline list of 1817 is referenced within the legends on both monuments, with notation of its tally of one hundred and eighty-seven (187) names comprising ‚88 males‛ and ‚99 females‛. It is important to note that this inscription refers correctly to the Mona Listings and although referenced (erroneously) within the legends of the Papine plinths, does not refer to the baseline list for that estate which had an original 1817 list of one hundred and six (106) females and eighty-three (83) males, a total of one hundred and eighty-nine (189) slaves. Reference to these quantities were not however included on the Papine monument and a table of differences, show that only 58% of the 1817 baseline names appear within the monumented (1832) list as compared to the Mona Estate, where 81% of the 1817 baseline listed names remained. These extrapolations show that during the fourteen (14) year period from 1817-1832, Papine Estate had adjustable returns or additions to slave stock of 32% while Mona had 19% and these latter two percentile differences constitute the ‘authentic calculable additions’ (to the baseline) of the monumented list. These calculations are complex details to track without forensically examining the original registries. These examinations are presented in the conclusive parts of this paper. The research however, focuses linguistically and mainly upon the original 1817 baseline list in drawing conclusions and substantiating findings within the analysis particularly where the identification of errors in transcription are concerned.

A Brief Linguistic History of the Slave Plantations The Mona Estate The etymology of the name ‚Mona‛ became a topic of interest having seen it bracketed among the list of females as ‚(Mona) Queen‛. The inscription might have been locational since it was at least contrastive to the next entry ‚(Orangefield) Queen‛. Perhaps two female subjects named Queen originated from different or separate plantations either distant from or proximal to the Mona Estate – at least this was a reasonable assumption, until the records later showed evidence of the latter ‘Queen’ being brought to the Mona Estate from a Coffee Plantation in the hills of St Andrew, named ‘Orangefield’ owned by the same proprietor of the Mona Estate. The former ‘Queen’ therefore was an original member of the Mona Estate. Thus the pre-positioned brackets proved in indication – not of name, but of place of origin. On the etymology of the name ‘Mona’, further research reveals that the Mona Estate was first the ‚Yeamans‛ Estate. Or at least property belonging to that family as a quick wiki search tells us; Mona was originally called Yeamans after the family who owned it. The name was changed to Mona circa 1768 after the Roman name for the Isle of Angelsey. Of course, following the trail of the seventh largest British Isle of Angelsey, the largest of Wales, one finds that the original Welsh name is Ynys Môn and again, since Wiki goes on to explain that; Ynys Môn, the island's Welsh name, was first recorded as Latin Mona by various Roman sources.[13][14][15] It was likewise known to the Saxons as Monez.[16] One cannot tell if the familial name Yeamans itself, only resembles the name of the British homeland Ynys Môn by sheer coincidence, but since the original linguistic translation of ‚Island of the Cows‛ is historically noted to be untenable, and the precise meaning yet still unknown, we could speculate its derivations from a few etymologies signifying Noble Island, Solitary Island, or Mother Island because Angelsey is indeed the largest of the Welsh Isles. However, as Francis-Brown (2004) explains it, the Mona Estate property in 1754, perhaps formerly part of the Burnett Penn Estate, came into full ownership by Eleanor Angelina Yeamans (daughter of former owners Edward and Judith Yeamans) who later sold to Phillip and Grace Pinnock, who after battles with Thomas Hope Elletson, heir to the Hope Estate, eventually sold to the Kennions who sold to the Bonds who leased to the Verleys who (evidenced by the connected water systems of all three estates) eventually connected Hope to the previously acquired Papine and Mona Estates. The Mona Estate experienced relative stability as far as the enslaved population was concerned. It was not known for being a high producer of sugar and rum, but was sustainably managed, becoming by 1880, like its name signifies, the very last and solitary operated sugar plantation in the parish of St. Andrew. As for the ancestry of the Yeamans, a long ancestral line traces back to Bristol, UK and a wide branch of the family settled in Barbados mid- seventeenth century, evidenced by church records showing orthographic alterations of the name to Yeomans. Undoubtedly, there is a connection to the Jamaican Yeamans, a large

13 familial cluster of which are today, monumentally listed for over 200 years within the Registry of Deaths (#173) of the St Andrew Parish Church.

The Papine Estate The name ‚Papine‛ is recorded (Beek, 1975), (Higman and Hudson, 2009) as a Scottish Place Name, adapted from a village in Scotland where the owner Colonel Alexander Grant previously engaged business. The source explains: Papine, in St. Andrew was owned from 1756 by Colonel Alexander Grant of Banffshire, Scotland and named after a village there. It was while he was in the Mill of Papine in Scotland that he became heir to this estate and transferred the name to Jamaica. Other sources (Francis-Brown, 2004) has cited the name within a 1774 survey by P.M. Smellie as ‚Papin‛ while an account filed by Walter Grant, one of Alexander Grant’s attorneys in 1759 records the spelling ‚Papeen‛. Papine Estate, like the Mona Estate, was purchased by Grant as part of the lands known as Burnett Pen. Ownership of Papine Estate subsequently changed from Grant to William Jackson, to James Beckford, to James Beckford Wildman, to James Lushington Wildman and eventually to the proprietor of the Mona Estate, Louis Verley. The amalgamation of the estates was a strategic effort to better manage the water supply from the Hope River which was transported by the aqueducts, then known as ‚The Gutters‛, to both plantations with excess water supply sold to the government. One interesting finding is that several areas within the estate were labelled according to the activities of slaves such as the old ‚Negro Yard‛, the ‚Nigger House Corner‛ (Papine Works) and the ‚Negroe Grounds‛ where ground provisions were planted. It is notable that the earlier form of the descriptor ‚Negro(e)‛ was spelled with an ‘e’ at the end. Overtime, Papine Estate expanded in land and livestock but sugar production ceased by 1880 (or arguably perhaps several years prior to 18802) at least 10-15 years before the Mona Estate ended its sugar and rum production. The changing economic activities within the Papine Estate may account for its unstable labour force which fluctuated rapidly between the period 1816-1832. Triennial records of Slave Returns (seen in Table 1) illustrate the population of the enslaved people between the years 1860 to 1832. It is significant to note that no records were made for this estate, after 1832.

2 Suzanne Francis Brown purports this position in her public lecture presentation, UWI Mona, 2007

Table 1. Fluctuations of slave population at Papine Estate from 1816-1832

Total Total Year of Year Enslaved Stock Filed Returns People 1816 203 174 First Registration 1817 188 163 First Return 1817 1817 189 - Second Return 1817 1819 187 54 First Return 1820 1820 183 60 Second Return 1820 1820 182 - Third Return 1820 1821 223 142 First Return 1822 1823 225 139 Returns 1824 1823* 227 - New Acquisition 1825 226 148 Returns 1826 1826 224 61 First Returns 1827 1826 228 - Second Returns 1827 1827 223 88 Returns 1828 1829 175 - Returns 1829 1830 144 146 Returns 1831 1831 144 146 Returns 1832 1832 135 132 First Returns 1833 1832 134 - Second Returns 1832 1832 134 - Third Returns 1832 - Figure not stated For the Papine Estate, it should be noted that in 1823 the Attorney Thomas Addison, on behalf of owner James Beckford Wildman acquired 43 slaves under writs venditioni exponas (forced sale of assets by judgement of calling in a lien) against Michael Geohegan. This explains the inclusion of a long list of slaves named ‘Geohegan’ on the Papine Estate after 1823. The then slave-stock was transferred in repayment of a debt. It should also be noted that the baseline list of 1817 accounted for 189 enslaved people at the Paine Estate and not the 187 which is engraved within the monuments. The 1832 slave returns however, does show a reduction of the slave population to 134. The list printed on the UWI monuments nonetheless, by count of this research, account for a total of 190 slave names in 1832, a surplus difference of 57 persons which are not reflected on the official archival records for 1832 and a difference of one enslaved person, by count of this research. These numbers for Papine’s enslaved population in 1817 can therefore be summarised as follows: Slave Population Count engraved on Monument – 187 Slave Population Count according to Archival Records – 189 Slave Population Count according to Names Listed on the Monuments – 190 These are some of the discrepancies, the research contends with, but defers to the archival records as the authoritative source of numbering the enslaved people.

Historical Map Figure 9. Historical Map of the Hope, Papine, and Mona Estates (1826)

Map of Hope Estate in 1826 with outline of cane fields. Also shows Mount Charles, The Cottage, Mona, Papine, Hall's Delight and Ireland.

Source: 'New and General Plan of the Hope Estate in the Parishes of Kingston and St Andrew, Jamaica, the Property of His Grace The Duke of Buckingham and Chandos Surveyed in the Year 1826 by Edward McGenchy', West Indies Box 1, Stowe Papers, The Huntington Library, San Marino, California. Adapted from Media File: UCL ‚Legacies of British Slave-ownership‛, (http://wwwdepts-live.ucl.ac.uk/lbs/media/view/213)

LITERATURE REVIEW Slave Registers of Former British Colonial Dependencies 1817-1832 compiled by the National Archives, are the first authentic sources of verification of the data. The study utilises original entries comprising fourteen years of triennial slave-returns, to verify the baseline slave population for both estates as well as any additions and adjustments made during this period. The paper illustrated in foregoing sections, that the slave-names compiled from the monuments constitute an original finding based on the calculations of the heritage project team which supplied the data for the monuments. The study proposed however, that the monument list, although it claims to give an accurate account for the enslaved persons ‘deemed’ to be alive in 1832, is not a true reflection of the 1832 listings for either estates as shown by the archival records. Why the registry of names for 1832, as they stand in archive today, were not simply used to account for the existing slave-cohort on both estates in 1832, remains a mystery and is admittedly, neither understood nor recommended by this study. The study must therefore focus more, on analysing linguistically, both the underlying and noticeable principles of the text itself and the inferred principles of slave-naming practices, rather than the accuracy of the count. Reconciliatory methods applied for accounting slave- names to mean ‘slaves alive’ in 1832 remains, for the moment, a historical and heritage inquiry.

Figure 10. Image of Slave Registers for the Mona and Papine Estates (1817) (National Archive)

Figure 11. Photo File of Slave Register for Papine (1817) (Suzanne Francis Brown, 2007)

It is clear from these images that slaves were listed according to ‚Former names and Present names (in other registers ‚Present names‛ was substituted with the term ‚Aliases‛), colour, age, origin (African or Creole – those born in the then British West Indies), remarked for lineage (son or daughter of X), and status (Runaway, Superannuated, Transported etc).

Names listed within slave-registers as ‚former names‛ are the same names represented on the plinths as pre-positioned bracketed names while post-positioned bracketed names, similarly on the plinths, seem to refer uniformly to occupational status such as ‘mason or cooper’. Memory of the Worlds Register: Registry of Slaves of the British Caribbean 1817-1834, a 2011 Paper published by UNESCO, presents findings compiled by seven Caribbean national archivists including the national archivist of the UK, which are extracted from original slave registries as well as other notable historical sources such as (Bell and Parker, 1926), (Higman, 1976, 1995), (Schuyler, 1925), (Wesley, 1932) and (Stephen, 1815) on six former British colonies, name, Jamaica, St. Kitts, Dominica, Belize, Bahamas and Trinidad and Tobago, with respect to their slave populations. The paper presents quantitative population histories, tables of returns, original photo clippings of archived registries, identities and descriptions of documentary heritage, registration dates and a useful assessment of ‚world significance, uniqueness and irreplaceability‛ of the records. The paper also puts into both historical and literary perspective, the criteria for reading the material and understanding concepts of time, place, people, subject and theme and form and style. Three elucidating perspectives among these, can be shared from the UNESCO Report as follows:

Time: The Registers are limited to a fourteen-year period 1817-1834 but their significance continues into the present. The vast majority of the people of Caribbean are descendants of enslaved Africans. Records relating to the enslaved were mostly of a legal nature – the selling of slaves, manumissions and wills of owners, all of which only give piecemeal information about the demographics of the slave population. The Registry is significant because for the first time all enslaved individuals were named and identified. Place: All registers identify the enslaved as either African or Creole born in the Caribbean) but some include greater detail. The Registers of St. Kitts and Dominica contain evidence of the presence of specific African ethnic groups such as the Ebo, Mande, Bambara, Fulani, Sousou, Chamba, and Gulla people and links with locations such as Congo, Senegal, Goree. Others still had been born on the North American mainland. It shows links with the wider Caribbean. A significant number of the enslaved had been born in places other than the place of registration. People: The registers’ main focus is the slave population of the British Caribbean listing each individual enslaved person in the region for the period 1817-1834. They provide information related to age, colour, sex, place of origin, and work performed, showing the diversity of skills that were present among enslaved males and the reliance of the plantations on both male and female enslaved labour. The Register of British Honduras (now Belize) also gives familial relations of the enslaved. The registers also named enslavers who were mostly of European descent but some were of African or mixed parentage. The economic value of the enslaved is clearly shown when an aged or sick slave was listed as ‚useless‛ in the space where an occupation should have been named. The reputed age, the number of children born, the deaths and the occupations or lack thereof give indications of the general health of the population. The presence of slaves born in other islands is an indication that society was quite mobile despite difficulties in travel. Higman’s Slave Populations of the British Caribbean 1807-1834, collates slave registry returns for nineteen (19) territories within the BWI and distinguishes for each island, original dates of registration, original date of return (first return) and dates/years of subsequent

18 returns. It is noticeable that places like Belize (then British Honduras) and the Cayman Islands, were non- complicit, filing no records of slave-ownership, it is reported, not until the full effect of emancipation whereupon they made extensive claims for slaves/property lost, with no previous records to substantiate – but equally, to disprove their claims. The records, also noted in the UNESCO report, are as follows:

Figure 12. Extracted Table of Slave Registration Dates (Higman, 1995)

Magnitude of Slave Registries UNESCO’s assessment of the ‚significance, uniqueness and irreplaceability‛ of the records, was not lost on attempts at this literature review. The sheer steadfastness required to search registries with over a thousand records, per parish in Jamaica alone, proved overwhelming, particularly when not indexed by name of estate or owner, but by the name of the attorneys in the year of filing, who had management of other estates and who might from year to year, be succeeded by newer attorneys. The total volumes in the lists of registries (UK National Archives) are as follows:

Jamaica’s Exceptional Status It was clear that Jamaica’s estates were numbered in the thousands and the volumes of registers belonging to Jamaica alone, were distinguishably the largest of the total archived within the UK for the former colonies. In fact, by Higman’s (1995) account, the slave, freedman and white populations of Jamaica was so outstanding, that in a table of calculations, it stood entirely by itself, quantifiably beyond the totals of all the ‚Old Sugar Colonies‛ and above those of all the ‚New Sugar Colonies‛. Substantiating Jamaica’s unique status, the study again draws upon UNESCO’s report where it cites Higman’s findings as follows:

Reviewing Suzanne Francis Brown’s (2004), Mona Past and Present: The History and Heritage of the Mona Campus, University of the West Indies, proved essential to this study. It is documented that the monumented plinths, upon which this study is built, were an outcome of her own academic heritage research and the publication itself, an extension of her own research. The foregoing sections on the history of the estates, draws many verifications and support from this source, which not only deals extensively with the history of the Mona Estate, but with careful and meticulous historical records and maps of the Papine Estate. Francis Brown articulated several intricate connections between both estates, and additionally, the adjacent Hope Estate, which provides authentic accounts of how today’s Mona Campus with all its historical sites, came into being as a product of the intertwining histories of its early plantation landscape. The scholarship of Francis Brown however, extended beyond the publication of the source in review, when she published 'Finding Families within the Community Enslaved on the Mona and Papine Estates, 1817-1832', (Caribbean Quarterly Vol 41, Nos 3 & 4, Sept- Dec 2005.), in which she gives in-depth analyses of slave names and meanings; and though the findings of this research does not quote directly from this source, it is predictable and unavoidable, that several of this study’s findings and conclusions, bears many parallels to this earlier work and stands both gratefully and confidently upon the breadth and strength of its supporting arguments.

PRESENTATION OF THE DATA There are two sets of data to be presented for each estate. The first set of data represents the lists of male and female slave names presented on the UWI monuments and the second set of data represents the original list of slave names as found within the original archived slave registers of 1817. The latter set of data was held historically, as the baseline of slave names since the British government mandated 1816-1817 the first year of registering slave populations within the former colonies.

The two sets of lists are difficult to navigate since the original 1817 list is only partially represented in the current monumented 2007 list and this itself, is merged with additional names extrapolated from slave registries 1820-1832. It is stressed throughout the study, and is reiterated here, that the current list is a compilation of names of slaves ‚deemed to be alive on the estates in 1832‛ and this compilation is the result of a heritage research conducted in 2007.

The following tables are a presentation of the names appearing on the monuments, listed alphabetically, by estate, by gender, and by name length. The tables are also comparative, that one may see how much of the 1817 information is preserved within the current 2007 monumented list. Following this presentation of the data, there are descriptions of findings of commonalities among names whereby subsets of names are derived for further analysis.

The Data: Papine Estate Table 2. List of Slave Names on the UWI Monument for the Papine Estate: [√ = matched, = name not found] Names inserted are possible resemblances or misspellings.

PAPINE ESTATE LIST OF NAMES IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER BY LENGTH

No. SINGLE FEMALE NAMES SINGLE MALE NAMES Monument (2007) List 1817 LIST Monument (2007) List 1817 LIST 1. Abba √ Africa √ 2. Aluida √ Alexander 3. Amy Amey Alick 4. Amy (Amey) Margaret Wilford* Balcarres √ 5. Balinda √ Beswick Berwick 6. Belinda Boatswain √ 7. Bella √ Bob √ 8. Bella Castalio √ 9. Bemba √ Charles √ 10. Bess Bessy Christmas √ 11. Bessy √ Cranky √ 12. Bessy √ Cudjoe 13. Betty √ Cuffee 14. Betty Cavaliers Betty Daniel 15. Catslick Casteel David √ 16. Celia Cretia Dickey √ 17. Christian Douglas √ 18. Clara √ Douglas Dougald 19. Clarinda √ Drake √ 20. Cuba Drake √ 21. Daphne √ Duncan √ 22. Delia √ Edward 23. Diana From 1832 list England √ 24. Dido √ Flanders √ 25. Ebony George √ 26. Eliza Harvey 27. Eve √ Henry 28. Fanny √ Hermica Hennica 29. Fanny √ Howard √ 30. Flora √ Jack √ 31. Grace James √ 32. Groomer √ Jeremy 33. Hagar √ Joe 34. Jane √ Joe 35. Jennet Johnston √ 36. Jenny √ Lewis 37. Joan √ Lewis 38. Juba √ London √ 39. Judy √ Luck 40. Juliet Julia March √ 41. Louisa √ Michael 42. Maria √ Ned √ 43. Marrett Marrott Neil 44. Mary √ Peter √ 45. Molly √ Polydor 46. Monimia √ Pope 47. Nancy √ Primus 48. Nelly Quaco 49. Olive √ Quamin Quamina 50. Pat √ Richard 51. Patty √ Robert √ 52. Peggy √ Robin √ 53. Phillis √ Romeo √ 54. Plenty √ Romeo 55. Providence √ Ronnie 56. Rebecca Rebecca Wildman Sammy 57. Rosetta √ Scipio √ 58. Rosey √ Stanley √

59. Sabina √ Thomas √ 60. Salinda √ Toby 61. Sally √ Trouble √ 62. Sarah √ William √ 63. Sue √ William 64. Susan Yammie √ 65. Sylvia √ York √ 66. Tusey Susey 67. Venus √ 68. Zebia Zebra (or Tebia)

FEMALE BRACKETED SINGLE NAMES MALE BRACKETED SINGLE NAMES 2007 LIST 1817 LIST 2007 LIST 1817 LIST 69. (Lucy) Pomelia Long Pomelia Quashie (Cooper) √

FEMALE SINGLE NAMES WITH INITIAL MALE SINGLE NAMES WITH INITIAL 2007 LIST 1817 LIST 2007 LIST 1817 LIST 70. Jane M Jane Macneill

FEMALE DOUBLE NAMES MALE DOUBLE NAMES 2007 LIST 1817 LIST 2007 LIST 1817 LIST 71. Big Abba √ Anthony Wilson 72. Big Celia √ George Bailey 73. Black Kitty √ James Bruce 74. Black Pomelia √ James Bryce 75. Cecelia Richards Cecelia James Pennington 76. Charlotte Richards √ James Wildman √ 77. Elizabeth Edwards Eliza Edwards John Crow √ 78. Eve Maxwell √ John Mitchell √ 79. Harriet Wildman √ John Taylor 80. Kitty Stephens √ John Thomas 81. Louisa Doe Old Cork √ 82. Nancy Maxwell √ Patrick Henry 83. O ld Betty √ Peter Wilson 84. Papine Charlotte √ Prince Henry 85. Patty Smith Richard Douglas 86. Priscilla Bennett Simon Taylor √ 87. Sarah Bryce From 1832 list Thomas Lewis 88. Sophy Wildman Thomas Wildman 89. Young Charlotte √ William Thomas

FEMALE BRACKETED DOUBLE NAMES MALE BRACKETED DOUBLE NAMES 2007 LIST 1817 LIST 2007 LIST 1817 LIST 90. (Ann) May Wilford (Amey) Margaret Wilford (Adam) James Addison √ 91. (Catherine) Elizabeth Smith √ (George) Henry Grant 92. (Lucy) Jane Richards √ (Harry) Henry Hussey 93. (Matilda) Letticia Martin √ (Letitia) (Herculus) James Campbell √ (Hercules) 94. (Patience) Elizabeth Edwards √ (John) Richard Pennington √ 95. (Polly) Johanna Wildman √ 96. (Princess) Amelia Henry √

FEMALE TRIPLE NAMES MALE TRIPLE NAMES 2007 LIST 1817 LIST 2007 LIST 1817 LIST 97. Eliza Marret Brice James Louis Doe

FEMALES NAMES WITH MIDDLE INITIALS MALES NAMES WITH MIDDLE INITIALS 2007 LIST 1817 LIST 2007 LIST 1817 LIST 98. Alexander G Brennan 99. Henry O Smith TOTAL 97 Females 93 Males

Data Description: Papine Estate The data is described comparatively for female and male names for 2007 and 1817 as follows:  The 1817 Baseline list had 106 female names and 83 male names. (See figure 13).

Figure 13: Total count of slave names (1817) for Papine Estate (National Archives T71/125 329-332)

 The 2007 Monument list has 97 female names and 93 male names – an adjusted decrease of 9 female names and an adjusted increase of 10 male names for the period 1817-1832.

 From the 1817 Baseline list, only 69 female names (65%) and 47 male names (56%) reappear on the 2007 list.

 In 2007 list, among the 69 female names extracted from the 1817 list: o 16 names appear to be close resemblances (possible misspellings). o 53 names are exactly matched.  In 2007 list, 28 female slave names could not be traced back to the 1817 list.

 Among the 47 male names reappearing from the 1817 list: o 4 names appear to be close resemblances (possible misspellings). o 43 names are exactly matched.  In 2007 list, 46 male slave names could not be traced back to the 1817 list.  Among the female names, only 2 names (Diana and Sarah Bryce) not listed within the 1817 list, were noted additions from the last of three of the 1832 female slave returns. No other unmatched female names were found among the 47 names appearing on this final 1832 list. Hence, it is reasonable to conclude that there were 45 female slaves alive in 1832, whose names do not appear on the 2007 monumented list. The final 1832 Female Returns (T71/137 288) can be seen in Appendix 1.

 Other notable descriptions with nearly equal distribution within the 2007 list are:

Female Names Male Names 1 tri-part name 1 tri-part name 19 double names 19 double names 7 Bracketed double names 5 Bracketed double names 5 paired (appearing twice) single names 6 paired single names 1 Name with Second-name Initial 2 Names with Second-name Initial 4 Akan Day names 6 Akan Day names 7 Descriptive Names (Age, Size, Colour, Place) 6 Descriptive Names (Possible Monikers) 2 Symbolic (Abstract Meaning) names 4 Symbolic (Abstract Meaning) names 3 Classical names 7 Classical names

 There were approximately 27 females and 32 male names within the 1817 list which do not reappear on the 2007 list. These names, which neither appear nor bear any resemblances to monumented names, are tabled as follows:

Table 3. Slave names from 1817 list which do not appear on the UWI Monuments

PAPINE ESTATE LIST OF NAMES IN 1817 SLAVE RETURNS WHICH DO NOT REAPPEAR ON THE 2007 MONUMENT

No. FEMALE NAMES (Age) No. MALE NAMES (Age) 1. (Hannah) Sarah Allen (34) 1. (Edward) Richard Martin (36) 2. (Lettice) Letitia Wildman (25) 2. (Jackey) William Harris (19) 3. (Lucinda) Mary Ford (38) 3. (Toney) James Burnett (33) 4. (Maria) Ann Francis (18) 4. Ben (19) 5. Barbary (21) 5. Chance (26) 6. Beatrice (18) 6. Charley (1) 7. Behaviour (5) 7. Cupid (29) 8. Black Nanny (17) 8. David (36) 9. Cherry (17) 9. Duncan (69) 10. Eleanor (18) 10. George Doe (19) 11. Franky (36) 11. George Young (12) 12. Happy (25) 12. Goodluck (13) 13. Henny (2) 13. Harry Henry (29) 14. Joanie (1) 14. Heyman (51) 15. Kate (6) 15. Kent (45) 16. Marina (29) 16. Mark (37) 17. Mary (1) 17. Morris (30) 18. Mary (11) 18. Nelson (28) 19. Mary (50) 19. Neptune (57) 20. May Edwards (30) 20. Old Charles (60) 21. Nancy Campbell (20) 21. Pompey (8) 22. Nassan (41) 22. Quashee (46) 23. Port Royal Beck (50) 23. Quashee (Mason) (42) 24. Rose (3) 24. Rhennie (44) 25. Susanna (24) 25. Robert (26) 26. Tebia (40) 26. Sam (26) 27. Thisbie (1) 27. Sampson (9) 28. Thomas (2) 29. Thomas Campbell (6) 30. Thompson (37) 31. Tommy (3) 32. Tomside (53)

Only two of these female slaves (#19, 23) appear to be of an age (50 years) that would have made them eligible to be superannuated (made to retire) by 1832. It is possible that some of these persons could have been traded within plantations, loaned to any of the two other plantations owned by James B. Wildman, transported (sent to another country), manumitted (earned their freedom), some may have been runaways and a significant portion may have died, since Higman points out the high mortality rate at 20- 50%. The male listing however has at least 5 persons who might have been superannuated by 1832 and at least 5 additionally who would have been very close to that age. It appears that the average age of the male slaves was much higher than that of the female slaves, hence fewer males than females would have been returned over the fourteen years from 1817-1832.

The Data: Mona Estate Table 4. List of Slave Names on the UWI Monument for the Mona Estate: [√ = matched, = name not found] Names inserted are possible resemblances or misspellings.

MONA ESTATE LIST OF NAMES IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER BY LENGTH

No. SINGLE FEMALE NAMES SINGLE MALE NAMES Monument (2007) List 1817 LIST Monument (2007) List 1817 LIST 1. Abba √ Abraham √ 2. Alia Adam √ 3. Aluelia Amelia Adam √ 4. Amelia √ Allick √ 5. Amy Amey Allick 6. Barbara √ Andrew √ 7. Bashful √ Anthony 8. Behaviour √ Archie √ 9. Belinda √ Bass √ 10. Bess √ Batchelor 11. Bess Bessy Reeder Bob √ 12. Bimba Bemeba Bob √ 13. Bunchy √ Bob √ 14. Cassandra Bruce √ 15. Cayel Build 16. Celina Caesar √ 17. Charlotte √ Caesar √ 18. Charlotte √ Cato 19. Christiana Colon √ 20. Clorinda Clarinda Cudjoe √ 21. Cynthia Cudjoe √ 22. Deligence √ Cuffee 23. Diana √ Cuffee √ 24. Dolly √ Darby √ 25. Fanny √ Dick 26. Fedelia √ Douglas Douglass 27. Grace √ Edgar √ 28. Hannah √ Edward √ 29. Jeannie √ Edward √ 30. Jenette √ Felstead √ 31. Jessy √ Franky (listed as female aged 2) 32. Juba George √ 33. Juba George √ 34. Judy √ George √ 35. Juno √ Hyde √ 36. Lavina √ Israel √ 37. Lettice √ Jack 38. Lucy √ Jack 39. Lucy √ Jack √ 40. Margaret √ Jacob √ 41. Maria √ Jamie √ 42. Marina √ Jamie √ 43. Mary √ Jervis √ 44. Mimba √ John √ 45. Mino √ John John Hall 46. Molly Joseph 47. Nancy √ Julian 48. Nancy Kent √ 49. Patience √ Laurence √ 50. Patience √ Lewis Louis 51. Peggy √ Liverpool √ 52. Phillida √ London √ 53. Phillis √ Monday 54. Phoebe √ Mons 55. Phoebe √ Mosey 56. Portia √ Nelson √ 57. Princess √ October 58. Queen √ Peter

59. Rosannah √ Primus √ 60. Rose √ Quamin √ 61. Sally Quarnin √ 62. Sucky Sukey Quashie √ 63. Susan √ Raimus 64. Susanna Susannah Robin √ 65. Venus √ Scotland √ 66. Venus √ Sharper √ 67. Simon √ 68. Somerset √ 69. Stuart 70. Thomas √ 71. Tony Toney 72. Will √

FEMALE BRACKETED SINGLE NAMES MALE BRACKETED SINGLE NAMES 2007 LIST 1817 LIST 2007 LIST 1817 LIST 73. (Mona) Queen √ 74. (Orangefield) Queen √

FEMALE DOUBLE NAMES MALE DOUBLE NAMES 2007 LIST 1817 LIST 2007 LIST 1817 LIST 75. Ann Francis Abraham Johnson Abraham Johnstone 76. Ann Taylor √ Charles Woolly Charles Walker 77. Bettilda Robertson David Johnson David Johnston 78. Bessy Johnson Bessy Johnstone Donald Gordon √ 79. Cathelina Rutherford Cathartine Rutherford Edward Darby √ 80. Celia Bond √ Frederick Walford √ 81. Cretia Sukey Cretia George Rae √ 82. Daphne Moodie √ George Robertson √ 83. Diana McKenzie Jacob Henry 84. Diana Watson √ James Allen √ 85. Dianna Anderson √ James Johnston James Johnstone 86. Eleanor Patten √ James Stewart √ 87. Eleanor Rutherford √ John Donnell √ 88. Eliza Rutherford √ John Kennedy √ 89. Elizabeth Kennedy √ Mono Jamie Mona Jamie 90. Ella Wynter Peter Robertson √ 91. Elsie Scott √ Richard Harris √ 92. Gracey Brown Richard Rutherford √ 93. Henny Campbell Richard Thomas 94. Jean Davis √ Robert Anderson √ 95. Jean Williams √ Robert Beathford Robert Rainford 96. Johanna Bennett √ Thomas London √ 97. Kitty Fell √ Thomas Thomson √ 98. Luckey Robertson William Bennett √ 99. Lucrecha Williams Lucretia Williams William Watson √ 100. Margaret Jackson 101. Mariah Burnet 102. Mary Davis √ 103. Mary Robertson √ 104. Mary Virtue √ 105. Mary Williams √ 106. Nancy Mathias √ 107. Penny Robertson √ 108. Polly Walford √ 109. Rebecca Allan 110. Sophy Robertson 111. Susanna Walford √ 112. Susannah Henry 113. Tydie Collings FEMALE TRIPLE NAMES MALE TRIPLE NAMES 2007 LIST 1817 LIST 2007 LIST 1817 LIST 114. Mary Ann Harris TOTAL 108 Females 97 Males

Data Description: Mona Estate The data is described comparatively for female and male names for 2007 and 1817 as follows:  The 1817 Baseline list (Parts 1 and 2) had a total of 99 female names and 88 male names. (See figure 14).

Figure 14: Total count of slave names (1817) for the Mona Estate (National Archives T71/125 141-142)

 The 2007 Monument list has 108 female names and 97 male names – an adjusted increase of 9 female and 9 male names for the period 1817-1832.

 From the 1817 Baseline list, 83 female names (84%) and 74 male names (84%) reappear on the 2007 list. This signifies that 84% of the slaves from 1817 were retained in the 14-year period from 1817-1832.  In 2007 list, among the 83 female names extracted from the 1817 list: o 11 names appear to be very close resemblances (likely misspellings). o 72 names are exactly matched.  In 2007 list, 25 female slave names could not be traced back to the 1817 list.

 Among the 74 male names reappearing from the 1817 list: o 10 names appear to be very close resemblances (likely misspellings) o 63 names are exactly matched. o 1 name ‚Franky‛ was listed among the female slave-names.  In 2007 list, 20 male slave names could not be traced back to the 1817 list.

 Among the male names, 2 entries (Mosey and Julian) were also noted correctively as Female slave-names (Francis Brown, 2017). These two names however were not listed in the 1817 baseline list and were likely to be new entries listed within the Slave Returns of 1820-1832.

 Other notable descriptions with nearly equal distribution within the 2007 monumented list are:

Female Names Male Names 1 tri-part name 0 tri-part name 39 double names 25 double names 0 Bracketed names 0 Bracketed names 8 paired (twice in sequence) single names 8 paired single names 0 triple single names 3 tripled single names (3 times in sequence) 5 Akan Day names 5 Akan Day names 2 Descriptive Names (Place) 4 Descriptive Names (Place) 3 Symbolic (Abstract Meaning) names 3 Symbolic (Abstract Meaning) names 3 Classical names 4 Classical names

 There were approximately 15 females and 12 male names within the 1817 list which do not reappear on the 2007 list. These names, which neither appear nor bear any resemblances to monumented names, are tabled as follows:

Table 5. Slave names from 1817 list which do not appear on the UWI Monuments

MONA ESTATE LIST OF NAMES IN 1817 SLAVE RETURNS WHICH DO NOT REAPPEAR ON THE 2007 MONUMENT No. FEMALE NAMES (Age) No. MALE NAMES (Age) 1. Clarissa Robertson (41) 1. Bristol (38) 2. Delia (44) 2. Cupid (4) 3. Eleanor Barrett (30) listed as Runaway 3. Charles Collins (9) 4. Elizabeth (7 months) 4. Dominica (24) 5. Fanny Morley (32) 5. Henry Carr (45) 6. Francis Jackson (51) 6. John Walford (51) 7. Franky (2) listed as Male 7. Kingston (65) 8. Joan (18) 8. Prince (9) 9. Louisa Graham (51) 9. Sandy (60) 10. Sally Black (58) 10. Smart (1.5) 11. Sarah Morley (18) 11. William Bond Snr (81) 12. Sarah Stewart (30) 12. William Bond Jnr (42) 13. Sweetlips Robertson (76) 13. 14. Sylvia (36) 14. 15. Tella Wynter (42) 15. As with the Papine Estate, on the Mona Estate there are slave names listed within the 1817 list which by measure of age, should have returned within the 1832 list. Names such as Elizabeth, Cupid, Prince, Smart and Charles Collins, have ages which indicate that these persons were very young children in 1817 and with normal life expectancy, should all have been alive in 1832. On the other hand, it is quite likely that persons over the age of 45 years (approximately 33% of this list) would have been superannuated or passed on by 1832.

The Combined Data: A Count of Slave Names In describing the data quantitatively, an accurate count of the slave names on both estates reveals that the notation inscribed as follows, on the Mona Monument was correct:

Mona Estate Indeed, the total number of slaves on the Mona Estate was recorded at 206 as per legend on the enclosed plinth. A careful count of the names carried out in this study, produced a total of 205. The total recorded for the 1817 list of 88 males and 99 females (187 persons), was exactly the count arrived at in this study. It is certain that 157 of the

30 names listed in 1817 were preserved in the current list which indicates that adjustments were made for 48 persons derived from additional returns for the years 1820-1832. Papine Estate The case of the Papine Estate is not straightforward however. The notation on the plinth, while it indicated the historical total of 187, it did not indicate the number of names engraved within the monument. The research shows that the historical count was nearly accurate as the slave records (National Archives T71/125 329) show that in 1817, the total count on the triennial returns for 1817 were 203, 188 and 189 (See Table 1.). On the Papine Estate, the final count for 1817 listed 106 females and 83 males or 189 persons (see Figure 13). The monument however displays the engraved names of 190 persons (97 females and 93 males) all deemed to be alive in 1832. On the contrary, triennial Slave Register Returns for 1832 (National Archives T71/137 288) listed the total number of enslaved people on the Papine Estate at 135, 134 and 134 consecutively (See Table 1). Issues with the methodology of the count As indicated in the introductory section of this study, it is not known why the actual slave registers of 1832 were not used as the official record of slaves who ‚were deemed alive in 1832‛, it appears that an attempt was also made to count the number of persons enslaved on both estates since 1817 when the first slave register was compiled. It is entirely possible, that using 1817 as a baseline and extrapolating the additions over a 14-year period towards 1832, may have led to several inconsistencies or erroneous counting and the 1832 registers list many names which are not included in the group of names recorded on the monuments, and this is troublesome since the 1832 slave registers stand as a historical record of slaves who were listed alive on both estates at the time of emancipation. It would be interesting for example, to find out why only 2 of 47 female names appearing within the final 1832 register for the Papine Estate, have been preserved on the monuments with 96% of the names not acknowledged within the 2007 monument. Peculiarity of the Monumental Data This study therefore notes the peculiarity of the collection of names listed within the UWI monuments of 2007 reflecting more than 80% of the slave population of 1817 rather than the historical record of slaves who were registered alive in 1832 – since the aim was to show the names of persons who were possibly emancipated from the Mona and Papine Estates. Historical Description versus Linguistic Analysis of Data The presentation and historical description of the data is concluded in this section, which aimed to present the information collected from both the UWI and the archival research. The methodology of the descriptive research has been based on historical linguistic principles; that of ensuring the quality of the data, the accuracy of the records and cross-checks for current and past research to ensure that the body of data is not only authentic, but understood for all its limitations. The analysis which follows, is focused on the linguistic interpretation of the 2007 data as categorized in the descriptions. It will examine the presentation of names, the order and sequencing of names, the orthographies, duplications, triplications, typologies, and the descriptive and symbolic

31 meanings of names. The analysis however, draws upon some of the historical records to support its findings.

ANALYSIS In this section, the foregoing data is assessed linguistically and comparatively across estates in terms of the structure and sequencing of the slave-names on both the monuments and the original manuscripts. Typologies of names are examined in terms of their distribution and the descriptive categories identified in the presentation of data, are explained for possible meanings and symbolism. Name Format: Photographic Images Images capturing the data on the monuments as presented in Figures 3-8, show that the names are listed randomly (not ordered alphabetically) in two categories, male and female. Each entry and each line appear to be separated by commas with name-length varying from single, to double and triple names. Several names have bracketed entries pre-positioned with a singular entry post-positioned. There are no entries with a bracketed name only, which suggests that bracketed names are joined up with, rather than independent of, its proximate names. The photographic images however, do not themselves give a clear indication of the significance of bracketed names and an investigation of the original source, the slave- registries provides a clearer explanation. A cropped photo image of Figure 1. in the forgoing section, can be seen here:

Name Format: Original Manuscripts The original manuscripts as presented within the files of the National Archives, reveal a partially different method of classifying the names. The record shows that names appearing in the image files as pre-positioned bracketed names are tabled as ‚former names‛ and that all subsequent names, whether single or double, are tabled as ‚present names‛. The inference drawn here is that the former names are primary in that take precedence chronologically in terms of the earliest names slaves were either given at birth if they were Creoles or names they were assigned as newly arrived Africans. In all cases, these former names were single names and they are generally understood to be the common names of slaves, which they may call themselves, be called by their slave masters and which are the popularly known names of identification by the wider slave community.

Figure 15. Papine Slave Register (1817), from Original Duplicate Record, National Archives.

In Figure 15, the name column is titled ‚Former names MALES Present Names‛. Figure 15 illustrates that ‘Hercules’ is listed under former name, with ‘James Campbell’ under present name. Alternate Classification of Secondary Names ‚Present names‛ being the more current of the two classifications, are inferred as the secondary names. These set of names, inscribed adjacent to the primary names, are also formatted in other slave registries as ‘Christian names’ or ‚Aliases‛. While term ‚alias’ suggests ‘otherwise known as’ or ‘otherwise called’, the idea that a double name entry such as ‘Richard Harris’ is termed ‚Christian name‛ is unusual as suggests two important things supported by the literature. The first is that the slaves, in over three-hundred and eighty manuscripts examined, were never classified as having ‘surnames’. That surnames, were in British societies, the right of paternal lineage, was a practice denied in slave societies (Craton, 2009) since all slave progeny was property of the slave masters and the creation familial bonds among slaves was highly discouraged. The second point to note is that Christian names were only assigned to slaves at the point of acceptance of baptism (Francis Brown, 2004) and are these names are indeed referred to as ‚baptismal names‛. Baptismal was a slave’s initiation into living in the Christian faith, perhaps publicly denouncing original African religions for plantation assimilation and survival, since again, the traditional African religious rites, which involved the beating of drums, dancing and singing, were banned by planters and practiced only in secret. The alternate formatting can be seen below: Figure 16. Classification of secondary names as Aliases:

Christian ‘Names-of-Influence’ One important observation made within this study is that some slaves either adopted or were assigned the names of the plantation owners or overseers and that these names might have been influential or strategically adopted for social protection. Whether these slaves were favoured or somehow connected to the estate ownership or management, for example, through child-bearing or longstanding house service, is not evidenced within the data itself. It is only evident that on both the Mona and Papine Estates, slaves - male and female, adopted Christian names likened to that of the owner or overseer and that females passed these names on to their children, which they were allowed once their baptismal names were made official. Slave registries listed the maternal lineage of each child, but paternity was never acknowledged or documented. It is only evident, that these ‘names-of-influence’ inherited by children were either derived from their mothers’ baptismal names or given by the mother as a likely means of social protection or patronage, whether or not they themselves had separate baptismal names. Influential names sired by the overseer, owner, or a direct male relative of either, might only have been suspected (not verified) if the child was registered a ‘mulatto’ or ‘quadroon’. However, as the records reveal, in all cases on both estates, slaves adopting the names of their masters were registered as ‘Black or Negroe’ spelled with an ‘e’. In fact, on the Mona estate, all persons bearing names-of-influence, excepting young children, were surprisingly, among the least valued slaves, the Africans (Craton, 2009) – none of them of mixed-race or born in Jamaica. However, in the case of the Papine estate, all such persons were creole-born negroes, none of whom were of mixed race. The following tables give a breakdown of these slave-names-of-influence, inclusive of those entries which were not monumented in 2007, but which were listed in the original records of 1817.

Table 6. Slaves on the Mona Estate Registered with ‘Names-of-Influence’ adapted from Overseer, Attorney Peter Robertson Esq.

Name Sex Colour Age African or Remarks Creole *Not Listed Sweetlips Robertson Female Black 76 African Superannuated* Not listed Penny Robertson Female Black 68 African Superannuated Clarissa Robertson Female Black 41 African * Not listed in 2007 list Peter Robertson Male Black 40 African George Robertson Male Black 12 Creole Son of Clarissa Robertson Mary Robertson Female Black 9 Creole Dght. of Clarissa Robertson Luckey Robertson Female - - - Not found in 1817 list

Table 7. Slaves on the Papine Estate Registered with ‘Names-of-Influence’ adapted from Owner, James B. Wildman and Overseer, Attorney Thomas Addison Esq.

Name Sex Colour Age African or Remarks Creole *Not Listed Rebecca Wildman Female Negroe 46 Creole Letitia Wildman Female Negroe 25 Creole *Not Listed in 2007 list Harriet Wildman Female Negroe 20 Creole Dght. of Jane Richards (Polly) Joanna Wildman Female Negroe 17 Creole *Not Listed in 2007 list James Wildman Male Negroe 1 Creole Son of Joanna Wildman Thomas Wildman Male - - - Not found in 1817 list Sophy Wildman Female - - - Not found in 1817 list (Adam) James Addison Male Negroe 7 Creole Son of Eve Maxwell

The data in Figures 15 and 16, extracted from the slave register of 1817 and the monumented list of 2007, provides evidence that 66% of slaves adopting Christian names-of influence are women, at least 20% of them are children inheriting same, and there is only evidence of a singular adult male African slave (1%) adopting the whole Christian and surname of the Mona Estate Overseer, Peter Robertson. There are no records found in the 1817 registers for Luckey Robertson, Thomas and Sophy Wildman who appear on the 2007 list. This suggests that they were probably born between the years 1818 and 1832 and became additions to the slave populations during that twelve-year period. If this is the case then they were very likely creole children under 12 years of age, bringing the child inherited names-of-influence on both estates to at least 33% by 1832.

Cultural Typologies: Akan-Day Names and the Names of African Slaves On first glance, it would appear that the names belonging to these two categories are one and the same, however for both the Mona and Papine estates the data reveals information to the contrary. The findings are that there are no registered African slaves, excepting a singular female whose name was identified as a possible misspelling, who had Akan-Day names and all persons bearing Akan Day-names were registered as creole-slaves, born in the colonies. In fact, the Africans were typically assigned names of classical English origin. Historically, this is not strange however, as several historians (Burnard,2004), (Craton, 2009) and (Higman,1995) among others, have explained the well documented traditions of ‚seasoning‛ the African slaves, whereby they were stripped of their original African identities (name-washed) and beaten into submission if they refused to acknowledge their English names. Alex Haley (1976) for example, in his famously portrayed novel Roots, (adapted from Harold Courlander’s (1967) The African) tells the story is of the character Kunta Kinte being whipped mercilessly for refusing to accept and identify himself by his assigned English name ‚Toby‛. This tactic it is said, made it easier for owners to track the slaves, while disorienting and traumatising the slaves themselves making it more difficult for them unite in resistance or to run away. Braithwaite (1971) also explains this forced acculturation practice, pointing out that names were very significant to the Africans. He elaborated on a case where an African slave-mother wanted the name of her daughter changed because she felt a different name would heal her and protect her from disease. In this regard, some African slaves did pass on Akan Day names, including the contestable ‘Phobe’ [sic], to their children and the body of data on both estates show, excepting one possible misspelt entry, that all slaves with Akan names were all creole-born and uniformly registered ‚Black or Negroe‛. The following tables illustrate the near equal distribution of Akan-Day names and the names of Africans on both estates.

Table 8. Slaves on the Mona Estate Registered with Akan-Day Names (1817)

Name Sex Colour Age African or Creole Remarks Abba Female Black 1 Creole Son of June Bemeba Female Black 65 African Possibly misspelled as ‚Bimba‛ on plinth Juba Female - - - Not found in the 1817 Register. Juba Female - - - Not found in the 1817 Register. Mimba Female Black 51 Creole Phobe Female Black 39 Creole

Phobe Female Black 9mths Creole Daughter of Ann Cudjoe Male Black 7mths Creole Son of Betsy Johnstone Cudjoe Male Black 9 Creole Son of Lucy Cuffee Male Black 59 Creole Cuffee Male - - - Not found in the 1817 Register. Quarmin Male Black 16 Creole Quarnin Male Black 24 Creole Quashie Male Black 14 Creole Son of Queen

Table 9. Slaves on the Papine Estate Registered with Akan-Day Names (1817) Name Sex Colour Age African or Creole Remarks *Not Listed Abba Female Negroe 19 Creole Bemba Female Negroe 32 Creole Big Abba Female Negroe 47 Creole Cuba Female - - - Not found in the 1817 Register. Juba Female Negroe 18 Creole Cudjoe Male - - - Not found in the 1817 Register. Cuffee Male - - - Not found in the 1817 Register. Quaco Male - - - Not found in the 1817 Register. Quamina Male Negroe 52 Creole Quashie (Cooper) Male Negroe 50 Creole Quashie (Mason) Male Negroe 42 Creole *Not Listed in 2007 list Quashie Male Negroe 46 Creole *Not Listed in 2007 list Yammie Male Negroe 27 Creole Son of Aluida

Distribution of Akan-Day Names Tables 8 and 9 are nearly equal quantitatively in terms of the distribution of slaves with Akan-Day names. The Mona estate has 14 entries with equal gender representation and Papine has 13 entries with males outnumbering females 8:5. The numbers show that for both estates, at least 25% of the slaves with Akan-Day names were not listed on the 1817 registers and it is possible that those missing are either children born between 1818-1832 or newly traded slaves from other plantations. While the Mona estate however, has a trend of young children with Akan-Day names, Papine does not. It is also notable that the none of the mothers of Akan-named children, excepting Betsy Johnstone (mother of the youngest child), had Christian names and were evidently never baptised. These women might have passively resisted slave society norms by passing down their African traditions through the naming of their children, knowing perhaps, it provided them little social advantage but believing nonetheless that the Akan-Day names had spiritually protective values (Braithwaite, 1971). Distribution of Names of Africans (Mona Estate) Summarily, the African born slaves on the Mona estate numbered 40/205, approximately, one fifth of the slave population. The facts of this estate’s African demographics are that 30% of the African slaves listed in 1817 did not reappear on the 1832 list; the two of five ‚Runaways‛ listed on the 1817 list were African male slaves, the sole ‚Invalid‛ listed (Darby) was an African male slave, the sole ‚Insane‛ listed (Sandy) was an African male slave and the sole ‚Blind‛ listed was an African female slave. Approximately 80% of slaves superannuated were African slaves, while 50% of African slaves (majority middle-aged to elderly females as well as elderly males) received baptism and had received Christian double- names, many African slave under 40 years of age however, remained unbaptised. Excepting one female on the Mona estate, none of the African slaves had Akan-Day names and none were of mixed-race.

Distribution of Names of Africans (Papine Estate) Papine estate quantitatively had an African slave population of 41/190 or approximately 22% of the slave population. Like the Mona estate, approximately 30% of these slaves did not reappear on the 2007 monument list. In stark contrast to the Mona estate however, only same two African slaves (.01%) on both the 1817 and 2007 lists, adopted secondary or Christian (baptismal) names. The overwhelming majority retained the single name assigned to them upon arrival to the colonies. Therefore, although the Papine estate had six times more than Mona, the quantities of slaves who possessed both primary names and secondary Christian names, these were almost exclusively creole born slaves. It could be concluded therefore that the Mona estate had more success in baptising African slaves. In considering this perspective however, it must be noted that the Mona estate over the period of assessment (1817-1832), and perhaps before and certainly for nearly 50 years post-emancipation, maintained a very stable slave population, as the plinthed legends had noted. Slave population fluctuations and attrition were not common characteristics for the Mona estate as it was for the Papine estate. An Analysis of Akan-Day Names The Akan-Day names identified in Tables 7 and 8 above can be mapped linguistically as seen in Table 9. which outlines the 15 names used on both estates, their Day-meanings, language origin and symbolic associations. The orthographies used in the original manuscripts as well as on the monuments are in accordance to the orthographies used for Day-names by Long (1774).

Table 10. Linguistic Chart of Akan-Day Names (Mona and Papine Slave Population 1817-1832)

Name Sex English ‚Born Akan Born Selected Linguistic Akan Associative on a …..‛ Day Variants (Twi) Variety Meanings Abba Woman Thursday Yawoada Yaa, Yaba, Kwaw Fanti Earth Quarmin Man Quarnin Man Saturday Memeneda Ato, Kwame, Komi Fanti God Quamina Man Mimba, Amba Bemba Woman Ama, Ami, Ameyo Mimba Woman Yammie* Man Bemeba Woman Tuesday Ebenada Beneba, Abena Fanti Ocean Quaco Man Koku, Kwaku, Kweku Cuba Woman Wednesday Wukuada Akuba, Cooba, Akua Fanti Spider Cudjoe Man Kojo, Quajo Juba Woman Monday Edwoada Adjoa, Ajuba, Fanti Peace Cuffee Man Kofi, Fiifi, Yoofi Phobe* Woman Friday Efiada Afiba, Fiba, Phibba Fanti Fertility Quashie Man Sunday Kwasiada Kwesi, Kosi, Kwashiba Fanti Universe Sources: Wikipedia, Akan Names and Outlook Web Access Light: Akan Style Day Names in the Americas It is entirely possible that while Yammie is a variant of Ami or Kwami, it could also be variant of another common Akan name, ‚Nyamekye‛ which means ‚gift from God‛ after long childlessness. It is of curiosity whether it bears any relation to the English version John, as the biblical account is given of Elizabeth who bore her son John/Yann ‚God is Gracious‛ after long childlessness. Associative meanings, it is clear, feature prominently in Akan naming traditions whereby the universal association of the day-name, may provide equally positive qualities for the children who receive these names. It should be understood for example, that the associative meaning of the born-day Wednesday, is the spider, which in the

37 folk culture is synonymous with ‘wisdom’, the spider Anansi in Akan culture, being the Sky- God of Wisdom.

The Case of Phoebe The data derived from the original slave register of 1817 presents a variant of the name Phoebe as ‚Phobe‛, the inscriptions on the 2007 monuments has engraved the classical Greek name ‚Phoebe‛. The original Greek diphthong in centre vowel position was [oi], Latinized to the ligature [oe] in its conjoined form producing an [i:] sound as in ‚phoenix‛. There are claims that the Akan variants of the Friday-day name (derived from Efiada) Afia, Fiba, Fiba and known historical personalities such as Phibbah (Burton, 2004) from the Thistlewood Diaries with variant orthographies ‘Phibba or Phiba’, might be related to the name of the classical Greek goddess Phoebe. What is common to both varieties is the associative meanings of reference to ‚fertility‛. That the day-word ‚Friday‛ itself is derived from the Old English ‚Frigedag‛ meaning ‚Day of Frigga‛ goes back to Nordic Mythology as the day was named after Germanic goddess Frigga, wife of Odin (Father of Thor – from which Thursday is derived) and goddess of love, marriage and fertility. The Latin translated form is Veneris Dies, or ‚day of Venus‛, Frigga being equated with the Roman goddess of Love, Venus who was also goddess of sex, beauty and fertility. It must be noted that cognates in Greek mythology are not as straightforward as Aphrodite was the known Greek goddess of love, beauty, and fertility while Phoebe, also an original Titan, and granddaughter of Uranus and Gaia (Sky and Earth) was goddess of the Moon. The name Phoebe also therefore means ‚The Shining‛. Where the story becomes complicated, is that Artemis – goddess of the hunt, fertility, and childbirth, who is the Titan Phoebe’s granddaughter was also in mythological narratives, nicknamed Phoebe, and was for that reason also referred to in the terms of her Grandmother, as goddess of the Moon; as the Wikipedia description goes: ‚Artemis (Diana) Artemis, Apollo's twin sister, is the goddess of the hunt, the wilderness, wild animals, female fertility, and the moon. She's also a sworn virgin and a fierce protector of young girls.‛ In popular comic culture, Artemis is also known as ‚Wonder Woman‛, demi-goddess, daughter of Zeus and Leto (Leto was daughter of the Titan Phoebe) and twin of Apollo, the Greek god of the Sun. It was perhaps because of her dominion over both the virginity and fertility of women and the folk belief that fertility was influenced by the tidal movements of the Moon, that Artemis might also have been called Phoebe. In Amazonian narratives, she was known simply as Diana – also equative with the Roman goddess Venus, goddess of the hunt, virginity, and fertility. So, the common link appears to be association of meaning linked to the day-name Friday (Efiada), to Nordic Frigga, Roman Venus, and Greek Artemis (Phoebe) – all of them having the common mythological dominion and power over fertility. In this respect, the Akan day- name Fiba/Phiba has a strong relation to Phoebe. In fact, a deep exploration of comparative Nordic, Greek and African Mythologies, reveal several Sky-God cognates also identifiable with other Akan Day-names and especially their associative symbols. These findings are however, for a separate and greatly extended study.

An Analysis of Descriptive Names The data for both the Mona and Papine Estates provided a set of names labelled ‚descriptive‛ since they provide references to place, age, size, occupation and colour (likely skin-colour). The principle of using descriptive names types was very prominent on the Papine estate and less so on the Mona estate. The practice seemed to have been more utilitarian than pejorative, although some seemed disproportionately sexist as more females were the assignees of ‘colour and size-names’ and males overwhelmingly were assigned locational names. The names had in instances, the functionality of making distinctions among slaves with similar names. These distinctions, we can conjecture, would be of necessity since the data shows that on both estates, there were several doublings and triplings of single names. On the Mona estate for example, there were each, three Bobs, George, James, Richard, and William among males and the same among females for the Marys, Dianas, Susannas, Eleanors, Patiences and Bessys among others. This case of doublings was very common on the Papine Estate as well. Symbolic Names The principle of using symbolic names was more common to both estates. Additionally, while there are ‘concrete’ descriptive names which refer to things physically identifiable, there are a second set which are regarded as ‘symbolic names’ as they tend to refer to abstract, behavioural or associative qualities possibly perceived to be embodied in individual slaves or assigned, especially to children, as ‘blessings or names of protection’. The overwhelming body of data derived from the archived collections, provides a large collection of such names, however the ensuing sections will address those descriptive appearing in the 1817 and the 2007 monument lists for both estates. Descriptive Place Names or Provenance Names Slaves were frequently given the names of villages, towns, countries and other islands. Some of these places are located in the United Kingdom (England, Scotland and Ireland), Africa, the Middle East and others in the British West Indies. Place names were common on both estates and even within estates, it appears that place-name monikers served to distinguish identities of individuals with the same names. Place names identified on both estates are as follows:

Table 11. Descriptive Place-Names on the Mona and Papine Estate (1817)

Mona Estate (1817) Papine Estate (1817) Female Male Female Male (Mona) Queen Bristol* Papine Charlotte Africa (Orangefield) Queen Darby Cavaliers Betty* Berwick Dominica* Port Royal Beck* Balcarres Felstead England Hyde Flanders Israel Kent* Kent London Kingston* Mona Jamie Liverpool York London Scotland Somerset (*) Names which did not appear on 2007 list.

The data shows that while place names served more as a distinguishing marker for women slaves, whereby Mona for example, has three Queens and the two listed were distinguished possibly for areas of the plantation where they either lived or worked. It is also quite possible also that since both were African slaves, (Mona) Queen might have been the first to arrive and (Orangefield) Mona could have been transferred from the a coffee farm named Orangefield Estate which was owned by the Bonds. There was also at Mona in 1817, a third Queen who was 5 years old, daughter of Ann. Similarly, Papine Charlotte, could have been a transfer or traded slave to the Mona estate from the Papine estate. On both estates, there were more than one Charlotte. It is very clear however, that overwhelmingly, place names were given to enslaved males. Two listed for Mona (Dominica and Kingston) and well as Kent and Cavaliers Betty from the Papine estate, were names not returned to the 2007 monumented list as (at least for Mona) Kingston became superannuated at 65 and Dominica was documented as a Runaway – both were registered ‘African’ slaves. Descriptive Names of Age, Size, Occupation, and Skin Colour The data shows that these descriptive names were prominently practiced on one estate. The distribution (1817 and 2007) of other categories of name-description on both estates are as follows: Age: Mona: None Papine: Old Betty (F), Old Cork (M), Young Charlotte (F), Old Charles (M)

Size: Mona: None Papine: Big Celia (F), Big Abba (F), Long Pomelia (F).

Colour (Skin) Mona: None Papine: Black Kitty (F), Black Pomelia (F), Black Nanny (F).

Occupation: Mona: None Papine: Quashie (Cooper) (M), Quashie (Mason) (M), Groomer (F), Boatswain (M)

It should be pointed out that references to size such as ‚Big Kitty‛ could have been both indicative of physical size as well as age or seniority, for example Big Abba as opposed to Young Abba. It is also not certain whether occupational names such as Groomer and Boatswain actually referred to tasks on the plantation, but they are likely to have just been occupational-type names since the functions of animal grooming and ship petty-officer were not normal posts on a sugar plantation. Occupations such as Coopers (barrel makers) and Masons (builders) however, are perceivably regular skilled worker tasks on the plantation. As mentioned, the Mona estate did not practice these naming principles as openly as Papine estate did, the linguistic culture of the two estates seemed very different in this regard as slaves at the Mona estate seemed to have been more respectfully addressed.

Mona registries in 1817 however, did contain labels beside the names of the enslaved, the status of slaves as follows:  5 listed Runaways  1 listed Blind  1 listed Insane  I listed Invalid  12 listed Superannuated The great majority of these slaves were African and not Creole slaves.

Descriptive Symbolic Names Name-symbolism was practiced equally on both the Mona and Papine Estates. These are tabled as follows:

Table 12. Descriptive Symbolic-Names on the Mona and Papine Estate (1817)

Mona Estate (1817) Papine Estate (1817) Female Male Female Male Bashful Bass Behaviour* Christmas Behaviour Batchelor Happy* Cranky Bunchy Build Plenty Cupid* Deligence Colon Princess Chance* Patience Monday Providence John Crow Princess October Zebra Goodluck* Sweetlips Sharper Luck Queen Trouble (*) Names not returned to the 2007 list. These names are a small subset of ‘symbolic’ or abstract names assigned to slaves in the colonies. Some names were hypercoristic or pet-names but others were pejorative shame- names. The use of abstract terms was a very common practice in all colonies and in the Americas. Some of these terms may have had positive character or behavioural connotations (Deligence, Patience, Happy, Plenty) and others may have had very negative denotations (Cranky, Sharper, Colon, Trouble). It is uncertain what intentions positive or negative preceded some names (Bashful, Bass, Sweetlips, Behaviour, Bunchy) and these might have been either compliments or shaming names. It is not certain if the verb-noun ‘Build’ was an occupational name or a physical description of body. Names symbolizing animals (John Crow and Zebra) might have been direct negative labels or not at all. It is difficult to tell whether behaviours, attributes or physical appearances of the slaves were perceived as having resemblances to these animals. Symbolic names for days and months (Monday, October) appear to be quite neutral and may have had references to day or month of birth, while name references to good fate and fortune (Goodluck, Luck, Chance, Providence) may have been perceived as charmed-names capable of bringing prosperity as far as that could have been attained in a slave society. When one considers the fate of the infamously abused slave ‚Prosper‛, mutilated to death at the hands of the notorious William Arthur Hodge in the British Virgin Islands (Pickering, 1987), one wonders at the perceived protective values or at least the ironies placed on these ‘fortuitous names’.

The Distribution of Classical Names on Two Estates It is also noted that the Mona and Papine Estates, there was wide usage of classical names assigned to slaves, especially given the burgeoning literary Romantic culture of the British Empire during the Victorian Era, and the owner of the Papine Estate, James B. Wildman, also reputed for his literary and artistic pursuits as well as his close relations to prominent British author Jane Austen; ‚James Beckford Wildman courted Fanny Knight, niece of Jane Austen, and appears in Jane Austen's correspondence with Fanny.‛ (UCL Database, 2017). Slaves on both the Mona and Papine Estates however, had names similar to those appearing in Greek mythology, Shakespearean Plays and other literary sources such as biblical names. These are tabled as follows:

Table 13. Classical Slave-Names on the Mona and Papine Estate (1817)

Mona Estate (1817) Papine Estate (1817) Female Male Female Male Juno Caesar Diana Alexander Phobe Cato Joan Castalio Portia Primus Venus Hercules Venus Raimus Neptune* Polydor Pope Pompey* Primus Prince Henry Romeo Scipio Biblical Names Hannah Abraham Eve John Mary Adam Hagar Daniel Rebecca Jacob Mary David James Rebecca James John Sarah Michael Peter Peter Simon Thomas Thomas (*) Names not returned to the 2007 list. Biblical names it is well known are entrenched throughout the ages and are several of them, the names of Kings of England. It is striking to have noted that the majority of slaves assigned these names were African born. A look at slave directories for other British colonies including territories within the United States, shows very similar listings of classical names which were commonly used throughout the British Empire. Orthographic Variation Throughout the presentation of data names identified as having possible misspellings were remarked upon. There are several names however with alternate orthographies used both in the original slave-registries and similarly transcribed in the 2007 monuments list. Across estates, differing orthographies commonly appeared in word-final positions, such as Susanna and Susannah, Hanna and Hannah. Double-letters at syllable final and onset sometimes were preserved (Dianna, Susannah) but at other times they were eliminated (Diana), these are noted as orthographic variation and all of them are quite commonly used in modern times.

Some names are spelled in both their older and modern forms (Letitia/Lettice) but some appear only in their early 19th Century form (Amey, Barbary).

CONCLUSION The foregoing study is research aimed at uncovering historical-linguistic principles for the naming of slaves. The work presents an advanced investigation of the UWI Mona 2007 Heritage project and adds to the body of findings by recommending that there is data within the 1832 slave registries that suggests that there were slaves alive on the estate whose names do not appear in the 2007 monumented list. The findings also suggest that there are numerical discrepancies, for example, for the Papine Estate, between the count of names on the monuments to historical records of 1832 of the census of the enslaved population on the estate. The study also notes that even within the Papine estate’s 1832 records there were at least five (5) women listed as being alive and giving births to at least seven (7) children, but whose names do not appear on the 2007 list. It is evident that these women must have been present on the estates since none of them were, in 1832, transported from the estate or listed among the ‚deaths‛. The study therefore concludes that the calculation of the enslaved population in 1832, using the methods of adjusted returns, though meticulously designed for greater accuracy, still remains inconclusive as the 1832 historical records and the 2007 records reflect very different quantities. An account of the 1832 adjustments for the Papine Estate can be seen in Appendix 1. The research concludes additionally, that even while using the 1817 records as baseline, several omissions, misspellings, and misplaced entries exists within the heritage list and engraved monuments today. The study however, acknowledges the challenges inherent in perfecting such a process and perhaps offers only one other disciplinary perspective, left equally to be improved. The analysis section of the study hoped to present significant historical perspectives as the distribution of Akan names and names given to African slaves. That linguistic practices of naming traditions could or might have been part of a passive process of slave resistance is a refreshing find, even if such findings are not new. That slave women were subject to sexist name-shaming and racial labelling is not surprising but inconsolably digested but countered brightly by the finding that many persisted in passing on Akan Day names to their children. That the British slave owners named their slave ‚chattel‛ as they did themselves and their own children, sometimes even allowing slaves to use exact identities as slave masters, is a finding to be specially contemplated for within this study, this practice is not perfectly understood. Perhaps the naming system of shared and similar identities was necessary to make it easy enough for them to remember and keep track of their stocks, who knows? This closeness of identities does not itself seem characteristic of a social hierarchical order of such vast differences. The classification of names perhaps, provided the most interesting exercise. Subsets of descriptions, symbolisms, abstract associations, classical, Shakespearean, and biblical naming is an important lesson in itself; however etymological probing into name origins such as in the case of Phoebe, and comparing the names Akan and Greek mythological deities provided academic insights leading to limitless areas of further linguistic research. ###.

APPENDIX

1832 Slave Register for Papine Estate The 1832 Return of Slaves for the Papine estate (T71/137 288) recorded a brought- forward of the enslaved population of 176 (97F/79M). This number was reduced by 58 representing a total 18 deaths and of 40 transportations (slaves transferred to James Wildman’s other two estates in Clarendon – 38 to Low Ground and 2 to Salt Savannah estates). The resulting reduction to 118 enslaved, was then increased in the same year by 11 births and 5 persons transferred from the Clarendon estates to Papine. Although the records show an increase of 16, the actual increase was 14 (5F/9M) as two of the girl children (Fanny and Maria) born on the estates in 1832 and who were registered as additions, were also registered in the same set of records under deaths. Both children had siblings (Nelly and Sudan) born one year prior in 1831 who were also registered as additions. A summary of the findings are as follows: Total of Last (1829) Returns - 176 Total Increase - 16 (11 births, 5 transfers inward) Total Decrease - 58 (18 deaths, 40 transfers outward) Total at June 28, 1832 - 134 Total calculated 2007 - 190 Difference - 56 enslaved people.

Excerpt of total returns from 1832 Slave Registry for the Papine Estate

The 14 additions cited from the 1832 registry are:

Name 1832 Remarks for 2007 list Name 1832 Remarks for 2007 list Nelly In 2007 list as Molly Alexander G. Brennon matched Nelly Matched Thomas Wildman matched Dianna Matched George Bailey matched Sudan Entered as ‚Susan‛ William Lalinne entered as William only Sarah Bryce Matched John Taylor matched Cudjoe Matched Thomas Lewis matched Henry P. Smith In 2007 as Harry O. Smith James Bryce matched  Additions: Fanny (1 month) and Maria (2 months) also recorded as Decreases (Deaths) in 1832.

REFERENCES:

1. [James Stephen] ‚Reasons for Establishing a registry of slaves in the British Colonies being the report of a committee on the African Institution‛ (London, The African Institution, 1815) (From Unesco Report).

2. ‘James Beckford Wildman’, Legacies of British Slave-ownership database, http://wwwdeptslive.ucl.ac.uk/ibs/person/view/16372 [accessed 5 June 2017].

3. ‚Memory of the World Register‛ Registry of Slaves of the British Caribbean 1817-1834 (Bahamas, Belize, Dominica, Jamaica, St Kitts, Trinidad and Tobago and the United Kingdom with Addendum from Bermuda approved in 2011) UNESCO.

4. Barry W. Higman (1995), Slave Populations of the British Caribbean 1807-1834, University of the West Indies Press, Jamaica.

5. Brathwaite, E.K. (1971). The Development of Creole Society in Jamaica, Ian Randle Publishers (2005).

6. Charles H. Wesley, ‚The Neglected Period of Emancipation in Great Britain, 1807-1823‛, Journal of negro History, Vol. 17, No. 2 (Apr 1932) (From Unesco Report).

7. Diane M. West (2017), Photographic Image Files: Monumental Plinths at the site of Papine Estate and Mona Estate, Research Methods Site Tour. May 2017.

8. Media File: UCL ‚Legacies of British Slave-ownership‛ (http://wwwdeptslive.ucl.ac.uk/lbs/media/view/213).

9. Michael Craton, (2009). Testing the Chains: Resistance to Slavery in the British West Indies, Cornell University Press.

10. Robert L. Schuyler, ‚The Constitutional Claims of the British West Indies‛, Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 40, No. 1, (Mar, 1925) (From UNESCO Report).

11. ‚Slave Registers of Former British Colonial Dependencies, 1817-1832‛, Jamaica, St Andrew (1817-1832), The National Archives, T71/125 (97) & (101), T71/125 (329), 1832 – T71/137 (288), Government of Jamaica, Spanish Town, Jamaica.

12. Susanne Francis Brown, ‚Finding Families within the Community Enslaved on the Mona and Papine Estates, 1817-1832‛, Caribbean Quarterly Vol 41, Nos 3 & 4, Sept-Dec 2005.

13. Suzanne Francis Brown (2004), Mona, Past and Present: The History and Heritage of the Mona Campus, University of the West Indies Press.

14. Trevor Burnard, (2004). Mastery, Tyranny, and Desire: Thomas Thistlewood and His Slaves in the Anglo-Jamaican World, University of North Carolina Press.

15. Vernon Pickering (1987), A Concise History of the British Virgin Islands: From the Amerindians to 1986, Falcon Publications International.

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Fluctuations of slave population at Papine Estate from 1816-1832 Table 2. List of Slave Names on the UWI Monument for the Papine Estate Table 3. Slave names from 1817 list which do not appear on the UWI Monuments Table 4. List of Slave Names on the UWI Monument for the Mona Estate: Table 5. Slave names from 1817 list which do not appear on the UWI Monuments Table 6. Slaves on the Mona Estate Registered with ‘Names-of-Influence’ Table 7. Slaves on the Papine Estate Registered with ‘Names-of-Influence’ Table 8. Slaves on the Mona Estate Registered with Akan-Day Names (1817) Table 9. Slaves on the Papine Estate Registered with Akan-Day Names (1817) Table 10. Linguistic Chart of Akan-Day Names (Mona and Papine 1817-1832) Table 11. Descriptive Place-Names on the Mona and Papine Estate (1817) Table 12. Descriptive Symbolic-Names on the Mona and Papine Estate (1817 Table 13. Classical Slave-Names on the Mona and Papine Estate (1817)

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Map of Papine Estate Figure 2. Map of Mona Estate Figure 3. Papine Estate Male Slave-Names Figure 4. Papine Estate Female Slave-Names Figure 5. Papine Estate Monument Legend Figure 6. Mona Estate Male Slave-Names Figure 7. Mona Estate Female Slave-Names Figure 8. Mona Estate Monument Legend Figure 9. Historical Map of the Hope, Papine, and Mona Estates (1826) Figure 10. Image of Slave Registers for the Mona and Papine Estates (1817) Figure 11. Photo File of Slave Register for Papine (1817) Figure 12. Extracted Table of Slave Registration Dates Figure 13: Total count of slave names (1817) for Papine Estate Figure 14: Total count of slave names (1817) for the Mona Estate Figure 15. Papine Slave Register (1817) Figure 16. Classification of secondary names as Aliases: