|
|
Post by yankee on Nov 12, 2019 17:11:06 GMT
When I watched several episodes of "Who Do You Think You Are?" it seemed the genealogists always seemed to want to err on the side of the sexy connection.
I recall the episode with Sarah Jessica Parker and the genealogist traced her roots back to Old Salem in the original colonies. She said something like (paraphrasing) "We trace you back to a woman named Prudence Smythe" now, records show that there were 12 Prudence Smythe's in Salem at the time as it was a very common name. 11 were wash women or domestic servants, the 12th was one of the women executed in the Salem Witch Trials and thus very famous. We are pretty certain that is the one you are related to..."
|
|
|
|
Post by yankee on Nov 12, 2019 17:26:43 GMT
In the mid 70s', right after the mini-series "Roots" black Americans were very interested in researching their heritage.
Unfortunately there were those quick to want to exploit this and a number of companies advertised that they specialized in tracing genealogies of black families and for a modest fee would send you a report of your family background along with your crest.
This was the days before internet discussion forums but people talked amongst themselves and quickly found out that these firms had about a dozen different "back stories" and would just randomly include one in the envelope and send it back to the applicant.
And of course, all of the applicants were directly descended from a tribal chief or king or some other very important person.
The bubble burst even further when it turned out that Alex Haley had also nicked "Roots" from another author.
|
|
|
|
Post by Miranda on Nov 12, 2019 17:29:49 GMT
I would imagine it's extremely difficult for A-Americans to trace their ancestors. I doubt slave-takers bothered keeping records of where people were from, did they?
|
|
|
|
Post by yankee on Nov 12, 2019 17:45:02 GMT
I would imagine it's extremely difficult for A-Americans to trace their ancestors. I doubt slave-takers bothered keeping records of where people were from, did they? I used to think the same thing Miranda but actually I discovered through the former NFL great Emmett Smith episode of "Who Do You Think You Are?" that is was just the opposite!
To an extent anyway.
Turns out slave owners kept incredibly detailed records of their slaves, going all the way back to the time they were first purchased at auction and through several generations of arranged marriages and breedings after that.
Slave owners considered the slaves properties. Just like houses, land, bonds, houses, businesses, any other property with attached value.
They made very certain to keep incredibly detailed records which were registered by the local government.
I hate to make the comparison - but the same way a dog or horse breeder would keep genealogical records of pure bred show animals.
So they were able to trace Emmitt Smith's ancenstry all the way back to the very slave ship that brought his distant relatives to the American colonies (which were still British governed at the time)
But that was were the trail ended. They tried to locate records of where the ship sailed from, who hired the captain and crew, where the "cargo" might have originated but all dead ends.
So as you say the slave takers may or may not have kept records of their own as to where they abducted slaves but who knows if any of those still exist.
Once in the new land however meticulous records were kept.
|
|
|
|
Post by Miranda on Nov 12, 2019 17:53:49 GMT
I knew that slave owners kept good records. Like you said, you keep records of your property.
I was thinking more about records in Africa before their ancestors got to the New World.
|
|
|
|
Post by sootycat on Nov 14, 2019 15:21:46 GMT
I didn’t watch this...I am not a fan of Ant.
|
|
|
|
Post by beverley61 on Nov 15, 2019 12:49:45 GMT
I knew that slave owners kept good records. Like you said, you keep records of your property. I was thinking more about records in Africa before their ancestors got to the New World. The only thing you are likely to be able to find out is what ship they were loaded on to, which would give you an idea of where the person originated, as that shipping company probably followed a similar route each time. This could be way out, because the slave trade had been operating in Africa for years and years before they were transported across the Atlantic and although this created a massive boom and consequently increased the numbers captured to be slaves from more local areas, your ancestry could be from the East Coast of Africa rather than the west. Your ancestor may have originally been enslaved in South American colonies and then descendants sold on to North America which might give a very mixed picture. Some slaves sold in the port slave markets were documented as being of a certain tribe or origin but not always and females were rarely documented as distinctly as men. Initially when slavery was first banned plantation owners were still able to purchase people already enslaved in other countries e.g. someone in Georgetown might be able to buy slaves from Guyana but not from Africa. This was then changed so that this was illegal - in British colonies - obviously it took a lot longer in some countries. I think Portugal may have been the first and last country in Europe still transporting captured people as slaves to the Americas. The Portuguese Slave Trade was huge. With DNA (sent to the better companies) you would be able to tell which geographical region and narrow it down more. Often when they have done these programmes the DNA shows a very mixed picture with lots of European DNA and sometimes Arabic or South American etc. If they did a DNA study say of everyone adult in Nigeria then you would undoubtedly be able to find out if there was a familial link to a part or tribe of that country that might connect you back to an actually family, but otherwise it's just lucky if you come up with a familial match. |
|
|
|
Post by Miranda on Nov 15, 2019 13:00:16 GMT
I thought that might be the case. But if you could narrow it down to an area I guess you could search the registrations in that area but then, of course, you need the original name of your ancestor which you are highly unlikely to find.
It was hard enough finding my ancestors but at least they are documented in one form or another for a long way back. All working class but nearly all with births written down somewhere.
|
|
|
|
Post by beverley61 on Nov 15, 2019 15:06:27 GMT
I think your best bet would be a DNA familial link. I don't think the African slavers were keeping any written proof of the people they were selling, they might have some records of how much money they made and who the ship owner was etc. if they even did that. It could be that the Slave Ship owners were just having a guess at that based on physical attributes.
DNA is good at giving a familial link and I think if they could narrow down where they thought you were from regionally then they could look at the kinds of groups that were being trafficked and take it from there. But nigh on impossible without a bit of luck somewhere, like knowing the dates, the ship and where it sailed from . Of course some of the early slave owners did not change names that much because they weren't interested in anglicising things at that point.
|
|
|
|
Post by yankee on Nov 15, 2019 15:41:17 GMT
Slave ship owners would definitely have kept some sort of "inventory" tallies that included the gender, and estimated age of the slaves and if any of the female slaves were visibly pregnant (which would make them more valuable at auction).
Given that a number of slaves would die en route during each journey due to disease and/or mistreatment there was no doubt a departure inventory and an arrival inventory and the captain would be responsible for reporting how many losses there were and the general demographics of the losses.
The launching point of the ship might offer some info about the general part of Africa the slaves were abducted in. Ships departing from west Africa likely held slaves abducted from west, southern and central Africa. Whereas the ships that departed from Zanzibar on the east coast were likely made up of slaves taken from what is now Ethiopia, Kenya and Tanzania. That is just a guess of course.
And it would stand to reason that ships that sailed from Zanzibar likely had more losses as they had to sail all the way around the southern cape before they could begin the journey west. |
|
|
|
Post by beverley61 on Nov 16, 2019 22:30:07 GMT
I think the losses were more relayed to the conditions on board rather than the length of the journey. I thought ships from the east stopped again to stock up on the western coast to take on more supplies.
If they did they may have taken on more slaves to replace any lost by the time they got there.
Lots of ships from the eastern ports like Zanzibar carried spices as well, which were then taken on to Europe. Although some shipping companies only dealt with slaves.
Spice and other ships from the West of India also had Muslim slaves on them. I think they traded them in Madagascar and places because the Ottoman Empire also wanted slaves and preferred Asians within their palaces etc.
Prior to this they got a lot of their slaves from Africa, the Medittarean, western Europe, the UK and Ireland. White slaves, particularly women and children sold well. Men were mostly just worked to death. They also made money from ransoming them back to their countries of origin. Double bonus!
|
|
Anymore to come?
