name analysis

Family Name Analysis

While a common misconception suggests that enslaved people only adopted family names after emancipation, often taking the surname of their last enslaver, evidence from Prince George’s County challenges this narrative. Analysis of pre-emancipation records, such as advertisements for self-liberated refugees and White Marsh Baptismal records, reveals that enslaved individuals in this region used family names much earlier than 1864. These names served as crucial markers of kinship identity, signifying both blood relations (lineal) and relations through marriage (affinal). By meticulously tracing the occurrence of these family names in historical documents, researchers can reconstruct the intricate kinship networks that spanned across various plantations.

Given Name Analysis

Analyzing given names is crucial for understanding kinship ties among enslaved individuals, but it presents significant challenges. Enslavers often imposed European names, used diminutives, and recorded names inconsistently, obscuring the true identities and connections within enslaved communities.

Background

In the early 1700s, enslaved people brought to Maryland from diverse West African nations were stripped of their identities and given imposed English names by colonizers. This erasure is evident in the predominantly white-generated sources—bills of sale, inventories—that document chattel slavery, recording only these imposed names and disregarding the individuals’ original names used within their families and kin.

Enslavers frequently employed diminutive forms of European names, as well as Classical and Place Names, potentially to reinforce a separate social status for enslaved people and assert their dominance. They might also assign names similar to their own family names, possibly as a mark of possession.

As the enslaved population shifted from primarily African-born to American-born through natural increase in the mid-1700s, kin networks slowly emerged. Despite the constant threat of family separation through sale or migration, extended kin networks developed over generations. While partnered adults often resided on different estates, fostering cross-plantation connections, naming practices within these emerging families could reflect kinship ties. Allan Kullioff notes that the forced proximity on large plantations could foster “a sense of kin solidarity” expressed through naming children after relatives, a practice also common among white families in Prince George’s County.

Tagging Given Names in the Research

To navigate the inconsistent naming and spelling used by enslavers, a core name list has been created to track individuals across documents. This list identifies common variations and assigns a consistent reference name for each person. For example, variations like Wm., Bill, Billy, and Willie are linked to the reference name “William.” When encountering diminutives or variations in white-generated sources, the reference name from the core list is used, followed by the specific form in parentheses (e.g., Susan (Sukey)).

This system serves two critical purposes:

• Disrupting the Dehumanizing Narrative: Using consistent reference names acknowledges the individuality of each person, regardless of the names imposed upon them, countering the dehumanizing effect of diminutives and inconsistent spellings often used as tools of control.
• Facilitating Identification Across Sources: Linking various forms of a name to a single reference point helps overcome the challenge of inconsistent naming practices, enabling more accurate tracking of individuals across different documents (e.g., Susan encompassing Susana, Suck, Suckey, and Sukey).

When the original name behind a diminutive is unclear (e.g., Nelly potentially being Ellen or Eleanor), the most likely option based on historical naming patterns is used as the reference name. While these may not be the names used within their own community, this approach acknowledges the ambiguity and honors the possibility of multiple identities, respecting the individuality of each person beyond the names imposed by enslavers.

Given Name Analysis

The repetition of given names within enslaved communities may indicate kinship ties. Vertical repetition, with children named after parents, aunts, uncles, and grandparents, and horizontal repetition, with cousins sharing names after the same relatives, suggests the intentional transmission of familial identity.

However, some given names were simply common. For instance, “William” was prevalent among both white and Black families in Prince George’s County. Other common names included James, John, Henry, Thomas, Charles, Robert, Edward, Francis, George, Samuel, Richard, and Joseph. The popularity of some names stemmed from historical associations (e.g., James and Charles with Stuart Kings) or religious significance (e.g., Francis and Ignatius with Jesuit Saints, reflecting the early Catholic influence in Maryland).

Therefore, while analyzing the recurrence of given names can offer clues to kinship, it is essential to consider the prevalence of certain names in the broader population and to integrate this analysis with other evidence to build a more nuanced understanding of family structures within the enslaved community.

Methodology

Our analysis focuses on identifying recurring given names among enslaved individuals within Queen Anne District. The underlying assumption is that enslaved parents, despite the constraints of the system, often found ways to maintain cultural traditions, including naming practices that reflected their kinship networks.

This analysis involves several key steps:

1. Data Compilation: Gathering comprehensive lists of given names of enslaved individuals from various records, including the 1867 Compensation Lists, probate inventories, baptismal records (like those from White Marsh), and any other available documents that list enslaved people.
2. Frequency Analysis: Examining the frequency of specific given names among enslaved individuals within Queen Anne District. The reappearance of a given name across generations or within a specific location may indicate a deliberate naming tradition reflecting kinship.
3. Tagged Name Utilization: Employing tagged names (e.g., Susan for Sue, Suke, Sukey, Susannah; Ignatius for Nace, Nathan) to account for variations in the recording of given names, ensuring a more accurate count and identification of recurring names.
4. Temporal Analysis: Considering the time periods in which specific given names appear. Consistent use of a particular name across different generations can strengthen the inference of a family naming pattern.
5. Integration with Other Evidence: Correlating the findings from the given name analysis with evidence from other methodological approaches, such as Family Name Analysis and White Marsh Sponsorship Analysis, to build a more robust understanding of kinship networks.

By carefully examining the patterns of given name usage, this analysis aims to uncover subtle yet significant clues about the kinship ties and naming traditions within the enslaved community of Queen Anne District. Recognizing these patterns can contribute to the broader effort of reconstructing family structures and understanding the cultural practices that persisted despite the dehumanizing conditions of slavery.