hardly a ripple.’87 On this we can all agree: Professor Brown has forcefully restated the well-known fact that death was pervasive in Jamaican slave society.
One category of dominion studies concerns the development and role of the coloured or mixed racial group and of manumission in Jamaica, a subject first extensively explored by Goveia in her study of the Leeward Islands. The group was relatively small, but of increasing importance and influence from the late 18th century, attracting the racist venom of the island’s most educated and important 18th-century resident, Edward Long.88 Jamaica’s, and other West Indians’, odd mix of hypodescent and hyperdescent rules of racial assignment, its notions of whiteness and racial purity combined with the peculiar eventual recognition of legal equality for the more prosperous of the mixed group, and the general ‘white bias’ of the society that lingers to this day,89 originates in the interaction of coloured and whites and their joint contempt for blackness, enslaved or not. As the novelist and slaveholder Matthew Lewis perceptively observed: ‘nor can the separation of castes in India be more rigidly observed than that of complexional shades among the Creoles’.90 A peculiar feature of Jamaican slave society, which it shared with its American counterpart, was its hostility to manumission throughout the 17th and 18th centuries. Economist Ronald Finlay and I have shown that manumitted played a critical role in the maintenance and stability of most large-scale slave systems, especially where enslaved outnumbered the slaveholder population, playing important middlemen roles as well as reinforcing feelings of self-degradation among the enslaved.91 Although Jamaican white slaveholders recognized this, it is typical of the racist vehemence and notions of racial purity that they only reluctantly came to embrace this principle of self-preservation, a problem well explored in Newman’s recent study.92 A substantial literature has emerged on the subject since Goveia and Brathwaite’s works.93 While the strong emphasis on the abolitionist period may be justified on the grounds that this was when the group grew substantially in numbers and importance, there is still much to be written on the subject in the early and classic 18th-century periods of the society, as the works of Livesay, Burnard and Newman have clearly demonstrated.94
A growing number of first-rate works from younger scholars indicate that the historiography of dominion studies on Jamaica continues to thrive, most notably those by Petley,95 Ryden,96 Smith97 and Graham.98 A recent trend is to locate Jamaican dominion studies within the broader context of the Atlantic framework of historical scholarship, what has been called the ‘Atlanticization’ of slavery studies, from which has emerged a vast body of scholarship. Eric Williams’ enormously influential work is, of course, the classic study in this area,99 which has generated a huge literature of critics and defenders.100 As a comparative historical sociologist I can hardly complain about this development although it is worth bearing in mind the words of one of Jamaica’s most eminent historians, Franklin Knight, who cautioned that such studies should never lose sight of the fact that the Caribbean society being studied should steadfastly remain ‘the main event’.101
One fascinating aspect of dominion slave studies is the examination of Jamaica’s, and the wider West Indian, role in the formation of British national, gender and familial identities by scholars of British cultural and imperial studies, especially Catherine Hall and her collaborators,102 Kathleen Wilson,103 Susan Amussen104 and Katie Donington.105 The last three works are of special value in their focus on the 17th and 18th centuries and transgenerational developments, taking temporality seriously in their historical analysis. An important and necessary dimension of these studies are those making the case for reparations in light of what is now acknowledged as a crime against humanity, most notably those of Hilary Beckles and Verene Shepherd.106
The studies discussed above have all greatly enriched our knowledge of enslavement in Jamaica and the broader West Indies. However, the single most important development in the study of modern slavery in the Atlantic since the 1960s, with important implications for our understanding of Jamaican slave society, concerns the Atlantic slave trade. Important studies had been published on the trade from the early 1930s,107 with a surge in the late fifties and sixties, prompted in part by the Civil Rights movement in America and the rise in the study of African history with the post-war decolonization movements. I made full use of those earlier works in Chapter 5 of The Sociology of Slavery, ‘The Tribal Origins of the Jamaican Slaves’.108 However, the publication of Curtin’s seminal work, The Atlantic Slave Trade: A Census, in 1972,109 marked a fundamental turning point in the study of the slave trade, and of Atlantic History more generally, bringing methodological rigour and synthetic integration to the subject that overturned long established views about the nature and extent of the trade.110 The most significant of his findings was the point estimate of the total number of slaves imported to the New World at 9,566,000, complete with a margin of error of between +9.8 and −16.4 per cent. This greatly reduced the guestimates that prevailed at the time, some as high as thirty million transported from Africa. Of special interest to me were Curtin’s estimates of the contribution of the different regions of Africa to the slave trade, the number and proportions of slaves who went to the different regions of the Americas, especially the Caribbean, and the numbers exported over time. Curtin’s work was based entirely on secondary sources, among which was The Sociology of Slavery. Indeed, one of the more important sections of the book, Chapter 5 on the English slave trade in the 18th century, relied substantially on The Sociology of Slavery and LePage’s Jamaican Creole111 for its main conclusions on the cross tabulation of the changing ethnic origins of the captives through time.112 Curtin’s work stimulated a flood of studies, which continues to the present. A critical review of the work by Inikori not only pinpointed some of its main limitations but argued, correctly, that Curtin’s estimates were too low and required a ‘substantial upward revision’.113
The next major turning point was the shift towards primary sources and more precise quantification by scholars such as David Eltis, David Richardson, Herbet S. Klein, Henry Gemery, Jan Hogendorn, John Thornton, J. E. Inikori, among many others. The third main development came with the Trans-Atlantic and Intra-Atlantic slave trade databases. This enormously valuable resource, called ‘the gold standard of digital humanities’, originating in earlier work by Herbert Klein, Jean Mettas, Serge and Michelle Daget and David Richardson, evolved into a single multisource dataset through the joint work of David Eltis, Stephen Behrendt and David Richardson, who received critical support in the formative stage of the project from Harvard’s W. E. B. DuBois Institute for Afro-American Research (and later the Harvard Hutchin’s Center), with later support from funding agencies and universities, especially Emory where it was located for twenty years after leaving Harvard,114 and now Rice University, to which it moved in 2021.
There are now 36,000 trans-Atlantic voyages in the database, each of which carried an average of 304 captives. One important correction emerging from the database concerns Curtin’s original estimate of 9.5 million Africans transported from Africa. The database indicates that Inikori was correct in his assessment that Curtin had substantially underestimated the extent of the trade: the most recent estimate, based on far better primary sources and careful quantification, is that at least 12,520,000 African captives were forced from Africa for the Americas, with a possible upper limit of 15.4 million enslaved, which means that there were between 24 and 62 per cent more enslaved Africans transported than Curtin’s point estimate. At the two extremes of these estimates – Curtin’s eight million and the current database’s 15.4 million – Curtin may have underestimated the traffic by nearly 100 per cent. Since new voyages are being added continuously to the database, the correction is likely to be higher. Staying with the database’s lower estimate, of the 12.5 million who left, 10.7 million disembarked mainly in the Americas, with an average of 265 Africans. Some 633 voyages (1.8%) were lost at sea or captured, or experienced some other fate, including slave revolts.115
Curtin had already noted that a disproportionate number of slaves
