‘The Trouble with the Maroons: Charles Town as a Heritage Tourism project.’
Joy Lumsden, MA (Cantab); PhD (UWI), Department of History University of the West Indies, Mona, Jamaica
Paper presented at the Twenty-Eighth Conference of Caribbean Historians, University of the West Indies,
Cave Hill, Barbados, April 14-19 1996
Panel 14: Architecture, heritage and tourism
Cave Hill, Barbados, April 14-19 1996
Panel 14: Architecture, heritage and tourism
[This paper is very definitely part of work in progress, on Charles Town in particular, and the Maroons in the 19th century in general. My interpretations, opinions and conclusions are all at an early stage of development, and are entirely my own. They do not necessarily represent the points of view of any others connected with the attempts to develop Charles Town. I certainly expect that I will have to deal with various criticisms, from my relatives, of what I have written.]
The Jamaican Maroon community of Charles Town is situated in the parish of Portland, in that section of the parish which was the separate parish of St George’s, before 1866. The town is only about two miles inland from Buff Bay, on the north coast, and so is easily the most accessible of the Maroon towns. Portland is the heart of the territory of the Windward Maroons and the area around Charles Town and back into the mountains has been acknowledged Maroon country from the 17th century. Charles Town itself came into existence in the mid-1750s when the older settlement of Crawford Town, some three miles further inland, disintegrated through internal dissention. For many decades Charles Town was also known as New Crawford Town, and was so named on maps until the 1830s.[1]
The Charles Town Maroons resembled the other Windward Maroons in their activities in the 18th and 19th centuries. They served in Maroon parties which dealt with runaway and rebellious slaves, serving in this capacity in southern as well as northern parishes. They were involved in the suppression of Tacky’s Rebellion (1760), Sam Sharpe’s Rebellion (1830-1) and the Morant Bay Rebellion (1865). They were hunters, farmers and traders, and, like other Maroons, held slaves in small numbers. They appear, on the whole, to have remained on reasonably good terms with the surrounding estate owners, though friction over land arose from time to time. Undoubtedly they were feared to some extent because of their known military prowess, and the possibility that they might not continue to honour the terms of their treaties, signed in the 1730s, which committed them to aid the government in emergency situations, haunted the minds of administrators every time there were signs of internal unrest.
Although Charles Town has continued to exist as an identifiable Maroon community down to the present, its greater proximity to an urban centre, and its situation on what was one of the main routes across the island, have meant that its specifically Maroon character has been eroded to a greater extent than that of its sister communities of Scotts Hall and Moore Town. It is this fact which makes it all the more difficult to base a viable heritage tourism operation in the town.
My personal knowledge of Charles Town is really very limited; until recently I have visited it only perhaps twice in the forty years I have been in Jamaica. As an idea, it has featured in the background of the whole of my life in Jamaica. On their mother’s side, my husband and his brothers and sister are of Maroon ancestry; their grandfather, Jacob ‘Jake’ Hartley, who died in 1932 at the age of 61, was a Maroon and is buried in the Maroon cemetery at Charles Town, along with several of his sons. It seems however that Jake may only have been half-Maroon, or a ‘white-a-miggle’,[2] as I have a distinct recollection that my mother-in-law told me that his mother worked in Kingston and that Jacob’s father was a white man who worked in the prison service. This Maroon ancestry has not perhaps represented the dominant interest in the family’s history. We are just as interested in looking at the possible Scottish ancestry on the Lumsden side, and researching the possible links with Scottish settlers near Old Harbour in St Dorothy in the late 18th century. There are in any case also possible similarities and sympathies between the Maroons and the Scots which need to be explored.
Recently the possibility of some funding for a community project based on Charles Town has revived the somewhat dormant family interest in the area, and the attempts to get some sorts of economic ventures going have involved two of my brothers-in-law in the affairs of the town. Since it was clear that there was a considerable lack of specific information about the history and culture of the Charles Town Maroons, as distinct from the Jamaican Maroons in general, I volunteered to do some of the necessary research.
One of the most obvious problems of information is the relative deterioration of Maroon traditions and cultural activity in the town. The present generation of Charles Town Maroons seem to have little knowledge of their ancestral culture and heritage, and the older members of the community, who might have had such knowledge, have mostly died. I particularly regret that we did not interview Jake’s sister, Jestina Campbell, ‘Aunt Tun Tun’,[3] an acknowledged community leader who died as recently as 1975. We should also have been more assiduous in getting down information that my mother-in-law remembered. This failure to benefit from oral sources is unfortunately the common experience in trying to preserve family and community history, and gives rise to much fruitless bewailing of lost opportunities. It is only when some specific use for these memories arises that we realise what we have lost.
Apart from the loss of oral traditions, another difficulty is that the present generation has certain problems with their supposed history. Most of them are members of Christian denominations and many are not eager or happy to revive traditional Maroon religious practices, which may well be perceived as pagan and potentially dangerous. There is also the danger that these traditional rituals may in fact work, and raise spirits which cannot be controlled by those who have no experience of them. For instance the suggestion that Maroon drums should be made, for sale as well as use, has run into problems, as even when all the necessary materials are available, no-one will make the drums; possibly because of fear of the spirits of the drums? Even if there is no such actual fear, there are other difficulties in making use of the Maroon heritage.
Other Maroon communities in Jamaica have had much more publicity and exposure than Charles Town. Jamaicans and visitors alike are far more likely to have heard of Accompong, Moore Town and Scotts Hall; indeed one recent scholarly work on the Maroons of Jamaica indicates that ‘only Accompong Town (of the Leewards) and Moore Town and Scotts Hall (of the Windwards) still exist today.’[4] My brother-in-law has, on more than one Maroon occasion, had to remind his fellow Maroons of Charles Town’s continued existence. This higher visibility has not led to unaninimity among or within the Maroon communities as to the ways in which Maroon culture should be preserved, and possibly exploited economically. There is the perception that the Maroon heritage is a valuable asset, but no agreement as to what aspects of that heritage should be utilised or how this should be done. There is a feeling that others have benefitted from the Maroon heritage, rather than the Maroons themselves, though I am not clear as to who these ‘others’ are, and exactly how they have benefitted. Some, within the Maroon community, have made attempts to make Maroon herbal skills, dances and ‘religious’ rituals more widely known to both Jamaicans and visitors, but these efforts are sometimes rejected and decried by other Maroons. My reading of Maroon history certainly seems to indicate a propensity for fragmentation and faction among the Maroons, from their earliest days, and this seems to persist. Some have suggested that the Colonial Government encouraged this characteristic, which may well be true, but the Maroons have done quite well at it on their own.
One aspect of Maroon factionalism which has gained considerable public attention, both currently and in earlier times, is the frequent conflict over the selection of the Colonels of the Maroon towns. The three better-known towns, Accompong, Scotts Hall and Moore Town have all had their share of this problem. At present there is no clearly acknowledged Colonel in Charles Town, nor is there any established council or organising group in the community, who could legitimately accept funds on behalf of the town. This situation makes it difficult for funds to be injected into the community, except on a minor scale for small projects such as bushing and clearing land and roadsides. Clearly, if the town is to benefit from money which is or may become available, present efforts to establish some kind of steering committee must go ahead; it will almost certainly not be easy to get individuals and groups to put aside their separate concerns in the common interest.
Even before any such community group is established, there are some projects which can proceed. It may be possible to find markets for products already available - yams and bat-manure from a cave in the area are examples. The old Maroon practice of jerking pork could be revived, in a truly authentic style.[5] It would seem useful to design a logo and packaging to identify Charles Town Maroon products, in part to give a higher profile to the existence and activities of the community.
A major problem of developing the town as a Heritage Tourism site is the almost total lack of suitable materials for displays and reproduction. There are attractive riverside sites and land which is not currently in use, which could be used for tourist stops, and Charles Town’s accessibility from the main road along the North Coast means that visitors could easily be transported there. Recreational and eating facilities could be developed. The difficulty would be to create a genuine ‘Maroon’ environment. An attempt is being made to encourage the town’s people to look for artefacts, which they may turn up in cultivation, or in taking sand and gravel from the river. There may be items within people’s homes, or cast aside in yards, which could help to build up a collection of items for display. Charles Town has been continuously occupied since the mid-l8th century - something ought to turn up!
Another avenue would be actual archeological investigations. These might be possible in parts of the current settlement, but more interesting is the possibility of locating, and investigating in a proper fashion, the site of Old Crawford Town. This site is at present not known, but if it could be identified, the possibility of studying a previously undisturbed 18th century Maroon settlement is opened up. I hope that we will be able to locate the site and that local archeologists will be interested in excavating it. I fear though that the local population will be disappointed in what is found; there are stories of hidden treasures, which are not likely to be substantiated. A more serious concern may be the question of the possibility of disturbing grave sites, which has presented problems in other Maroon communities.
If these problems can be overcome, it should be possible to establish a village museum and reconstructed community centre, along with other types of facilities, including shops, which would interest visitors, both Jamaican and foreign. There is already the suggestion of reconstructing a ‘saffry’ house,[6] and clearing the cemeteries, to make them more presentable. Maroons who have moved away from the area could be involved in these activities, which are as much in the interest of the Maroons as of visitors. There is also the possibility of opening up walking and cycling trails in the surrounding hills, from which spectacular views are visible. The maintenance of these trails and the need for guides along them, should open up job possibilities in the area. I think it might also become feasible to construct holiday cottages along the river, and maybe also in the hills. Although Charles Town is not very far inland, the scenery presents a sufficiently wild and remote appearance to give the visitor a real impression of the background of the Maroons’ story.
Whether or not any of these schemes materialise, I hope I will be able to write a brief history of Charles Town and its people. Such a booklet could serve a number of purposes - it could help to recover for people in the area, and especially the school children, an understanding of their place and history in their surroundings; it could be used as an introductory pamphlet for visitors; it would add a little more detail to the general history of the Maroons in Jamaica. For me it would have a special purpose, in giving my children and grand-children more information about their Maroon ancestry - something which they know of in general, but about which they have very little specific information. My children all read and re-read Vic Read’s Young Warriors, when they were younger, and I hope my grand-children will do the same, but it would add to the book’s significance if they could fit their own ancestors into that past.
There are, however, problems in dealing with Maroon history in Jamaica, which also create difficulties for the development of Charles Town. The acceptable popular image of the Maroons is the one of early Black freedom fighters, which only applies to the period before 1740, but the image of the Maroons as the loyal supporters of the colonial regime has little attraction. Yet that is the role the Maroons fulfilled for most of their history. One possible way of dealing with the situation would be to emphasise the occasions when there was friction between the Maroons and the Government, as in the Second Maroon War, suggesting that this episode represents a reversion to the true Maroon nature. Another path would be to concentrate on the culture and way of life of the Maroon communities from the 18th century to the present, and virtually ignore their interaction with the wider community. It hardly seems reasonable, in planning for a Maroon heritage tourism site, to expect that the displays would harshly condemn the Maroons’ support for the colonial regime, yet on the other hand it is clearly impossible to commend that support wholeheartedly. Some way has to be found of representing the role of the Maroons, which is honest, factual and as objective as possible, which will allow Maroon tour guides to say ‘That’s how it was then and that was the way my ancestors lived and survived. Maybe I could not justify behaving that way to-day, but I do not have to be embarrassed for my forebears, who lived their lives according to the imperatives of their own time, not of mine.’
From the capture of Jamaica by the English in 1655 to the late l730s, there were always Maroon groups fighting against the English for control of land in both the East and the West of the island, which the Maroons clearly felt belonged to them rather than to the English. From reading both primary and secondary sources it seems to me that the various Maroon bands saw themselves as equal claimants to land in Jamaica, alongside the English, and when both sides had fought to a standstill, the Maroons were prepared to sign treaties which made them partners with the English, in holding land and maintaining the stability of the island. The First Maroon War ended with the signing of two treaties, one in the west and the other in the east. There were some differences between the two, but they both gave the Maroons land and concessions from the Jamaican government, in exchange for commitments to assist the government in dealing with runaway and rebellious slaves and in defending the island from foreign invasion. In these agreements the Maroons got a permanent agreement with the colony’s government which put them on a different footing from other Africans, slave or free. The grants of land, which were not very specific, gave leeway for further grants in the future; Scotts Hall and Charles Town, neither of which seem to have existed in the late l730s, both obtained grants of land in the second half of the 18th century. The Maroons’ right to hunt was guaranteed for areas away from the immediate vicinity of White settlements. The Maroon leaders were given the right to administer justice in their communities, except in capital cases. In return the Maroons promised to assist the authorities in making roads, returning runaway slaves, putting down internal uprisings and defending the island against invasion. All of these activities were obligations of all free citizens of the island. In addition White men were to be permanently based in the Maroon settlements ‘to keep a good Correspondence with the Inhabitants of this Island’; although these men might be seen as resident representatives of the government, they were also the Maroons direct conduit to those in power. If Col Fyfe in the mid-l9th century is an example of this arrangement and the way it worked, it would seem that advocacy on behalf of the Maroons was very much part of the job.[7]
What did these treaties actually signify to both sides? The Jamaican Government had been forced into the position of making terms with rebel Africans whom they had been conspicuously unable to defeat. They had had to grant them a permanently free status, and land and hunting rights which might at times conflict with the rights of White settlers; the Maroons were to assert these rights well into the present century. Even if this situation did not convince White Jamaicans that the Maroons were their equals, it showed the healthy respect that Maroon military skills had inspired; it was clearly better to have the Maroons as allies than as enemies. In my opinion, the Maroons concluded from the fighting and the treaties that they were, without doubt, the equals of the British, and then, and in the future, conducted their relations with the Jamaican government on that assumption. They saw themselves as the joint owners of the island, and the joint protectors of its peace and prosperity.
The later actions and attitudes of the Maroons can also be considered from this point of view. They continued, right up to 1865, to provide assistance to the government in dealing with rebellion and threatened invasions. They seem to have maintained a relationship with the Jamaican government which fundamentally survived temporary set-backs, such as the events of 1795-6, although they were still considered to be a possible potential threat, if they ever decided to renege on their treaty agreements. Maybe the Maroons themselves saw the value of sustaining the fear of this possible threat. There is a need to look further at the relationship between the Maroons and the government, from the points of view of both, and possibly also in light of similar relationships elsewhere at the same period.
The relationship of the Maroons with the slaves, and later with the emancipated population, also needs further consideration; can this relationship be assumed to be the same over time, or did major changes occur as attitudes and conditions were altered by abolition and emancipation? It is clear that there was some level of friction between Maroons and the Black population of St Thomas in the East in the 1860s, and adverse memories of the activities of the Maroons after the Rebellion have survived down to the present. However, it is not necessarily satisfactory to read this situation as typical of the whole island at that period, or of the general situation in the island at earlier periods. The stories of Maroon participation in the suppression of Tacky’s Rebellion in 1760, and the taking of Three-Finger Jack and Paul Bogle are well known, and the fact that the Maroons themselves owned slaves is increasingly a commonplace, but are there other references to these relationships which show other variations?
An incident which points to some of the possible complexities of relationships between Maroons and slaves is recorded in the Journals of the Assembly of Jamaica for 1759. Peter Fleming, presumably the superintendent of Charles Town, wrote to the Assembly about two young women, one, Mimba, from Charles Town, the other a slave, Sarah, the property of Mr John Bell. The two had been carried off by Ancouma, the leader of a group of runaways which had been reported the previous year as harassing estates in St Thomas. The two young women, after months in the woods, ‘being wearied of their captivity, they concerted to determine his fate, the first favourable opportunity; which they effected, by severing his head from his body, when he was asleep, and cutting off his ears as a proof of their assertion.' Bell was asking that Sarah be rewarded with freedom, for her service to the community, and Fleming suggested that Mimba should also be rewarded. He felt that such a reward would be an encouragement to the Maroons ‘to behave well in any affair of the kind that may happen hereafter.’ The committee of the Assembly which interviewed the two women, decided that Sarah, who had performed ‘the act, with a broad axe’ should be freed (at a cost of £70) and that both should be granted annuities for life; these annuities were still being paid at least as late as 1786. The co-operation of these two women, one a Maroon, one a slave, in killing a leader of a rebel slave group, may only have been the result of their particular situation, but it does indicate that the lines drawn between their two groups were not immutable and that alliances could easily shift. It is also interesting to consider what the incident may say about the strengths and weaknesses of women’s roles in a plantation society.[8]
In 1769 another Assembly committee, set up to enquire into the effects of legislation concerning the payment of Maroons for the return of runaway slaves, concluded their report with the following observation - '. . . it has been a practice for the wild negroes [ie Maroons], in many instances, to take up runaways within the limits of plantations or settlements of their owners, and in the skirts of the towns, and frequently by the consent, and at the instance of such runaway slave or slaves, who are in connivance with the said wild negroes, and obtain from them a part of the said reward of three pounds, contrary to the intention of the said act.’ Not surprisingly the committee recommended that the legislation should be amended.[9] The sophisticated ‘jinalship’ of the arrangements is perhaps not too surprising, but does indicate a conjunction of interests between Maroons and slaves; both were quite prepared to benefit financially from the loopholes in laws designed to keep slaves on the plantations. This was hardly racial solidarity, but rather shared self-interest, and also perhaps a shared delight in running rings around the authorities. This practice does not, however, mean that on many other occasions Maroon parties did not assist in the tracking down and capture of runaway and rebellious slaves; these activities are amply attested to in the payments made to Maroon parties and recorded annually in the accounts of the Assembly.
Since it appears that the Maroons remained true to their treaties, except in the events of 1795-6, when the Windward Maroons showed reluctance to move against their fellow Maroons of Trelawny Town, it is not easy to understand why rebellious slaves and even Paul Bogle in 1865 expected to be supported by the Maroons. In an attempted uprising in St George in 1807 which was quickly suppressed, a slave witness stated that it was believed ‘that the moment negro was to fire a gun, the maroons would all rise for them and take the country’ and indicated that the Charles Town Maroons had consulted Captain, one of the supposed leaders of the revolt and a reputed obeah man, about their actions at the time of the Second Maroon War. In spite of this the Maroons did not rise, and in fact assured a local landowner, William Orgill ‘that they were ready, they said, in case any of the negroes should go out, to pursue them and bring them in.'[10] This revolt attempt indicates the division which existed among the slaves, many of whom opposed it, and suggests that the Maroons might wait for a successful slave uprising before committing themselves. The question may well be asked, would the Maroons have backed a slave rebellion if they believed it had a real chance of success and would benefit them, or were they loyal on principle because of their treaty agreements?
This question is, I think, also relevant in considering the role of the Maroons in the Morant Bay Rebellion of 1865; this role is a matter which I am hoping to research in much more detail in the immediate future. It is well known that Paul Bogle apparently hoped for Maroon support, and there is also other evidence that there were hopes of Maroon backing at the time. In letters presented to the House of Assembly in January 1866 a woman in St Mary is quoted as saying in the previous October ‘What buckra can do with black? The Maroons will help the black and kill all the buckra.’ A threatening letter to the Custos of St Mary dated October 17th 1865 contained the sentence ‘We have received a letter from the captain of the Buff Bay Maroons; as soon as they are ready we will be.’[11] The expectation of Maroon support for the St Thomas and other possible rebels, was very quickly shown to be an illusion. The Maroons rallied to the side of the Government as soon as the events in Morant Bay became known. Under the leadership of their longtime White Colonel, Alexander Fyfe, the Windward Maroons from all the settlements gave invaluable assistance in the suppression of the uprising. The nature of their activities and the level of their involvement in the very harsh treatment of the people of St Thomas is a matter which I am already studying. Whatever their actual role may have been, there can be no doubt of the gratitude of the government side for their help. After the suppression of the rebellion, the Maroons marched from St Thomas to Kingston, where they were welcomed with enormous enthusiasm, and continued their triumphal march to Accompong and Montego Bay, and then back along the north coast to their homes in St Mary, St George and Portland, being feted and feasted at every stopping place.[12]
Colonel Fyfe suggested, and William Hosack, a member of the Assembly and St George’s landowner, proposed a bill in the House, requiring that the Maroons should be formed ‘into septs or clans’ and embodied ‘as a permanent military corps, and for other purposes’.[13] The proposal shows the Scotsman, Fyfe’s, perception of the Maroons as essentially like the septs and clans of Scotland, and the desire to re-establish the Maroons in the military role that they had fulfilled for a hundred years, but which had lapsed since the end of slavery. The proposed bill was referred by the Assembly to a committee, for consideration, and, as far as I know, vanished without further trace when the Assembly disappeared with the imposition of Crown Colony government. This would appear to be the end of the Maroons as a military force which could be called on to support the government, and the ending is as ambiguous as the previous role. Undoubtedly many in Jamaica, of all racial origins, perceived the Maroons as ‘a brave and loyal people’ who had helped to restore peace and order in the colony, while many in St Thomas probably until the present, only remembered them as the brutal suppressors of the revolt, especially in the area around Bath.
While I do not personally find any major problem in dealing with the Maroons role as supporters of the government, and I imagine many other people would not find this a matter of any great current concern, there is still a difficulty in presenting that Maroon history in a positive light. Though it is not reasonable in the late 20th century to expect Maroon descendants to take any great pride in such a past role, I do think it ought to be possible for them to accept it as part of their history and incorporate it into any heritage project. In so far as the attempt to develop a heritage tourism project in Charles Town is an attempt to re-invigorate the community and its spirit, I feel that this attempt has to be based largely on the community’s ability to generate present and future economic prosperity. There has to be some distancing of the community from its past, and an acceptance of the positive and negative aspects of that past, as a part of the common experience of humanity. In the present economic climate, heritage is merely one asset that can be used for economic benefit, and if one possesses an interesting history, it is clearly only sensible to make use of it. If the Maroons of Charles Town and other Maroon communities decide to go ahead into business - like exploitation of their heritage for their economic benefit - they will, I think, have to give up something of their perception of themselves as a distinct and special section of the Jamaican population. The paradox is that in making use of their past, they will have to objectivize it, therefore putting themselves in the same position as any other student or observer of Maroon history. I do not think it will prove possible to retain the mystique of being Maroon, and at the same time make the Maroon heritage into a successful money earner. This issue remains part of an on-going debate with my brothers-in-law.
Footnotes:
[1]. My major sources for this paper, and for my Maroon research so far, have been the Journals of the Assembly of Jamaica (JAJ) Vols I-XIV; two unpublished theses - B K Kopytoff, ‘The Maroons of Jamaica: An Ethnohistorical Study of Incomplete Polities’, Univ of Pennsylvania, 1973; and D L Schafer, ‘The Maroons of Jamaica’, Univ of Minnesota, 1973; Edward Long, History of Jamaica, 3 vols, London, 1774.
[2]. ‘White-a-mingle’ or ‘white-a-middle’: Cassidy and Le Page, Dictionary of Jamaican English, (2nd ed, Cambridge, 1980) gives the following definition - ‘sb dial; white + A + middle. One who is only half Maroon or half negro. (Evid a Maroon term in the Moore Town orbit, Portland parish).’ However the following intriguing explanation appears in ‘The Maroons of Jamaica’ , J J Williams, S J, Anthropological Series of the Boston College Graduate School, Vol III, No 4, 1938 (in an appended section by I E Thompson) p 476:
‘The majority claim that they are “Cata-woods” meaning “scatter-woods” as their ancestors scattered in the woods to escape their masters.[An unlikely and disputed explanation of the name.] They call the rest of the blacks “Neagres” meaning a down-trodden race whose ancestors were slaves.
It should be noted hat the term “neagre” is not used by them to mean “negro” as they claim that all black people are negroes of which they form a part. Neither is the term a complimenting one, but is disrespectfully used by them to describe all blacks of Jamaica who cannot claim Maroon lineage, and, refuting, the “neagres” call them “catawoods”.
Another peculiar term used by them is ‘white-a-middle meaning “white in the middle”. This term is used to describe those people who have been produced by the union of “cata-woods” and neagres, and you may imagine that they contribute the “white” to their “superior” cata-wood blood.’
[3]. I do not know the meaning of Aunt Tun Tun’s pet-name, and unfortunately I have never asked in the family. Cassidy and Le Page give the following - tun-tun, tun-tus sb dial; varr of dun-dun, dun-dus. 1958 DeCamp Port, Tre /tun-tun/ affectionate term used to a child or sweetheart.
[4]. Mavis Campbell, The Maroons of Jamaica 1655-1769, Mass, 1988, p 165
[5]. A quotation from the Diary of Monk Lewis, Jan 26, 1816, in A Naturalist’s Sojourn in Jamaica, P H Gosse, 1840(?) gives this account ‘ ... a barbecue pig .... It was dressed in the true Maroon fashion, being placed on a barbecue, or frame of wicker work, through whose interstices the steam can ascend, - filled with peppers and spices of the highest flavour, wrapped in plantain leaves, and then buried in a hole filled with hot stones, by whose vapour it is baked; no particle of the juice being thus suffered to evaporate. I have eaten several other good Jamaica dishes, but none so excellent as this.'
[6]. ‘Saffry’ house is the term my brother-in-law uses for the Maroon communal meeting house. I have not seen this term in any of the sources; the closest is 'Asafot' given by Schafer (op cit) as a Scotts Hall Maroon term for a meeting place, possibly derived from the Akan term 'Asafo', meaning association of men, military companies.
[7] The Maroon treaties can be found in a number of works; Campbell (op cit) gives them on pp 126-8, 135-7.
[8]. JAJ Vol V, pp 148-9, 27 Oct 1759.
[9]. JAJ Vol VI, p 206, 29 Nov 1769.
[10]. JAJ Vol XI pp 560-4, 25 Sept 1807.
[11]. Votes of the Assembly of Jamaica Nov 1865 - Jan 1866 pp 76 & 105
[12]. } I have to find legible originals of these two notes
[13]. } - what I have in this copy is totally useless!
[1]. My major sources for this paper, and for my Maroon research so far, have been the Journals of the Assembly of Jamaica (JAJ) Vols I-XIV; two unpublished theses - B K Kopytoff, ‘The Maroons of Jamaica: An Ethnohistorical Study of Incomplete Polities’, Univ of Pennsylvania, 1973; and D L Schafer, ‘The Maroons of Jamaica’, Univ of Minnesota, 1973; Edward Long, History of Jamaica, 3 vols, London, 1774.
[2]. ‘White-a-mingle’ or ‘white-a-middle’: Cassidy and Le Page, Dictionary of Jamaican English, (2nd ed, Cambridge, 1980) gives the following definition - ‘sb dial; white + A + middle. One who is only half Maroon or half negro. (Evid a Maroon term in the Moore Town orbit, Portland parish).’ However the following intriguing explanation appears in ‘The Maroons of Jamaica’ , J J Williams, S J, Anthropological Series of the Boston College Graduate School, Vol III, No 4, 1938 (in an appended section by I E Thompson) p 476:
‘The majority claim that they are “Cata-woods” meaning “scatter-woods” as their ancestors scattered in the woods to escape their masters.[An unlikely and disputed explanation of the name.] They call the rest of the blacks “Neagres” meaning a down-trodden race whose ancestors were slaves.
It should be noted hat the term “neagre” is not used by them to mean “negro” as they claim that all black people are negroes of which they form a part. Neither is the term a complimenting one, but is disrespectfully used by them to describe all blacks of Jamaica who cannot claim Maroon lineage, and, refuting, the “neagres” call them “catawoods”.
Another peculiar term used by them is ‘white-a-middle meaning “white in the middle”. This term is used to describe those people who have been produced by the union of “cata-woods” and neagres, and you may imagine that they contribute the “white” to their “superior” cata-wood blood.’
[3]. I do not know the meaning of Aunt Tun Tun’s pet-name, and unfortunately I have never asked in the family. Cassidy and Le Page give the following - tun-tun, tun-tus sb dial; varr of dun-dun, dun-dus. 1958 DeCamp Port, Tre /tun-tun/ affectionate term used to a child or sweetheart.
[4]. Mavis Campbell, The Maroons of Jamaica 1655-1769, Mass, 1988, p 165
[5]. A quotation from the Diary of Monk Lewis, Jan 26, 1816, in A Naturalist’s Sojourn in Jamaica, P H Gosse, 1840(?) gives this account ‘ ... a barbecue pig .... It was dressed in the true Maroon fashion, being placed on a barbecue, or frame of wicker work, through whose interstices the steam can ascend, - filled with peppers and spices of the highest flavour, wrapped in plantain leaves, and then buried in a hole filled with hot stones, by whose vapour it is baked; no particle of the juice being thus suffered to evaporate. I have eaten several other good Jamaica dishes, but none so excellent as this.'
[6]. ‘Saffry’ house is the term my brother-in-law uses for the Maroon communal meeting house. I have not seen this term in any of the sources; the closest is 'Asafot' given by Schafer (op cit) as a Scotts Hall Maroon term for a meeting place, possibly derived from the Akan term 'Asafo', meaning association of men, military companies.
[7] The Maroon treaties can be found in a number of works; Campbell (op cit) gives them on pp 126-8, 135-7.
[8]. JAJ Vol V, pp 148-9, 27 Oct 1759.
[9]. JAJ Vol VI, p 206, 29 Nov 1769.
[10]. JAJ Vol XI pp 560-4, 25 Sept 1807.
[11]. Votes of the Assembly of Jamaica Nov 1865 - Jan 1866 pp 76 & 105
[12]. } I have to find legible originals of these two notes
[13]. } - what I have in this copy is totally useless!