Measuring the Atlantic Slave Trade Once Again: A Comment

Author(s): Philip D. Curtin

Source: The Journal of African History, Vol. 17, No. 4 (1976), pp. 595-605
Published by: Cambridge University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/180741
Accessed: 15/01/2009 14:14

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Cambridge University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The
Journal of African History.

http://www.jstor.org
Journal of African History, xvII, 4 (I976), pp. 595-627 595
Printed in Great Britain

DISCUSSION:

MEASURING THE ATLANTIC SLAVE TRADE

AN article by Dr J. E. Inikori, entitled 'Measuring the Atlantic Slave Trade:

An Assessment of Curtin and Anstey', was published earlier in this Journal
(vol. xvII, 1976, pp. I97-223). The Editors have received the following comments
on this article by Professors Curtin and Anstey, together with a rejoinder by
Dr Inikori.

MEASURING THE ATLANTIC SLAVE TRADE ONCE

AGAIN: A COMMENT BY PHILIP D. CURTIN

It should not be necessary to reply to criticism of a book that was explicitly

written to be revised. The Atlantic Slave Trade: A Census appeared in 1969 as
an effort to bring together what was known in the mid-9I60s about the origins,
numbers, and destinations of people who moved out of Africa in the greatest
intercontinental migration that had taken place up to that time. The rules of the
game as laid down in my preface were that I would try to assess the whole
dimension of Atlantic slave trade as accurately as possible, taking the evidence
available in print as my point of departure. Since then, the original estimates and
calculations have been modified by many hands. Three international conferences
have examined aspects of the subject. Two reports of their proceedings have
already been published.1 If my original effort was successful, anyone with a turn
for accounting could insert appropriate modifications into its framework to
produce new totals and new patterns. I have modified my original conclusions,
on the basis of new research by Roger Anstey and Johannes Postma, in a re-
calculation of slave exports from Africa during the eighteenth century.2
On the face of it, then, Dr Inikori's revisions would be as welcome as those of
others who have made a new and substantive contribution to a growing body
of quantitative knowledge about the slave trade. But no other scholar has
approached the quantitative aspects of the slave trade in quite the spirit Dr
Inikori shows. Aside from his attempt to revise Anstey's calculations of the
English slave trade in the late eighteenth century, he makes only one effort to
advance new estimates of his own-that in regard to Brazilian slave imports.
Instead, he makes a series of suggestions that my calculations in the Census were
wrong, and every one of these claims error in the same direction. That is, every
suggestion claims that the data I assembled and the estimates I made were too
low. I have, of course, heard the criticism before-though never in print and
never before in a respectable journal. It amounts to the claim that I deliberately
falsified the estimates so as to minimize the size of the trade. Ordinary error
1 Stanley L. Engerman and
Eugene D. Genovese (eds.), Race and Slavery in the Western
Hemisphere: Quantitative Studies (Princeton, 1974); Pieter Emmer, Jean Mettas and
Jean-Claude Nardin, 'La Traite des Noirs par l'Atlantique: Nouvelles approches',
Revue franfaise d'histoire d'outre-mcr, LII (1975), 5-390.
2 P. D. Curtin, 'Measuring the Atlantic Slave Trade', in
Engerman and Genovese,
Race and Slavery, 104-28.
596 P. D. CURTIN

without a political or other bias would be more random. The rest of the argument,
not explicit in Inikori's paper, however, is that lower numbers carried by the
slave trade decrease European guilt while higher numbers will increase it.
This may be one reason why Inikori misrepresents the purpose of my book in
his very first sentence, saying: 'The main historical problem which Curtin's
Census is intended to solve relates to the total number of slaves exported from
Africa by way of the Atlantic slave trade during its entire period' (p. I97). This
is simply not true, as Inikori would have known had he taken the trouble to read
the book carefully. In the first place, only pages 15 to 93 (less than a quarter of
of the whole) are devoted to that problem. In the second place, I discussed the
meaning of the grand total at some length, precisely to prevent misunderstanding
of that kind (Census, pp. 86-9). I made the point that a grand total is too all-
embracing to have much meaning for history-that it has no meaning at all for
the morality of the slave trade, which has no defenders in any event. If Dr
Inikori wants to argue that morality is quantifiable, he should make his argument
explicit. For myself, no possible figure from five million to fifty can make the
evils of the trade any less than they were, or any more. I had no reason, therefore,
to try to push total estimates either up or down; and I said explicitly on page 89
that, 'Other dimensions of the trade, below the level of the grand total add far
more to historical knowledge'.
Inikori's critique falls into four numbered sections and a conclusion. The first
and most serious criticism is in his section I (pp. 197-205). Although he intro-
duces few revised estimates of his own, he does introduce some new methodo-
logical principles-both implicit and explicit-which, if accepted, would under-
mine all statistics and quantitative history as well as my book. The fact that they
are published in a respectable journal suggests that they have a certain surface
plausibility, however, and they therefore need serious consideration. The second
section (pp. 205-14) is a recalculation of British-carried slave exports from
Africa for the period I750-I807. It is phrased as a criticism of the Census, an
easy operation indeed, since I had already accepted Roger Anstey's revision of
these estimates for the period I76I-I807.3 He is therefore beating down an open
door, and the real issue in this section and section IV (pp. 214-21) involves his
differences with Anstey. Professor Anstey is the appropriate authority to accept
Inikori's suggested revisions, or to point out the sources of difference. But,
whatever the result, Inikori misrepresents its meaning. In the introduction to
his paper and again in the conclusion, he writes as though the bulk of his paper
has to do with my calculations of the grand total number carried in the
slave trade. In fact, my grand total was based entirely on import data. None of
Inikori's arguments in sections II, III or IV have the slightest bearing on that
total, except as a form of character witness of historical competence.
The crux of his argument is therefore in section I (pp. I97-205). His discussion
here is informed by two very important methodological concepts that are not
explicit but are clearly implied by his use of evidence. One of these is the general
proposition that the opinion of any contemporaneous observer who might have
had access to accurate information is to be preferred to calculations based on
measured data. The calculations in the Census are subjected to the implied

3 Roger Anstey, 'The Volume and Profitability of the British Slave Trade, 176I-1807',
in Engerman and Genovese, Race and Slavery, 3-3 I.
 MEASURING THE ATLANTIC SLAVE TRADE 597
criticism of a parade of colonial governors, colonial agents, 'well-informed'
planters, and the like. Inikori'sfaith in the accuracyof their off-hand estimates
is truly touching-especially as to their knowledge of the past and the future.
An anonymous French planter on Saint Domingue in 1777 is credited with an
accurateknowledgeof slave importsback to I680, on groundsthat he had access
to whatever import records might have existed (p. 204). But in fact, there is no
evidence of the kind of import records that might have existed, or
which, if any, survived to I777. Governor Crew of Barbadoswas even more
remarkable.Inikori trusts his report of Barbadosslave mortality in 1708 as an
accurateindication of what was to happen in the Leeward Islands during the
next quartercentury (p. 20I). But the ordinaryrules for historicalevidence still
have some validity. First of all, it is generallyconsideredinadvisableto credit a
witness with prescience. Second, the Governorship of Barbados does not in
itself make the holder of that office an authorityon the Leeward Islands some
300 miles to the north and west. Finally, even if GovernorCrew had an accurate
knowledge of slave mortality in the Leewards for the year 1708, it would not
be an accurateindicationof rates of slave mortalityover longer periods of time;
such rateswere subjectto greatfluctuationfrom year to year.
Inikori's trust in contemporaneousobserversis not only misplaced; it is also
put forward in the face of evidence of how and why they are unlikely to be
accuratewitnesses in quantitativematters. The first chapter of the Censuswas
a historiographicalessay showing how some of the early estimates by con-
temporaryobserverswere passed on uncriticallydown through time. At another
point (pp. 210-20) the Census carries a systematic comparison between several
kinds of measured or calculated exports from Africa, measured or calculated
imports into the Americas, and contemporaneousestimates from well-placed
observers. The measured or calculatedexport and import estimates turned out
to be in relatively good agreement,while the contemporaneousestimates were
about 55 per cent higher. For the English slave trade of the eighteenth century,
a similar comparison(Census,pp. I48-9) was made between one-year estimates
by contemporaryobservers and annual averages calculated over a number of
years.Againthe one-yearestimatesby contemporarieswere higherthan calculated
annual averages.But the apparentdiscrepancydisappears,once it is recognized
that contemporaryobservers did not, in fact, intend to give an annual average
that would take accountof variationbetween good years and bad, peacetimeand
wartime. They gave instead a common sense estimate of what number of slaves
the British slave trade could carry in an ordinary year-in short, a capacity
estimate, not a measurementof performance.This is one reasonwhy almost all
such estimates were based on peacetime performance,though these men knew
perfectly well that war with France was a chronic condition, with disruption of
the sea lanes as a result. If the availableone-year estimates of the British slave
are interpretedas capacityestimatesfor a good year, they too come into line and
tend to confirm the annual averagescalculatedin a number of different ways.
Many of Inikori'sexamplestake capacityestimatesof this kindas annualaverages.
This is why the general thrust of his paper implies a total slave import into the
new world in the vicinity of I 5 to 20 millions-a common estimate in the past,
dominantlybased on a misinterpretationof capacityestimatesas annualaverages.
Inikori's second methodological concept is somewhat more original, and it
also has to do with the accuracyof historicalrecords.He recognizesthat records
598 P. D. CURTIN
were not always kept as accurately as historians might hope. Clerks were some-
times inefficient or lazy, and sometimes simply invented plausible numbers rather
than make an actual count. This much is a commonplace realization for historians,
who have always had to evaluate as best they could or assume random error if
no evidence of systematic bias was present. Inikori's new principle assumes
systematic bias toward low numbers, rather than random error. He sees that
clerks might under-report for lack of full information, but denies by implication
that a clerk might ever over-report to take care of an assumed deficiency. He
recognizes that ships' captains sometimes declared one destination on leaving
port in Europe, but actually sailed to another. He assumes that all who declared
for a slaving voyage to Africa actually went there, and many who declared for
other destinations also went to Africa; but he neglects the possibility that captains
might declare for Africa and go elsewhere. He recognizes that some people
could select or even falsify information to serve their material or political interests
of the moment, but they do this, in his view, only when the result will decrease
the apparent number of slaves carried to America, never when it will increase it.
This dismissal of the possibility of random error also dismisses the possibility of
statistical knowledge, since statistics depends on the assumption of random
variation.
Dr Inikori has another kind of quarrel with statistics on pages I98 and I99.
He points out quite correctly that hurricanes, war, epidemics, and other dramatic
events caused a great deal of annual variation in Caribbean populations of the
eighteenth century. But he then concludes that rates of population increase or
decrease cannot be calculated accurately over a period of several decades by
reference to the population at the beginning and ending of the period. This is a
little hard to account for, but it seems to be an elementary misunderstanding.
He apparently thinks that an expression such as a rate of increase at, say, 1.8 per
cent over twenty years implies that the population increased at that rate in each
of the twenty years. It simply means, of course, that the average population
change was at that rate, with the possibility of enormous variation from year to
year.
With this fundamental misunderstanding, he proceeds to criticize my method
of estimating slave imports by demographic analogy. At a number of points in
the Census, it was necessary, for lack of other data, to estimate slave imports
over a period of time by reference to the slave population at the beginning and
end of the period, combined with the rate of natural increase or decrease in
another place at an equivalent phase in its demographic history.4 The formula is
4 In mathematical
terms, paraphrasing the Census, 32, where r equals the annual rate
of growth, m the annual rate of immigration, and i the annual rate of natural increase or
decrease, r = i+m.
If it is known that a population has increased in size from No to Nt in t years, then the
average annual rate of growth, r, is given by:
t I N
ert = orby r=- log.8(
Where the size of the population at the beginning and the end of the period of time is
known, and where the rate of growth r, and the rate of immigration, m, are also known, the
relationship simplifies to give the total number of immigrants, so that

T = -
r (Nt-N).
 MEASURING THE ATLANTIC SLAVE TRADE 599
rough at best, and possible unevenness of random variation makes it dangerous
to use over short periods of time. At the same time, rates of natural increase or
decrease were subject to change over longer periods, because the make-up of the
population changed. In the Census, therefore, I avoided periods of less than two
decades or longer than a half century. Inikori argues on the other hand that the
formula is 'incapable of providing a true estimate of slave imports over a very
long period', with apparent reference to two to five decades as a long period.
In fact, it is incapable of providing a true estimate of slave imports over any
period. Several other kinds of data would always be preferred if they were
available. But, if it is used, it cannot be used accurately for anything but a
period long enough to allow random variation to take place-and it becomes
inaccurate for periods greater than a half century because of changing rates of
net natural increase or decrease. In spite of his stated objections, Inikori places
far more faith in this method than its probable accuracy will permit. As we shall
see, he uses it alone to challenge my entire set of estimates for imports into
Spanish and Portuguese America, trying to apply it to periods longer than two
centuries-and suggesting at another point that it be applied to Barbados for a
period as short as five years. In the case of Brazil, he prefers his own calculation
by this method to all the past archival work by Brazilian and Portuguese historians
in this field. We return, in short, to his principle of unilateral variation-the
rule for interpreting historical evidence which says that any method yielding
high numbers is preferable to any that yields low.
Even beyond his methodological innovations, Inikori points out a number of
specific errors that might be serious if the evidence actually supported his
allegations, or if his arithmetical calculations were correct. The most obvious
seriousness of his charge occurs at the middle of page 203, where he discovers
from the Census that it apparently took proportionately fewer imported slaves to
produce a given slave population in the French Caribbean by I789 than it did
in the British Caribbean by I787. This criticism is, of course, based on the method
he says cannot be used over a long period, but the case needs to be examined.
From evidence in the Census, the ratios work out to 3.46 imports for each slave
in the British islands of Barbados, Jamaica, and the Leewards as of I787, but
only 2.22 for each slave in the population of Martinique, Guadeloupe, and Saint
Domingue as of I789. Ratios of this kind were not used in the Census, for the
reasons stated, but Inikori asserts that they are meaningful in this case. Following
the principle all revision must be upward, he also claims that they prove my
estimates for the French slave trade were far too low.
In fact, that is not the only possibility. The population data could either be
wrong or incommensurate between the two sets of islands. The estimated
imports into the French islands could be too low. The estimated imports into
the British islands could be too high, or the demographic history of the two sets
of islands could be sufficiently different to explain the different ratios.
To begin with, some of the population data are either wrong or incommensur-
ate, which is an added reason why I avoided long term comparisons between the
two sets of islands. As Inikori recognizes (middle, p. i99), the slave population

Or, where T is known, but i or m is unknown:

Tr
m
N-N.
oo0 P. D. CURTIN

figures given for the British Caribbean in the eighteenth century were taken
from the tax rolls, which tended to underestimate the actual number.5 As we
shall see, the error from this source is not very great when these population data
are used for estimates by demographic analogy of the type discussed above, but
the error becomes significant when they are used for direct comparisons of the
type Inikori wants to make between the British and French Caribbean. He calls
attention to the report of a committee of the Jamaican House of Assembly in
I788, which had a more serious count made and concluded that the tax rolls
under-represented the total slave population by 19 per cent (p. I99). If we
assume a similar rate of error in Barbados and the Leewards as of that date,
the ratio of imports to slave population for the British Caribbean in I787 becomes
2.90-compared to a rate of 2-22 for the French islands as of I789-a difference
that still may need to be explained, but is far less alarming than Inikori's initial
claim.
Inikori, of course, makes the case that the French population figures were
equally inaccurate, and his argument is curious. He suggests that the French
were less efficient administrators than the British were in the eighteenth century
(p. 200). This may or may not be true; he presents no evidence. The really
remarkable conclusion, however, comes from his return to the principle of
unilateral error. The clear logic of the first paragraph on page 200 is: (a) French
were less efficient than English; (b) the less efficient the record keeper, the lower
the numbers he will produce; (c) therefore, the population data from the French
islands will be too low by the same or a greater percentage than the British.
He throws in for good measure an alleged manuscript note by Moreau de Saint-
Mery giving the slave population of Saint Domingue as 452,000, 'c. I780'. This
is simply a fabrication, though possibly that of the author he cites. The figure
452,000 is the official slave population for Saint Domingue in 1789. It is given
as such in the Census (p. 78) and by Moreau de Saint-Mery himself in his major
published work.6
But, to return to Inikori's case that the different ratio of imports-to-slaves
must be explained by an underestimate of French imports, especially those to
Saint Domingue in the period just before the French revolution. In the Census,
I argued that the slave imports into Saint Domingue might be fairly estimated
with reference to the measurable rate of net natural decrease in Jamaica at an
equivalent period, since the demographic history of the two colonies was
broadly parallel. The Saint Domingue import estimates for I779-90 were
therefore based on the rate of net natural decrease of I.9 per cent per annum
in Jamaica over the period 1776-I807. Inikori claims that the rate of 1.9 per
annum is far too low because Saint Domingue had a slave population increasing
at the rate of 5.5 per annum during the pre-Revolutionary decade (1779-90),
5 The problem of tax-roll data is not Inikori's discovery but is well known to students of
Caribbean demographic history. Inikori, however, missed G. W. Roberts' point in warning
against the inaccuracy of these data, yet using them to measure relative change with an
announced probability of error (George W. Roberts, The Population of Jamaica [Cambridge,
I957], 34-8). See also Richard S. Dunn, 'The Barbados Census of I68o: Profile of the
Richest Colony in English America', William and Mary Quarterly, xxvi (3rd series)
(I969), 3-30, 7-IO.
6 Mederic Louis Elie Moreau de
Saint-Mery, Description topographique, physique,
civile, politique et historique de la partie franraise de l'isle de Saint Dominigue, 2nd ed. 3 vols.
(Paris, I958), I, 5; first published I797.
 MEASURING THE ATLANTIC SLAVE TRADE 6oi
while Jamaicanpopulation increased at only .8 per cent during an equivalent
decade (I778-88)7 and, generally speaking, the rate of natural decrease is
directly relatedto the rate of growth in the slave population.But Inikorihimself
explains part of the difference.The I78os were a period of high prosperityfor
Saint Domingue, but of local disasterscaused initiallyby hurricanesfollowed by
epidemic disease and famine for Jamaica (p. 202). The Jamaicanrate of net
natural decrease used in my estimate was therefore taken from the Jamaican
experienceover forty years, to allow randomvariationto even out the difference
between good years and bad.
But some kinds of evidence are better than others. In general, a measured
import of slaves is preferableto a rate calculatedby analogy. Officialmeasure-
ments of slaves imported into all the French Caribbeanare availablefor 1787
and 1788 at an annual averageof 30,634 slaves per year. These data are from
Peytraud,whom Inikori quotes with approbationon a number of other issues,
and their result is printed in Census(p. 179). The recordedrate tends to confirm
my calculatedrate of 26,I00 per year for Saint Domingue over the period 1779-
go. Indeed, if my calculatedannualaveragesfor the pre-Revolutionaryyears in
Guadeloupe and Martinique (Census,p. 80) are subtracted from the recorded
annualaveragefor FrenchAntilles as a whole, the annualaverageSaint Domingue
import is left at 26,224, compared to my calculated figure of 26,o00. This can
be nothing but sheer chance, since no such accuracy could ever be expected,
but it does seem to confirmthe rough accuracyof the Saint Domingue calcula-
tions. One can only concludethat Inikoriwas either very carelessor intentionally
suppressed some of the evidence-or perhaps that his faith in the greater
accuracyof all high numbers led him to set aside the official record as well as
my calculationsfrom analogy.
This raises the possibility that the discrepancy between import-to-slave
ratios lay not with a French slave-importfigure that was too low but ratherwith
a set of estimates for the British colonies that was too high. In fact, I said as
much (Census,p. 58). There is a serious danger of double-countingslaves first
landedin one Britishcolony and then re-exportedto another.For lack of detailed
evidence, I was content to indicate the possible size of the problem, ratherthan
taking it into account in the final estimates. It is known, however, that at least
i6,ooo slaves were re-exported from the eastern Caribbeanto Jamaicabefore
I701 (Census, p. 58). Its demographic impact is incalculable; among other
things, it is not known whether these were mainly recent arrivalsfrom Africa,
mainly 'seasoned',or mainly Americanborn. But if that numberwere arbitrarily
subtractedfrom the total importsinto Barbados,it would decreasetotal Barbados
importsby about4 per cent. It seems likely, thereforethat the Barbadosestimates
are overstatedby at least that amount.But no useful purposeis served, now or in
the Census,by arbitraryallowancesfor ignorance.The whole point of the Census
was to recordwhat was known as honestly as possible, to indicate likely sources
of error,and to leave the rest to future archivalwork.
If it were worthwhile to seek out minor ways to make the calculationsin the
Censusmore precise, Inikori suggests one avenue that might be explored. This
is the matter of inaccurate slave population data for the British Caribbean,
though correction would result in lower, not higher levels for the slave trade.
7 His Table I, p. 203 contains a misprint which should read 1778-88, not I778-89.
602 P. D. CURTIN
If the tax rolls for the British Caribbeanwere the basis for slave populationdata,
and if (as he correctly claims) they were systematicallyunderstated,they can
still serve as a basis for gauging the rate of populationincrease.No eighteenth-
century census was completely accurate; all of them probably undercounted
systematically,as modern censuses often do. Historical demographershandle
the problem by assuming that they undercountedby approximatelythe same
percentageand that randomerrorwill balanceout over a series of census dates.
These Caribbeanpopulation data were probably underestimatedby a larger
amount, but they can still be used in relative measurements.A higher slave
population implies a larger number of imports, but a higher population also
implies a lower rate of net naturaldecreaseand the two tend to balance out in
calculationsseeking to estimateslave imports by demographicanalogy. Inikori's
obsession with big numbers led him to neglect the fact that an increase in the
divisor leads to a smallerquotient.
The arithmetic is simple-too simple to need explanation, but Inikori's
failure to grasp the point is fundamental to his criticism. If, in considering
changing population between two points in time, the population at both is
increased by a given percentage, the rate of increase or decrease will remain
exactly the same. If the slave populationsindicated by tax rolls are assumed to
lag behind actualityby approximatelythe same percentage,the error will have
no influenceon the rate of populationchange. It will, however, change the base
level against which an increase or decreaseis projected,and that changein the
base level will change the rate of net natural increase or decrease-a higher
populationgiving a lower rate of net naturaldecrease,while a lower population
gives a higher rate. Within the rangeof probableerrorin the tax rolls, the result
will yield slightly lower estimatesthan those I publishedin the Census.
The point can be illustrated most effectively by going through a sample
calculation.It can begin by looking for a reasonableestimate of the difference
betweenslave-rollpopulationdataand reality.One sampleis the count sponsored
by the JamaicanHouse of Assembly in I788, calling for an increaseof I9.2 per
cent over the tax-rollfigures. In 18I7, when slave registrationwas introducedto
Jamaica,the first registrationwas 10.2 per cent higher than the tax roll.8 The
mean of these two samples is 14.7 per cent which can be used as an inflatorfor
illustrativepurposes. The slave imports into the Leeward Islands are a useful
example as well, since the estimatesin the Censuswere based almost entirely on
demographicanalogy, and all analogieswere taken from the British Caribbean
where the tax-roll population data were used. The result appears in Table i,
comparinga recalculationbased on assumedhigher populationlevels with those
based on the tax-roll populationsas used in Table I5 of the Census,page 62.9
The resultis a decreaseof o0.6in the total estimatedslaveimportsfor the Leeward
Islands. It would be possible to re-do the whole set of calculationsfrom analogy

8 Louis Peytraud, L'esclavage aux Antilles fran;aises avantI789 (Paris, 1897), 139-40.
9 Roberts, Population of Jamaica, 39-40. Inikori gives one more example of discrepancy
between tax-roll data and estimates of the actual slave population in Governor Grenville's
statement for Barbados as of 1748. The basis of Grenville's figure, however, is far from
clear and the discrepancy of 45 per cent appears unreasonable. It is therefore set aside for
present purposes. If it were used, however, it would have the effect of decreasing the
estimated number of slaves imported even more than the combination of the other two
will do.
 MEASURING THE ATLANTIC SLAVE TRADE 603
on this basis, but the result would not be very importantand it would be in the
opposite direction from the one that Inikori implies.10
TABLE I
Estimated slave imports into the Leeward Islands assuming different population data
Assumption A: That the slave populations established by tax-roll information are
acceptably accurate
Assumption B: That the slave populations from tax-roll records should be increased
by I4-7 per cent
Rate of net natural decrease Annual Estimated slave imports
(%) growth rate Assumption A Assumption B
Assumption Assumption slave Annual Annual
Years Precedent A B population Number average Number average
to I67 - - - 7,000 - 7,000 -
I672-I706 Jamaica, i673-I702 6-72 5.02 4.9 44,800 I,280 44,600 1,270
I707-1733 Jamaica, 1703-172I I122 0-66 3'2 43,100 i,600 43,300 I,6io
I734-I806 Barbados, 1684-I756 4'89 4-26 o-4 25I,I00 3,440 248,980 3,4o0
I807 Preceding annual av. - - - 3,440 3,440 3,4Io 3,410
349,440 347,290

Scurces: Population data from the Census, 59. Jamaican precedents from Le Page, 'Jamaican Creole', 70-I.
Barbados precedents from Census, 55.

Indeed, Inikori often claims to have discovered major errors in the Census,
but without carryingthrough the whole calculationso that his readerscan see
that the consequencesare in fact minimal. One example can be taken from his
argumentat the top of page 199. He says there in dealingwith calculationsfrom
demographicanalogythat '. .. the very choice of terminal dates has a consider-
able influence on the results obtained'. And he goes on to use an example from
my calculationin the Censusof slave importsinto Barbados.For the period i645
to I672, he suggests that I would have obtained a much higher estimate if only
I had chosen I668 instead of I672 as the terminaldate. My reasonfor choosing
I672 was the fact that measured import records could be found beginning in
I673. His reason for choosing I668 is the equally obvious fact that it is higher
than any other Barbadospopulationfigure before I684, following his consistent
preference for big numbers. Since the I668 figure was out of line with others
(see graphthe Census,p. 56), what went up had to come down. His largeestimates
of slave importsfor i645-67 must thereforebe followedby a much smallerone for
1668-72, so that the total excursionadds only about I4,000 to the originalcalcula-
tion, or an increaseof about 3.5 per cent in total Barbadianslave imports. This
is hardly a significant difference, given the inaccuracy of the original data,
but the use of such a short periodfor the second calculationby analogyis suspect
and so is the use of populationdataso much out of line with the series as a whole.
Inikori's final remarks about slave imports into Spanish and Portuguese
America are again indicative of his choice of method and care in calculation.
He argues on page I99 that, 'In order that the formula [for estimating slave
imports by demographicanalogy] may give a reasonablyaccurate estimate of
slave imports for any given territory or colony there must be accurate slave
population figures, and the annual rate of net natural decrease or increase
among the slave population must be certainly known'. But on page 204, he
concludes, on demographicanalogy using hearsay population data for Mexico
and Peru alone in 1796 and with no evidence at all as to natural increase or
10 These recalculations, like those on which Table
15 of the Census was based, follow
the formula given above in note 4.
604 P. D. CURTIN

decrease,that the estimatesfor SpanishAmericaup to 1807 in the Census'must

representa considerableunderestimate'.
His calculationfor Brazilis still more indicative(pp. 204-5), since this is the
onlypoint in the entire articlewhere he hazardsan estimateof his own that would
modify the total size of the Atlantic slave trade as estimated in the Census.He
beginswith a figureof ,998,o00for the blackpopulationof Brazilas of 1798,which
he says is the result of the first reliablecensus of that country-on the authority
of the authorsof a popularhistory of the slave trade. The populationof Brazil
at that period has, in fact, been recently examined (and in English) by Dauril
Alden. Alden pointed out that these census data are not accurate,but they do
exist for I798-indicating a range of 2,I88,596 to 2,387,559 for the population
of all races. That census, however, gave no racial breakdownfor the country
as a whole, but only for certainprovinces.None of these provinceshad more than
68 per cent Afro-Brazilianor mixed Afro- and Euro-Brazilian,and some had
as low as 21 per cent slaves, but Inikori's 'census' indicates a black Brazilian
population at 87 per cent of the total.1l
His other datum is a rate of net natural decrease at 5 per cent per annum,
which he wronglyattributesto me (p. 205). In fact the figureis from A. Gomes,
and it is one of severaldifferentcalculationsby Brazilianhistoriansthat put the
Brazilianrate of net natural decreaseof the slave population at 4.5 per cent to
5.0 per cent in the early nineteenth century. The distinction between slave and
Afro-Brazilianpopulation is importantin Brazil, where the descendantsof the
earliest arrivalsfrom Africa tended to gain their freedom after a time. Free
blacks and mulattoesmade up three quartersof the whole populationof African
descent as of 1798, accordingto Gomes. The fertility and mortalityrates of new
arrivalswere far more unfavourablethan those of American-born,so that the
rates of naturaldecreasefor slaves and for Afro-Braziliansin general should be
different.12Inikori'ssample rate of decreasethereforehas to do with the wrong
segment of the Brazilianpopulationin the wrong century.
On the basis of a suspect population figure and an inappropriaterate of net
naturaldecrease,Inikorineverthelessmadehis one effortto calculatean estimated
Brazilianslave import of 'well over three million imported slaves' up to 1798
(p. 205). But even the arithmeticseems to be wrong. If the Brazilianslave trade
is assumed to have started in I55o, and to have produced an Afro-Brazilian
populationof I,998,000 in I798, on his reasoningand with his data it would have
required3,7I2,000 slaves imported-or 24 per cent more than he indicates.
If this kind of calculationwere based on the only data available,it might even
then be worthy of hypotheticalconsideration.Inikori, however, asks his readers
to accept this in preferenceto careful archivalwork with actualrecords of slave
imports, carriedout by a line of Brazilianhistorianswho have recently tended
to agree on a total import estimate of 3.5 to 3.7 millions for the whole of the
slave trade in Brazil,13and it was this conclusionthat I reportedin the Censusas
11Inikori's census authoritywas Daniel P. Mannix, Black Cargoes:A History of the
Atlantic Slave Trade I518-I865 (New York, I962), 54. (For some reason, Inikori omits
the name of Malcolm Cowley, Mannix's co-author).The more accuratereport is Dauril
Alden, 'The Population of Brazil in the Late Eighteenth Century', Hispanic-American
HistoricalReview, XLIII (1963), 173-205.
12 A. Gomes, 'Achegasparaa hist6riado traficoafricanono Brazil-Aspectos numericos',
IV Congressode HistdriaNacional,2I-28 Abril de I949 (Rio de Janeiro, I950), 46, 65-66.
13 This literatureis discussed in Census,45-9.
 MEASURING THE ATLANTIC SLAVE TRADE 605
approximately 2,401,400 slaves imported to Brazil by I8I0. It takes a near-
pathological admiration of large numbers to sweep all the archival research
aside and ask his readers to believe a figure 50 per cent higher on the weakest
kind of evidence-and using a method he himself claims to be inaccurate.
Inikori's run through the French export trade from Africa on pages 221-2
has the similar weakness of ignoring or misrepresenting the kinds of evidence
actually available. For the French-carried slave trade in the first half of the
eighteenth century, for example, he rejects the evidence reported in the Census
on the basis of a single report by a Captain George Hamilton, writing from the
Gold Coast in I741. One can only admire Hamilton's miraculous breadth of
knowledge and Inikori's trust in it. On the other hand, Jean-Claude Nardin has
gone over French shipping data for 1722-46 since the publication of the Census
and specifically to check its accuracy against new data. He found that the Census
was not as accurate as it might be in regard to sources of slaves in Africa, but,
for the total quantities carried, errors in one direction balanced those in another.14
For the period 1728-60, on the other hand, another document from the French
archives gives a total French-carried import into the French Antilles I6 per cent
lower than my calculation. It may be unfair to call attention to one's own
mistakes, but after Inikori's paper it is refreshing to remember that historians
working with data of this kind inevitably make them in both directions. And,
for the French-carried slave trade of 1814-31, recent and careful research by
Serge Daget again confirms the main lines of the estimates in the Census.l5
In addition to the broad sweeping criticism, Dr Inikori also makes some
criticism of detail, but even some of these are wrong. On page 203, note 29, for
example, he corrects my figures for slave imports into Jamaica by reference to
the original document in the Public Record Office. But he did this by citing the
totals at the bottom of the columns. In fact, as Le Page pointed out some years
ago in using that same document, the columns are not added up correctly.16
The figures are therefore correct as I gave them.
It would be ungracious, however, not to acknowledge the points on which I
must stand corrected. His archival work on the English slave trade in the
eighteenth century is certain to have brought out some new evidence, even
though the principle of unilateral error makes it impossible to accept his con-
clusions from these data. Finally, he is right in stating in his note 5 that on page
32, note 26 of the Census I inadvertently wrote 'annual average number', where
the sense clearly indicates I should have put 'total number'. And I am also
grateful for his correction (p. 203, n. 29) of my citation of the colonial office
document as C.O. 127/28 rather than 127/38.

14
Jean-Claude Nardin, 'Encore des chiffres: La traite negriere francaise pendant la
premiere moitie du xviii siecle', Revue franfaise d'histoire d'outre-mer LVII (I970), 421-46.
15
Serge Daget, 'L'abolition de la traite des noirs en France de I814 a I83I', Cahiers
d'etudes africaines, xI (I971), I4-58.
16 Robert B. Le Page, Jamaican Creole (London, 1960), 70-I.