All of this about John Keen seems to be an example of someone jumping to a conclusion to satisfy an agenda.

By the early 1700’s, this Keen(e) family had been in and around Minety for at least three generations. As a result, there were a great many of them, including at least five by the name of John.

The most likely explanation as to why this John Keen is notated "niger" is to distinguish him from the other Johns, and 'niger' most probably refers to the colour of his hair.

Another John Keen(e) of the time was buried in Minety on 11 August 1719, and he is notated "ruber" in the parish register entry. This is believed to indicate that he was the John Keen(e) with the red hair – and not that, following the logic here, he was a Red Indian.

Similarly, two of the Keen(e) family were named Sylvester, and a (baptism)register entry of 11 July 1712 notes one of them as “surdus” – meaning that he was the Sylvester who was deaf.

In this case, the only reliable conclusion that can be drawn is that the priest or clerk of the time seemed to be particularly fond of using Latin epithets for relatively minor physical characteristics so as to distinguish between parishioners of the same name.

This item has prompted us to carry out some further research.

The suggestion that ‘niger’ most probably referred to the colour of John Keen’s hair – i.e. that it was black, or perhaps just dark – was originally put to us about fifteen years ago, but now it also seems that the word could mean that he was a 'bad one'. This might even have extended to his branch of the family.

The Dictionary of Phrase and Fable 1894 states “The Latin niger meant bad, unpropitious...

The theories that John or his branch could fall into this category are supported by the facts that, firstly, John’s mother may not have been married to his father. When she was buried, she is recorded as Sarah Rimon, alias Keen(e). No doubt the parish priest, or his clerk, would have taken a dim view of that!

Secondly, there was also something odd about John's own marriage in that the otherwise undated 1696 Minety register entry says that he and his wife "were as it is reported married at Hankerton". Also, in the Charlton parish register, September 1695, it states that John and his wife were "married by Mr Hopkins at Hankerton" – but there is no entry in the Hankerton register.

Taking into account the likely standards of the time, perhaps this goes some way to explaining the ‘niger’. Alternatively (or additionally), it could, of course, also indicate that John was something of an unpleasant character.

This round of research has also revealed that it seems likely that John’s father, the Sylvester who was not deaf (see Comment of 15th May), died in 1684/5, and that, in common with several others of the Keen(e) family in those times, his occupation was that of a Waggoner. He had previously, in 1671, been a Husbandman (Farmer).

Sylvester had been born in about 1650, almost certainly in Minety – on the basis that his own father, also John, and another Keen(e) Yeoman, was “of Minety”. This John, who had been born in about 1625, died in 1670, just two years before his (seemingly first) grandson, John, the ‘niger’, came into the world; the boy was presumably named after him.

Incidentally, three out of four of grandfather John’s known sons (Sylvester, Bernard and another John) named their first born sons John. The result of this was that, in and around Minety in the late 1600’s/early 1700’s, there were at least three (first) cousins by the name of John Keen(e), plus the John Keen(e) who was the father of one of them and the uncle of the other two, plus another one who was probably a fourth first cousin but who cannot definitely be linked as such!

Also noted this week has been a hitherto unseen reference to a Bernard Keen(e), who was almost certainly the Bernard who was ‘niger’ John’s uncle and who had been born in about 1655. He died in 1690, and was, like his father before him, and his nephew had become by 1708, a Yeoman.

There continues to be little or no doubt that “Niger” was used primarily to distinguish the John Keen in question from his grandfather, uncle and cousins of the same name, but perhaps we shall never know exactly what it was that was ‘black’ about him.

What remains certain, however, is that he was a ‘local boy’, born to one of a family that had been well established in Minety for several generations, and that his background was not as portrayed in the blog item of 7th December 2010 above.

Thank you for the comments from the previous correspondent, which does provide some alternative suggestions for the origins of John Keen and this what makes historical research so interesting. Usually I state that we can never be certain that someone was black and I did forget to say that on this occasion. However, I am still more inclined towards our original interpretation. Our reasons for supposing the John Keen was black or of dual heritage is based on the evidence from references in other parish records where the term 'niger' is used and more is known about the individual. It was commonly used as a term to denote someone of African, African Caribbean or Asian origin. For example a baptism entry in the Norton and Lenchwick, Worcestershire, parish register for January 1698 states 'John Langley a Niger of Jameca (sic).' In Rickling parish, Essex, there is a baptism in 1764 for 'Franciscus Niger slave to the Hon. Rev Nicholas Boscawen.' In Lincolnshire Archives there is a “receipt ‘for a niger boy call'd Hannover’ purchased by the Hon. Charles Bertie.”

We have not been aware of the word’s use in any other context within parish registers, other than where it has evolved into a surname, and certainly not simply to distinguish between people of the same name, of which there are regular occurrences in many parish registers. The use of the term ‘Rebur’ for another John Keen may indicate that the incumbent in Minety could have been trying to make a distinction between the two men concerned, but I would be reluctant to suggest anything other than that at this stage. It does not necessarily follow that John Keene could not have been black or of dual heritage.

I think it would be unfair to suggest we have a particular agenda. Research into the history of the Black presence in Britain has been undertaken for many years, ranging from early academic works such as Peter Fryer’s ‘Staying Power’, to the work of the Black and Asian Studies Association, through to the recent Oxford Companion to Black British History. In addition, regional research such as the award winning project in Northamptonshire and work in Devon, Worcestershire and many other places is gradually building up a broader picture and evidence of the black presence in Britain. As mentioned in an earlier blog, we know black people have been present in Britain since Roman times and it is estimated that there was a black population of around 15,000 in London alone between the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries. Part of the SEEME project is trying to make a contribution towards this work and hopefully with some of academic rigour. Coincidentally, we have recently had two Bath Spa University student placements researching the Keene family to see if we can discover any further evidence that may substantiate or disprove our initial thoughts.

The previous correspondent will know that there two further consistent references to ‘John Keene, Niger’ in the Minety parish registers, that is the report of his marriage to Frances Hayward in Hankerton in 1695 and the death of his wife, in 1708 which say “Keen Frances - Wife of John, Niger.” It is, of course, possible that he was descended from a black person from several generations past, as happened for example with children and grand children of James Chappel, the black servant to Sir Christopher Hatton c.1670 onwards who settled and married into a local family in the village of Gretton, Northamptonshire and where for many years his descendants resided. Curiously another black person, Richard Dare also settled in the same village in the eighteenth century and his descendants also remained there for some time. In Wiltshire, for example, Elizabeth Brookman was baptised in November 1781, her father being ‘William Brookman, a black’. William Brookman a ‘black servant’ had received an adult baptism in July the same year.

The reference to the 1894 dictionary of Phrase and Fable quoted by the previous correspondent is sadly of its time and it is not uncommon during the late nineteenth century for such work to either purposefully or unwittingly promote negative associations to black people. We know that the Romans certainly used the term ‘niger’ to refer to black people, possibly derived from the Egyptian word n-g-u (some suggestions are that n-g-u referred to a god). In Britain its use in relation to black people certainly dates back to the sixteenth century and continued to be used during the following centuries. I am not convinced that the incumbent of Minety used the term to simply refer to someone who was not well though of within their community. But this subject area is probably for another blog on a different website, of which there are many!

I can't help wondering if the first comment at the top of the page isn't itself following an agenda--the familiar one of anxiously rebutting any evidence of a black presence in British history. This person's tactic of instantly reaching for a Latin etymological explanation over and against an obvious colloquial early modern English word for the word "niger" also suggests the ignorance of this history that most people still (not unexpectedly) have. That would be forgivable were it not for the unfortunately supercilious dismissive tone.
I entirely applaud the patient and polite comment by the source of the original article. I am surprised, though, that my book BLACK LIVES IN THE ENGLISH ARCHIVES 1500-1677 (Ashgate 200 wasn't mentioned in the scholarship on this topic.