Angela Ansiela van Bengale, SM/PROG - Did Angela v Bengale arrive in Cape with husband Domingo and 3 sons? I think not.

I see the web page quoted on Ansela's overview page "Excellent Biography at the Cape Slave and Indigene People's Site" by Patric Tariq Mellet also no longer supports the view that Domingo(a), Jan Thomas and Claasje were related to Angela.

It now states that “Angela was brought to the Cape with Dominga of Bengal, on the VOC ship Prins Willem. Dominga, a female slave, in some latter day genealogies is misread to be a male slave ‘Domingo’ and a wrong assumption made that Angela and ‘Domingo’ were husband and wife, and that other children amongst the Commander’s slaves were theirs.”

I am not convinved that Domingo was Dominga – my translation clearly states Domingo, Jan, Tommiso and Claesje, all from Angloa. But this is irrelevant for this purpose really – I do agree that they were just fellow slaves owned by van Riebeeck – NOT Angela’s husband and children at all. This is now quite clear to me.

On wiki tree it said that the three children is Domingo Domingo as the father and Angela as the mother..
It is hard to say

I think original slave transfer records carry a LOT more weight than wiki tree. Anyone can write or copy and paste anything in Wiki tree. The slave transfers recorded what actually happened in the distant past.

The slave transfer records clearly state that Domingo, Jan, Thomas (Tommiso) and Claasje were ALL from ANGOLA (likely arrived on the Amersfoort March 1758). The fact that they were sold separately to Angela on successive days by van Riebeeck, she had no further contact with any of them, plus the fact that she and her young daughter Anna arrived a year earlier already in Feb 1657 when there were no Domingo, Jan, Thomas (Tomisso) and Claasje at the Cape, indicates to me linking them to her as husband and sons is incorrect.

The most comprehensive research to be done on Maaij Ansiela van Bengal has been that of professional researcher Mansell Upham Moeder Jagt which can be found on www.e-family.co.za/ffy/ui66.htm

Neither wiki nor simply the slave transfer records will give you the wealth of information painstakingly put together in this labour of love by this man. Her orinal ownership in Batavia is noted as is her sale to Jan van Riebeeck and further transactions through to her freedom. Slavrs originating from the Bay of Bengal could originate from Bangladesh, (Arakan), Myanmar, Laos or Thailand where various roots of slavery could traced..... so one needs to keep this in mind when seeing the toponym Bengal....it does not necessarily mean the territory Bengal known as Bangladesh today.

The erroneous or unsubstantiated assertion that Ansiela is the wife of Domingo (likely Dominga a female) or mother if 3 children as earlier suggested by researcher Anna Boeseken is challenged in Upham's text.

Very interesting Discussion - thankyou for the level of contributions being made. Private User may be interested to contribute too, if he sees this.

Thanks for your reply Patric!

I agree - it is very clear to me now that slaves Domingo, Jan, Thommiso (Thomas) and Claesje ALL FROM ANGOLA were merely fellow slaves owned by Jan van Riebeeck and had no familial relationship with Angela van Bengale whatsoever. It will be good to correct this sometime in her profile page (when Sharon has finished sailing up the coast and gets back on dry land! ☺)

I have come to realise the name Domingo can indeed be used as a male or female name. Marie Vermeulen-Boshoff pointed out a baptism recently of a child by a female slave called Domingo:
24 Jan 1677
Pieter, een slavinne kint van E. Comp.
De vader een onbekent Christen, de moeder Domingo

This Domingo is a VOC slave on 24 Jan 1677 so will not be the same Domingo that was sold by van Riebeeck with 3 other male slaves from Angola to Roelof de Man on 20/4/1662. Just interesting to note the trans-gender nature of the name Domingo.

In Mansell’s article he says the muster roll of 31 May 1657 lists 3 female Batavian slaves of van Riebeeck: Marij, Angela and Domingo, but in the 1657 muster roll transcription at http://www.eggsa.org/sarecords/index.php/muster-rolls/cape-archives... I do not see this data. Could there have been a 2nd muster roll for 1657 or is the transcription incomplete? It will be great if Mansell can clarify this, just so we keep all the facts straight.