they attacked the Pit River Indians, “killed the men, abducted the
women and children to their homes, or sold them into slavery at the
international bartering place at The Dalles.” According to Judge E.
Steele “they had been selling to whites and others Indian children of
their own and other tribes, and also squaws, the latter mainly for the
purpose of prostitution” [169]. Whether all slaves were sold abroad, or
any slaves were kept by them, does not appear. According to Bancroft
“Mr. Drew asserts that the Klamath children of slave parents, who, it
may be, prevent the profitable prostitution or sale of the mother, are
killed without compunction” [170]. Altogether the notes given by our
informants are insufficient for us to decide, whether slavery really
exists here.
On the Central Californians Bancroft remarks: “Slavery in any form is
rare, and hereditary bondage unknown.” “They do not appear to have kept
or sold prisoners as slaves, but to have either exchanged or killed
them” [171]. Here “rare” is perhaps a synonym for “absent”; at any rate
the existence of slavery here is doubtful.
As for the Southern Californians, according to Bancroft, “Hugo Reid
affirms of the natives of Los Angeles County that all prisoners, after
being tormented in the most cruel manner, are invariably put to
death.... Female prisoners are either sold or retained as slaves”
[172]. From Boscana’s narrative also it would appear, that there were
formerly slaves among them. “No quarter” he says “was ever given, and
consequently, no prisoners were ever made among the men, excepting of
such as were killed, or mortally wounded. These were immediately
decapitated.... The women and children taken prisoners, were either
disposed of by sale or detained by the captain as slaves.... The women
and children were never released,—ever remaining as slaves to their
enemies” [173]. But as no more details are added and as Boscana
describes a state of things which in his time had already ceased to
exist, we are not quite sure whether slaves were really kept by these
Indians.
The Nishinam, according to Powers, killed their male prisoners. Women,
after being flogged, were married; but sometimes they were also killed
[174]. So it seems that they had no slaves.
10. New Mexicans.
On the Shoshones and Utahs we are not very well informed. “An act which
passed the legislature of Utah in 1852 ... set forth that from time
immemorial slavery has been a customary traffic among the Indians.” But
we are not told who bought and who sold the slaves. It is only stated
that the Utahs sold their wives and children into slavery to the
Navajos [175]. It is not probable that the Shoshones and Utahs
themselves had slaves; for Bancroft states that prisoners of war were
killed, or in some cases dismissed unhurt, and Meline tells us, that
the Utes and Pueblos almost invariably sold their prisoners to the
Mexicans for slaves [176].
Bancroft, describing the Apache family (including Apaches, Comanches,
Navajos, Mojaves, etc.), says: “All the natives of this family hold
captives as slaves” [177]. But his account of the Comanches does not
quite agree with this general statement: “Prisoners belong to the
captors and the males are usually killed, but women are reserved and
become the wives or servants of their owners, while children of both
sexes are adopted into the tribe” [178]. According to Schoolcraft,
“prisoners of war belong to the captors and may be sold or released at
their will”. Captive children are adopted and afterwards are on a level
with the members of the tribe [179]. Gregg speaks of prisoners being
enslaved and ill-treated by the conquerors. But whether he means to say
that they remained slaves is not clear [180]. Cessac also speaks of
slaves. “If, among the captives of the deceased, one was particularly
loved by his master, he is sacrificed and buried with him.” “If a
favourite slave is sacrificed, it is to give the master a
fellow-traveller.” No more particulars about these slaves are given. In
their wars against the Mexicans they spare none but the children, whom
they treat as their own. “These captives forget their origin and later
on, when full-grown, become an integral part of the tribe” [181]. It is
not clear whether the slaves Cessac speaks of are identical with these
adopted children; he would not have used then the term “slave” in its
proper sense. Ten Kate, a careful observer, states that a number of
Mexican captives, altogether about fifty, live among the Comanches and
Kioways; they have almost entirely adopted the manners and customs of
the Indians and are regarded by the latter as members of their tribes
[182]. Another author tells us of a Mexican boy and girl, taken
prisoners by the Comanches. The boy was afterwards sold to the
Cherokees, the girl was married against her will by a Comanche. Another
captive Mexican woman was married to a Comanche chief [183]. Comparing
these several statements, we think it probable, though not quite
certain, that the Comanches did not keep slaves, but adopted their
prisoners.
Ten Kate’s above-quoted statement applies also to the Kioways.
Möllhausen met with two young Mexican prisoners among them, a man and a
woman. The young man declared, that he did not want to exchange his
present abode for another. The woman, though married to a chief and
mother of a young chief, expressed the wish to return to her own
country; but the chief would not let her and her child go [184]. We may
suppose, that the same state of things prevailed here as among the
Comanches.
Of the Apaches proper Bancroft (besides his above-quoted general
statement) says: “They treat their prisoners cruelly; scalping them, or
burning them at the stake; yet, ruled as they are by greediness, they
are always ready to exchange them for horses, blankets, beads, or other
property. When hotly pursued, they murder their male prisoners,
preserving only the females and children, and the captured cattle”
[185]. This is not very suggestive of slavery; and Bancroft’s general
statement about the Apache family appears rather strange. Schoolcraft
tells us: “These [the chiefs] can have any number of wives they choose;
but one only is the favourite. She is admitted to his confidence, and
superintends his household affairs; all the other wives are slaves to
her; next come his peons, or slaves, and his wife’s slaves, and the
servants of his concubines; then the young men or warriors, most
generally composed of the youth who have deserted other tribes on
account of crimes, and have fled to the protection of the chief of this
tribe.... Then come the herdsmen, and so on” [186]. These “slaves”,
ranking even above the warriors, very probably were not slaves in the
true sense of the word. According to Bourke, the Mexican captives,
living among the Apaches, were treated very kindly and often rose to
positions of great influence. It does not appear that these captives
were kept in a slave-like state. Fremont and Emory say: “Women, when
captured, are taken as wives by those who capture them, but they are
treated by the Indian wives of the capturers as slaves”. It is evident
that we have not to do here with slaves in the true sense. Taking into
consideration all the foregoing statements, we may suppose that slavery
did not exist among the Apaches [187].
In an above-quoted passage Bancroft states that the Utahs frequently
sell their wives and children as slaves to the Navajos. According to
Bent, the Navajos, “have in their possession many prisoners, men, women
and children, ... whom they hold and treat as slaves” [188]. But these
statements are not sufficient for us to go upon; these prisoners may be
adopted, or intended to be sold, as well as kept as slaves.
Miss Olive Oatman, who had been detained among the Mohaves or Mojaves,
says: “They invented modes and seemed to create necessities of labour
that they might gratify themselves by taxing us to the utmost, and even
took unwarranted delight in whipping us on beyond our strength. And all
their requests and exactions were couched in the most insulting and
taunting language and manner, as it then seemed, and as they had the
frankness soon to confess, to fume their hate against the race to whom
we belonged. Often under the frown and lash were we compelled to labour
for whole days upon an allowance amply sufficient to starve a common
dandy civilized idler” [189]. Though such prisoners are held in a
slave-like state, yet evidently the object of the masters in imposing
disagreeable work upon them is not to get useful labourers, but to
“fume their hate”. This account may warn us against attaching too much
value to statements about slavery among similar tribes, especially
where the “slaves” are whites. For such tribes as the Apaches, who are
always ready to exchange their prisoners for some property, will be
very apt to take prisoners, especially whites, who are likely to offer
a better ransom than Indians. In such cases the prisoners are not
killed; for by killing them the Indians would lose their ransom; but
they may safely, as in Miss Oatman’s case, be treated as slaves by way
of vengeance. But where these are the only slaves existing, a regular
slave-system does not prevail. As for the Mohaves, no more particulars
being given, we do not know whether they have slaves.
In Bancroft’s account of the Pueblo tribes no mention is made of
slavery. On the Pimas he informs us: “If prisoners are taken, the males
are crucified or otherwise cruelly put to death, and the women and
children sold as soon as possible” [190].
In Parker Winship’s article it is quoted from Mendoza’s letter, that
the Cibola Pueblo “keep those whom they capture in war as slaves”
[191]. This being the only reference made to slavery, we are unable to
decide whether it really existed.
Ten Kate in his detailed account of the Zuñi (a Pueblo tribe) makes no
mention of slavery; so they probably have no slaves [192].
Bancroft, describing the Lower Californians, has nothing about slavery.
Although their battles are described at some length, no mention is made
of captives; probably they took no prisoners [193]. We may therefore
safely infer, that slavery did not exist among them.
Result. Aleuts, [194]
Positive cases: Athka Aleuts,
Koniagas,
Tlinkits,
Haidas,
Tsimshian,
Kwakiutl,
Bilballas,
Ahts,
Tribes about Puget Sound,
Fish Indians,
Tacullies,
Atnas on Copper River,
Similkameem,
Chinooks,
Atnahs on Fraser River and allied tribes,
Sahaptins or Nez Percés,
Southern Californians,
Klamaths,
Navajos,
Cibola Pueblos.
Negative cases: Greenlanders,
Central Eskimos,
Eskimos of Labrador,
Frobisher Bay and Field Bay Eskimos,
Kinipetu Eskimos,
Tchiglit Eskimos,
Eskimos of the Ungava District,
Western Eskimos or Eskimos of Alaska,
Eskimos of Point Barrow,
Kutchins or Loucheux,
Chepewyans or Athabascas,
Lenape or Delawares,
Montagnais,
Ojibways or Chippeways,
Ottawas,
Shahnees,
Potawatomi,
Crees or Knisteneaux,
Cheyennes,
Blackfeet nation,
Abenakies,
Iroquois,
Hurons or Wyandots,
Katahbas,
Cherokees,
Muskoghe,
Choctaws,
Chickasaws,
Creeks,
Seminoles,
Natchez,
Dacotahs or Sioux,
Hidatsas,
Omahas,
Osages,
Kansas Indians,
Assiniboins,
Hupas,
Apaches,
Pimas,
Zuñi,
Lower Californians,
Okanagans,
Karoks,
Central Californians,
Nishinam,
Shoshones,
Utahs,
Comanches,
Kioways.
No conclusion: Menomini,
Attakapas,
Inhabitants of Virginia,
Mandans,
Flatheads,
Killamucks,
Shastika,
Mohaves.
We may add here a short account of Negro-slavery among the Indians.
According to the census of 1860, several Indian tribes had
Negro-slaves. Our informant enumerates the Choctaws, Cherokees, Creeks
and Chickasaws. Slavery was carried on to a great extent; some owners
had from 50 to 200 slaves [195]. We may remember that all these tribes
originally had no slaves.
The Creeks already in Bartram’s time (1789) had slaves. He tells us of
a chief who kept 15 Negroes; they were slaves until they married Indian
women, and then acquired the privileges of the tribe. Schoolcraft
informs us that “if an Indian should murder a Negro, the law is
satisfied with the value of the Negro being paid to the owner” [196].
The Seminoles also had Negro-slaves, according to Roosevelt and Gregg
[197]. But Maccauley is not quite certain about it. He observed a few
Negroes living with them. It had been said that they were slaves; but
our informant is not of that opinion [198]. Maccauley’s account,
however, dates from a later period than the other statements.
The Shahnees in Gregg’s time also kept a few Negro slaves [199].
But these facts do not represent phenomena of unadulterated savage
life. These Indian tribes had already undergone great changes by
contact with the whites. Moreover, the Negroes kept by them as slaves
were in a very peculiar condition, living in a foreign continent
amongst foreign races. So we are justified in omitting these cases from
our list of slave-keeping Indian tribes.
§ 3. Central and South America.
About the treatment of prisoners by the wild tribes of North Mexico
Bancroft remarks: “Seldom is sex or age spared, and when prisoners are
taken, they are handed over to the women for torture, who treat them
most inhumanly, heaping upon them every insult devisable, besides
searing their flesh with burning brands, and finally burning them at
the stake, or sacrificing them in some equally cruel manner. Many cook
and eat the flesh of their captives, reserving the bones as trophies”
[200]. These particulars given, and no mention being made of slaves,
slavery probably does not exist among them.
Among the wild tribes of Central Mexico “the heads of the slain were
placed on poles and paraded through their villages in token of victory,
the inhabitants meanwhile dancing round them. Young children were
sometimes spared, and reared to fight in the ranks of their conquerors,
and in order to brutalize their youthful minds and eradicate all
feelings of affection toward their own kindred, the youthful captives
were given to drink the brains and blood of their murdered parents”
[201]. Whether these children became slaves is not quite clear; we
should think not, as they were “reared to fight in the ranks of their
conquerors”; but this may also be the case with slaves [202]. The lack
of further particulars prevents our arriving at a positive conclusion.
Bancroft’s notes on the wild tribes of South Mexico are very scanty.
They sacrificed their prisoners. The Mayas had female slaves [203].
Bancroft informs us that “one principal object of war among the ancient
nations of Honduras was to make slaves; but the Mosquito Coast was free
from this scourge, according to all accounts.” “When prisoners were
taken they were usually held as slaves, after having the nose cut
off.... The coast people ... usually kill their prisoners.” Wickham,
who gives a detailed account of the Woolwa or Soumoo of the Mosquito
Coast, makes no mention of slavery [204]. So the inhabitants of
Honduras had slaves, whereas those of the Mosquito Coast had not.
Slavery, according to Bancroft, was in force among the inhabitants of
the Isthmus of Panama and Costa Rica, with the exception of the Caribs.
“The prisoner is the slave of the captor; he is branded on the face and
one of his front teeth knocked out. The Caribs however used to kill and
eat their prisoners”. Gabb, who gives several particulars about the
tribes of Costa Rica, makes no mention of slavery. According to
Pokalowsky, the Indians of Coctu in Costa Rica, when conquered by the
Spaniards in the 16th century, had slaves. “They cut off the heads of
their prisoners and preserve them as trophies; the boys and girls of
the enemies are enslaved or sacrificed to their gods. If a master dies,
his slaves are killed and buried with him; this custom prevails here to
a greater extent than in any other part of India” [205].
Bancroft’s statement about the Caribs of the Isthmus is confirmed by
the fact that Pinart, who has largely drawn upon ancient Spanish
literature, makes no mention of slavery [206].
Rochefort speaks of slavery existing among the Caribs of the Antilles.
They believed, that the bravest warriors of their nation after death
would live in happy islands, and have their enemies, the Arawaks, for
slaves, whereas the cowards would be the slaves of the Arawaks. In
their wars with the Spaniards they did not kill the Negro slaves, but
took them with them and made them work. Sometimes slaves were killed
after their master’s death, to serve him in the other world. Male
prisoners were killed and eaten after a few days. Captive women became
slaves; their children were reared with those of the Caribs. Female
prisoners were sometimes taken for wives; then the children were free,
but the mothers remained slaves. In the isle of Saint Vincent there
were in Rochefort’s time English boys and girls, captured when very
young; they had quite forgotten their parents, and would not even
return with them, so accustomed were they to the mode of life of the
Caribs, who treated them very kindly, just as if they were of their own
nation. De la Borde makes no mention of slaves [207]. It seems to us
very doubtful whether slavery really existed here. Rochefort’s
statement that captive children were reared with those of the
conquerors is more suggestive of adoption of captives than of slavery,
and the enslavement of Negroes by the Indians is something foreign to
the aboriginal state of things, as has been said before. So we cannot
arrive at a definite conclusion.
The Continental Caribs, according to Gumilla, killed all their
prisoners, except the young women and children, whom they sold [208].
So slavery probably did not exist among them.
Ling Roth, in his article on Hispaniola or Hayti (inhabited by
Arawaks), makes no mention of slavery; but this does not prove much, as
his sources of information (early Spanish literature) were very
incomplete. For instance, he has not been able to find anything bearing
on the division of labour between the sexes [209].
The several describers of the Indians of Guiana [210] make no mention
of slavery. The tribes most fully described are the Arawaks, Warraus,
Macusi and Roucouyennes. Martius however states that the Arawaks have
slaves, who work in their houses and on the fields [211]. So we are not
certain about the Arawaks; but we may safely suppose that among the
three other tribes slavery does not exist.
The Saliva of Columbia, according to Gumilla, made war in order to
acquire slaves to till their lands [212].
In Sievers’, Reclus’ and Simons’ descriptions of the Goajiro no mention
is made of slaves [213]. According to De Brettes, however, “slavery
exists; but the slave is a member of the family, though looked upon as
an inferior being that may be killed if he refuses to obey”. A few more
details are added about these slaves [214]. Sievers, reviewing De
Brettes’ articles, remarks that this author is generally not very
trustworthy, but that the ethnographical parts are the best of his
work. Speaking of a photograph of Goajiro slaves given by De Brettes,
be adds: “If there can be any question at all of slavery among them”
[215]. On the same page, however, he translates De Brettes’
ethnographical account of the Goajiro, in which it is stated that
slavery exists, without any commentary. Considering all this, we cannot
arrive at any accurate conclusion.
De Lery, speaking of the ancient Tupinambas, describes at considerable
length the fate of their captives, who were killed and eaten; even the
child of a captive and a woman of their own tribe was not allowed to
live. Though an expert hunter or fisher, and a woman well able to work,
were preserved somewhat longer than the rest, all were invariably
killed after a few months. Nowhere in De Lery’s book does it appear,
that they made slaves by capture or by any other means [216]. According
to another ancient writer, however, they kept prisoners as slaves. The
slaves were kindly treated, allowed to marry free women, but finally
killed and eaten. They had to catch fish and game and to bring it to
their master. Without the master’s consent they were not allowed to
work for others. If they tried to escape and were caught, they were
killed. A slave, who died a natural death, was not buried but thrown
away in the bush [217]. All this is very suggestive of slavery. But the
fact, that D’Evreux got his information through an interpreter,
prevents us from decidedly concluding, against the testimony of our
other informants, that the Tupinambas kept slaves.
Martius remarks about the Indians of Brazil in general: “Many of these
tribes keep slaves.... Captivity in war is the only cause by which one
loses his freedom, especially if a male; for the husband may sell his
wife and children; but this is of rare occurrence” [218].
The Apiacas (a group of the Central Tupis), according to the same
author, in their wars kill all adult prisoners, male and female, and
eat them. Children they take with them and rear them with their own;
they make them work in the plantations; but when about twelve or
fourteen years old, these children are killed and eaten [219]. Though
these children may be kept in a somewhat slave-like state, a tribe that
kills its slaves when full-grown is not properly to be called a
slave-keeping tribe.
The same author informs us, that the Mundrucus and Mauhés have slaves
[220].
Of the Miranhas we are told that they enslave their prisoners; but
usually these prisoners are intended to be sold to the whites. It does
not appear whether any of them are kept for the Miranhas’ own use
[221].
Keane, von Tschudi and Ehrenreich make no mention of slavery among the
Botocudos. According to Zu Wied “the conqueror persecutes the
vanquished, and but seldom makes captives, at least among the
Botocudos; but on the Belmonte there are said to be seen some who were
used as slaves for all kinds of work” [222]. We do not know what this
last second-hand information of Zu Wied’s is worth; but we are
justified in inferring that the Botocudos in general (except those on
Rio Belmonte) have no slaves.
Azara states that in his time (he travelled in South America from 1781
to 1801) the Guaycurû had nearly died out, only one man being left
[223]. But according to Boggiani Guaycurû is a general name for the
tribes that inhabit the Gran Chaco [224], so this statement of Azara’s
seems to apply to a small division of the Guaycurû only. Southey and
Martius give some particulars about the slave system of the Guaycurû
[225]; but Colini, who has taken great pains to ascertain the identity
of these tribes, quotes these descriptions as referring to the Mbayás.
Of the ancient Guaycurû he says: “In their combats they gave no quarter
to the adult males; but they spared the lives of the youths, whom they
educated after their customs and gave in marriage to their daughters,
so as to augment the number of their tribe. Full-grown women were sold
to the neighbouring nations, who made them slaves” [226]. The only
captives whom they kept among them, the youths, were not slaves; so
slavery probably did not exist among them.
Two tribes inhabiting the Gran Chaco and so belonging to the Guaycurû
in Boggiani’s sense, are described by Thouar. Of the Chiriguanos he
says: “The prisoners are the property of their captors and must serve
the mistress of the hut.” In his description of the Tobas he makes no
mention of slavery [227]. Thouar, however, does not seem to be very
well informed [228].
The Mbayás, according to Azara, in his time had two kinds of slaves,
one composed of the Guanás, the other of Indian and Spanish prisoners
of war. But the former were no real slave class. The Guanás “used to
repair in troops to the Mbayás, to obey and serve them and till their
lands without any payment. Hence the Mbayás always call them their
slaves. This slavery is indeed very mild, as the Guaná voluntarily
submits to it, and leaves off whenever he likes.” Such “slaves”, who
lead a tribal life and come and go when they like, certainly are not
slaves. The others however were real slaves. They procured the fuel,
cooked the food, took care of the horses and tilled the land. When
Azara once offered a present to a Mbayá, the latter would not take it
himself, but ordered his slaves to receive it for him. Even the poorest
Mbayá had three of four slaves. During the mourning-time women and
slaves were not allowed to speak or eat any meat. One place in Azara’s
book seems to show that they had no slaves: “They said they had
received a divine command to wage war against all nations, kill the
adult males and adopt the women and children, in order to augment their
number.” But where the recorded tradition and the description of the
actual state of things disagree, we hold that the latter is to be
accepted [229]. Colini refers to Azara and Martius, and then adds:
“Serra however asserts that among the Mbayás slavery proper (la
schiavitù vera e propria) did not exist; the slaves might rather be
called servants.” They fought together with the freemen and took part
in the public council, even when it decided upon war and peace. They
married free persons, but were themselves looked upon as slaves. On the
master’s death, the sons or next relations, according to the rules of
inheritance, became masters of the slaves; but these rights were only
nominal. The slaves gradually merged into the tribe. Yet it was always
considered degrading to be a descendant of a slave; those who had in
their ancestry none but members of the tribe were very proud of it.
Generally the best slave girls were married to their masters; the boys
of greatest promise were treated as sons, whereas the others were set
to do the ruder work [230]. This account, however, does not prove that
the captives were not slaves. Some of the boys only were treated as
sons; what were the rest if not slaves? And even slaves may to a
certain degree be treated as sons. The slaves gradually coalesced with
the tribe (though not entirely); but we are told that this change took
place “through personal merits and intermarriage.” This shows that all
captives were not on a level with the freemen; probably it was only the
most deserving prisoners, and the offspring of slaves and freemen, who
attended the public council and were on an equal footing with the main
body of tribesmen. Slaves may be kindly treated and yet be slaves. Our
opinion is, that we have here a schiavitù vera e propria; the more so,
as the description given by Azara leads to the same conclusion.
The present Caduvei, according to Boggiani, are the same people as the
ancient Mbayás. Very probably he is right here. Yet we have seen how
much confusion there is in the application of the terms Guaycurû and
Mbayás; so we are a little sceptical. Moreover, there is a great lapse
of time between the early descriptions of the Mbayás and Boggiani’s
travels, and during that time their state of culture has greatly
changed; from nomadic hunters they have in the 19th century become
settled agriculturists [231]. So we are justified in treating them
separately. The Caduvei keep slaves. The slaves are well treated, but
looked upon as an inferior race. The ruder kinds of work, and the
tilling of the soil, fall to their share. As a rule they are kindly
treated, without being allowed to forget their duties. The Caduvei
exchange the slaves among them for horses, cattle and various
commodities [232].
Pohl states, that the Canoeiros had captured a young man and treated
him well [233]. Nothing more being added, we cannot make out whether
slavery exists.
Of the tribes of Central Brasil, visited by Von den Steinen, the
principal are the Bakaïri, Paressi, Bororo, Suya and Yuruna. In his
description of the Bakaïri, Paressi and Bororo he makes no mention of
slavery. If it existed, this careful observer would certainly have
mentioned it. Neither is a word about slaves to be found in Hensel’s
description of the Coroados, who are often identified with the Bororo
[234].
Among the Suya Von den Steinen observed Indians of other tribes, who
were kept as slaves. The presents, which the author gave to one of
these slaves, had to be delivered to his master [235].
The same writer speaks of captives residing among the Yuruna; but his
short remark on this subject cannot lead us to a safe conclusion as to
the existence of slavery among them [236].
The Karayas on Rio Araguaya keep captive women in a somewhat slave-like
state. Prisoners of war, adopted into the tribe, sometimes are made
chiefs if they have distinguished themselves [237]. This is not very
suggestive of slavery; but the details given are not sufficient for us
to arrive at a clear conclusion.
On the Záparos we get this scanty information. They are always at war,
killing many of the men, and stealing the women, children and chattels
of the enemies, the children either for use as servants or for sale. A
boy or girl stolen by them is commonly sold to traders [238].
Apparently the author himself is in doubt, whether any of these
captives are kept as slaves.
Some savage tribes of Peru are treated of by Ordinaire. In his account
of the Campas or Antis there is nothing bearing on slavery. He states
that he met with a Lorenzo child living among the Campas; but it is not
clear whether this was a slave; and the rest of his ample record makes
the existence of slavery rather improbable [239].
About the Conibos and kindred tribes the same writer remarks, that
among their wives there are some slaves captured from neighbouring
tribes. But as he states, that all the fatiguing work is incumbent on
women, it would seem, that there are no male slaves and therefore no
slavery proper. Prisoners of war are killed at their feasts [240]. From
a description of about a hundred years ago we learn, that these tribes
kept prisoners as slaves. Several of these slaves were observed among
the Panos; the masters treated them with as much affection as their own
children and married them to their daughters. The conquerors married
the captive women in order to augment the number of their tribe [241].
The details given are not sufficient to decide, whether the prisoners
merged into the tribe or constituted a slave class.
Smyth and Lowe, speaking of the Sencis of Peru, remark: “They give no
quarter, and take no prisoners in the battle.... The women and children
are taken for slaves, and if there are any in infancy, or much advanced
in age, they are killed as useless.” [242]. Whether the fate of the
captive women and children was really slavery, is not clear from this
short note.
The Guanas probably had no slaves. We are told that the head of the
tribe “is obliged to work for his subsistence, as nobody serves him”
[243].
As little does it appear that the Yuracarés and Mocéténès are
slave-keeping tribes. The former live in families, and even in these
subordination is unknown. The latter are not warlike [244]. It is not,
however, a first-rate authority to whom we owe these particulars.
The Chiquitos, according to the same author, in their wild state
attacked their neighbours, and made prisoners, to whom they gave their
own daughters as wives [245]. Whether these prisoners were slaves is
not clear; we should rather think not.
The Chapacuras were very peaceable, and but seldom attacked their
neighbours [246]. Whether slavery existed among them we are not told.
The Moxos, in D’Orbigny’s time, had already long been civilized and
christianized. What their political institutions were in their former
wild state we do not know [247].
Muratori, speaking of the Indians of Paraguay and some neighbouring
districts, states that they kill and eat their prisoners of war. Some
tribes, however, he tells us, are more peaceful and take all pains to
induce their prisoners to reside among them. Children of prisoners are
sold by some of the tribes to other nations [248]. From all this it
would seem that slavery did not exist. But we shall presently see, that
the other information we have got does not entirely agree with
Muratori’s general statement.
The principal native tribe of Paraguay were the Abipones, described at
large by Dobrizhoffer. The prisoners they made were very leniently
treated. They gave them the best of their food, and tended them when
ill. The prisoners had daily opportunity to run away, but they did not
desire it, for they were very contented. They were never beaten, nor
even reproved. They hunted and fought together with the Abipones. And
yet they were not merged into the nation of the Abipones; for the
Abipone women generally would marry only a man of their own people; and
the men never married female prisoners, nor had they any connection
with them. It appears that every captive was assigned to an individual
master. So we have here to deal with the fact, that one man is the
property of another beyond the limits of the family proper, i.e.
slavery, though slavery of an extraordinarily mild character [249].
The Payaguas in their wars killed all adult men, and preserved the
women and children. What became of the latter does not appear. The
Payaguas were absolutely free and did not recognize any difference of
classes. From this it is probable, though not certain, that they had no
slaves [250].
The Enimagas, according to Azara, were hunters; agriculture among them
was incumbent on slaves. No further particulars are given about these
slaves. The Enimagas are said formerly to have held the Mbayas in a
kind of slavery; but such a subjection of a tribe as a whole is not
slavery in the true sense; slavery is subjection of individuals. If the
“slaves” the Enimagas had in Azara’s time were of the same description,
they were not slaves [251]. So we cannot arrive here at any definite
conclusion.
D’Orbigny remarks, that the Charruas when at war killed all the men,
and preserved the women and children, whom they made concubines and
slaves [252]. As Azara’s statement is quite different, we shall
translate it literally: “All are equal; nobody serves another; or it
must be some old woman who, having no means of subsistence, joins some
family, or assists at the burying of the dead”. In their wars they kill
all they meet, preserving none but the women and the children under
twelve years of age. They take their prisoners along with them, and let
them enjoy their freedom; most of them marry there and get so much
accustomed to this mode of life, that they but rarely wish to return to
their own people [253]. Although such kind treatment is compatible with
slavery, Azara’s statement about nobody serving another is positive
enough to exclude all notion of slavery. Heusser and Claraz, who seem
to be well informed, make no mention of slavery [254]. This fact,
together with the above-quoted positive statement of Azara, who on the
whole seems to be better informed than D’Orbigny [255], and who also
treats this matter much more fully, leads us to conclude that they had
no slaves. The lapse of time between Azara’s and D’Orbigny’s travels
(from about 30 to 50 years) might account for the difference of their
descriptions; but it seems to us that so much importance need not be
attached to the latter’s short remark.
The Minuanes, according to Azara, resemble the Charruas in their mode
of warfare, and in acknowledging no social classes [256]. We may
therefore suppose them to have had no slaves.
The Patagons or Tehuelches, according to Musters and Falkner, have
slaves. The same is stated by Letourneau on the authority of Guimard
[257]. And as these authors not only assert that there are slaves, but
also give some particulars about them, we may be sure that slavery
really exists.
About the Puelches we get some information from Azara, who calls them
Pampas. “In war they kill all adult males, preserving none but the
women and young boys; these they take home and treat in the same manner
as the Charruas do. It is true, that they impose some kinds of work
upon them, and use them as slaves or servants until they marry; but
then they are as free as the others” [258]. Such men, who as soon as
they marry are on a level with the members of the tribe, certainly are
not slaves.
The Araucanians, according to D’Orbigny, kill their male enemies and
enslave the women and children [259]. Molina says: “The prisoners of
war, as is the custom of all semibarbarous nations, become tavaichi,
i.e. slaves, until they are exchanged or ransomed” [260]. In his
detailed description of Araucanian social life he makes no further
mention of slaves, nor do the other authors [261]. So we may suppose
that the prisoners are always exchanged or ransomed, and that slavery
is unknown among them.
About the Fuegians we have this positive statement of Hyades and
Déniker: “They have no chiefs, no labourers who work for pay, and no
slaves” [262]. This statement, already valuable in itself, is
corroborated by the fact, that none of the other authors we have
consulted on the subject make any mention of slavery [263].
Result. Positive Ancient nations of Honduras,
cases: Inhabitants of Panama and Costa Rica,
Mundrucus,
Mauhés,
Mbayas,
Caduvei,
Suya,
Abipones,
Tehuelches,
Arawaks,
Saliva,
Goajiro,
Tupinambas,
Chiriguanos,
Yuruna,
Sencis,
Enimagas.
Negative cases: Wild tribes of North Mexico,
Natives of the Mosquito Coast,
Caribs of the Isthmus,
Warraus,
Macusi,
Roucouyennes,
Apiacas,
Botocudos,
Bakairi,
Paressi,
Bororo,
Guanas,
Charruas,
Minuanes,
Puelches,
Araucanians,
Fuegians,
Wild tribes of Central Mexico,
Continental Caribs,
Guaycurû,
Tobas,
Karayas,
Zaparos,
Campas,
Conibos,
Yuracarès,
Mocéténès,
Chiquitos,
Chapacuras,
Payaguas.
No conclusion: Caribs of the Antilles,
Wild tribes of South Mexico,
Natives of Hispaniola,
Miranhas,
Canoeiros,
Moxos.
§ 4. Australia.
The Australian tribes, as they are marked on the map in Mr. Thomas’s
book on the “Natives of Australia”, are the following:
In Western Australia: Yerkla-mining,
In South Australia: Eucla,
Arunta,
Urabunna,
Dieri,
Narrinyeri,
Booandik,
Wotjoballak,
In South Australia (N. Territory): Mara,
Anula,
Worgaia,
Warramunga,
Kaitish,
In Victoria: Wolgai,
Wurinyeri,
Kurnai,
Bangerang,
In N. S. Wales: Tongaranka,
Euahlayi,
Kamilaroi,
Wiimbaio,
Geawegal,
Yuin,
Murring,
In Queensland: Otati,
Pitta Pitta,
Kiabara,
Kabi,
Turribul.
The extinct Tasmanians also belonged to the Australian group.
Nowhere in all the books and articles we have consulted on the
Australian tribes is any mention made of slaves [264]. Now it is true
that, whereas on many of these tribes we are well informed, there are
others on which we have little information or no information at all.
But here our group-argument may be brought to bear. We have to deal
here with an isolated district, inhabited by tribes living in similar
conditions and physically and psychically resembling each other, so
much so, that some ethnographers [265] and theorists [266] speak of the
Australians as if they were one people, as if all Australians were in
exactly the same state of culture. This really is erroneous: there are
many differences in several respects between the Australian tribes
[267]. But that they can be treated in this manner, proves that the
differences are not so very great; it is unimaginable, that Grosse
would have spoken in the same way of the American Indians or the
Negroes. What we mean to say now is this: our information on some
Australian tribes is not sufficient to prove that just in that district
which each particular account relates to, slavery does not exist. But
then the several accounts strengthen each other; for taking into
consideration the great likeness existing between the Australian
tribes, it is a priori unlikely that some of these tribes would have
and others would not have slaves. Moreover, if in any part of Australia
slavery existed, our informants probably would have found this too
remarkable a fact to leave it unnoticed.
As little mention is made of slaves by those ethnographers who speak of
the Australians in general [268]. According to Brough Smyth, “each of
the principal men and priests seeks for his food, and ministers to his
own wants (with such help as he gets from his wives); and has no one
whom he can call servant” [269]. Gerland states that the Australians
make no captives, except women sometimes [270].
All this makes it sufficiently clear that the Australians have no
slaves [271]. The 30 tribes we have enumerated here may therefore rank
as clear cases of savage tribes without slaves.
§ 5. Melanesia.
Rochas, describing the New Caledonians, writes: “Slavery does not exist
in the New Caledonian society” [272]. Lambert tells us that the only
division into social classes is that between the chief and his parents
and the common people. Captive children are adopted and enjoy all the
privileges of their adoptive parents’ own children [273]. Brainne
informs us, that there are two social classes: chiefs of various kinds,
and serfs; the latter term probably means the common people. De Vaux
and Legrand make no mention whatever of slaves [274]. According to
Glaumont there are four classes, the fourth of which is composed of
slaves (en-dji-dio) [275]. But no further particulars are given about
these slaves in his rather long article. Taking all this in
consideration, we are justified in concluding that slavery does not
exist.
On the state of things in the Solomon Islands we are well informed by
several authors. Elton says: “If a man is married and has got a little
money and a few slaves, he calls himself a chief, but does not exercise
any power over his slaves; they do pretty well as they like” [276].
Guppy gives this general description of slavery in the Solomon Islands:
“In the larger islands the bush-tribes and the coast-natives wage an
unceasing warfare, in which the latter are usually the aggressors and
the victors—the bushmen captured during these raids either affording
materials for the cannibal feast or being detained in servitude by
their captors. But there prevails in the group a recognized system of
slave-traffic, in which a human being becomes a marketable
commodity—the equivalent being represented in goods either of native or
of foreign manufacture. This custom, which came under the notice of
Surville’s expedition, during their visit to Port Praslin in Isabel, in
1769, obtains under the same conditions at the present time. These
natives were in the habit of making voyages of ten and twelve days’
duration with the object of exchanging men for “fine cloths covered
with designs”, articles which were manufactured by a race of people
much fairer than their own, who were in all probability the inhabitants
of Ontong Java. The servitude to which the victims of this traffic are
doomed is not usually an arduous one. But there is one grave
contingency attached to his thraldom which must be always before the
mind of the captive, however lightly his chains of service may lie upon
him. When a head is required to satisfy the offended honour of a
neighbouring chief, or when a life has to be sacrificed on the
completion of a tambu house or at the launching of a new war-canoe, the
victim chosen is usually the man who is not a free-born native of the
village. He may have been bought as a child and have lived amongst them
from his boyhood up, a slave only in name, and enjoying all the rights
of his fellow natives. But no feelings of compassion can save him from
his doom; and the only consideration which he receives at the hands of
those with whom he may have lived on terms of equality for many years
is to be found in the circumstance that he gets no warning of his fate”
[277].
The notes of the other ethnographers relate to single parts of this
group. Verguet states that in St. Christoval (in the southeastern part
of the group) the slaves “are treated as adopted children; the slave
cultivates the master’s fields together with the master himself; he
helps him to prepare the food and accompanies him when hunting or
fighting; he shares in his pleasures as well as in his work; when the
tribe celebrates a feast, the slaves are not excluded from it. When
full-grown, they marry into their master’s tribe, erect their houses
next to their master’s house or share the latter. Sometimes the master
does not disdain to marry his slave” [278]. Codrington, whose notes
mainly relate to the same parts of the group, remarks: “There is no
such thing as slavery properly so called. In head-hunting expeditions
prisoners are made for the sake of their heads, to be used when
occasion requires, and such persons live with their captors in a
condition very different from that of freedom, but they are not taken
or maintained for the purposes of service. In the same islands when a
successful attack and massacre enriches the victors with many heads,
they spare and carry off children, whom they bring up among their own
people. Such a seka will certainly be killed for a head or for a
sacrifice before any native member of the community; but he lives as an
adopted member, shares the work, pleasure and dangers of those with
whom he dwells, and often becomes a leading personage among them. A
refugee or a castaway is not a slave but a guest; his life is naturally
much less valued than that of a man of the place, and useful services
are expected from him, while he mixes freely and on equal terms with
the common people” [279]. Guppy says: “I will turn for a moment to the
subject of slavery in the eastern islands of the group. In Ugi it is
the practice of infanticide which has given rise to a slave-commerce
regularly conducted with the natives of the interior of St. Christoval.
Three-fourths of the men of this island were originally bought as
youths to supply the place of the natural offspring killed in infancy.
But such natives when they attain manhood virtually acquire their
independence, and their original purchaser has but little control over
them.... Connected in the manner above shown with the subject of
slavery is the practice of cannibalism. The completion of a new
tambu-house is frequently celebrated among the St. Christoval natives
by a cannibal feast. Residents in that part of the group tell me that
if the victim is not procured in a raid amongst the neighbouring tribes
of the interior, some man is usually selected from those men in the
village who were originally purchased by the chief. The doomed man is
not enlightened as to the fate which awaits him, and may perhaps have
been engaged in the erection of the very building at the completion of
which his life is forfeited”. On the neighbouring small island of Santa
Anna the natives are reputed to abstain from human flesh; but “the
war-chief has acquired a considerable fortune, in a native’s point of
view, by following the profitable calling of purveyor of human flesh to
the man-eaters of the adjacent coasts of St. Christoval.... I am told
that there is a faint gleam of tender feeling shown in the case of a
man who, by long residence in the village, has almost come to be looked
upon as one of themselves. He is allowed to remain in ignorance of the
dreaded moment until the last; and, perhaps, he may be standing on the
beach assisting in the launching of the very canoe in which he is
destined to take his final journey, when suddenly he is laid hold of,
and in a few moments more he is being ferried across to the man-eaters
of the opposite coast” [280].
From the foregoing statements it appears that the so-called slaves are
kept either for cannibal purposes or to strengthen the number of the
tribe into which they are incorporated. Hence we may safely infer, in
accordance with Codrington, that slavery proper does not exist in the
south-eastern part of the group.
Somerville, describing the New Georgia group (in the centre of the
Solomon Islands), remarks: “Slavery certainly exists, but it is in so
mild a form that it is scarcely possible to detect master from man. I
have never been able to elicit any facts concerning its introduction,
propagation or limits, or even if (in so many words) it existed at
all.” “I was informed that slaves are kept chiefly for their heads,
which are demanded whenever any occasion necessitates them, such as the
death of the owner” [281]. Ribbe, too, speaks of slaves in the New
Georgia group. On the isle of Wella-La-Wella the household commonly
consists of the man with his wives, slaves and unmarried daughters. On
Rubiana the master treats his slaves like his equals, but may at any
time kill and eat them [282]. The following statement of Woodford’s
also relates to New Georgia: “On their expeditions it is not heads
alone that they bring back, but slaves as well. These are either bought
or captured alive, and it is from among these slaves that the victims
are selected in case a head is required. They appear to be well treated
in other ways, and to have as much liberty as they please; in fact,
seem to be on a perfect footing of equality and familiarity with their
captors. But any day a head may be wanted to celebrate the completion
of a new canoe or other work, and one of the luckless slaves is
unexpectedly called upon to furnish it. Mercifully for the victim, the
blow falls from behind and unexpectedly. These slaves are often
employed as guides to lead a party of head-hunters unexpectedly upon
the mountain villages on Ysabel, whence they originally came” [283].
These details do not make it quite clear whether the condition of the
“slaves” in the New Georgia group is not yet slavery or slavery in an
incipient stage. We should rather think the latter; but we are not
certain about it.
Parkinson’s description of the north-western part of the group applies
mainly to the isles of Bouka and Bougainville. In Bougainville
individuals belonging to the inland tribes are sometimes enslaved by
the coast people. Male slaves are not allowed to marry. (This has
probably reference to both Bouka and Bougainville). At the death of a
person of rank a slave was formerly, and in some parts still is killed
[284]. Ribbe also states that in Bougainville slavery exists, though in
a mild form, most of the slaves being children captured in war. In the
Shortland Islands (to the south of Bougainville) slaves are prisoners
of war, most of them being imported from Bougainville. They are well
treated and not seldom attain power and consideration and even can
marry the chiefs relations. Those slaves, however, who are not so
fortunate, run the risk of being sacrificed at funeral feasts, at the
building of a house or the launching of a canoe. On the fields the
roughest work falls to the share of the slaves [285]. Guppy, speaking
of the small isle of Treasury (near Bougainville), says: “There are in
Treasury several men and women who, originally bought as slaves from
the people of Bouka and Bougainville, now enjoy apparently the same
privileges and freedom of action as their fellow islanders. It is
sometimes not a matter of much difficulty to single out the slaves
amongst a crowd of natives. On one occasion I engaged a canoe of
Faromen to take me to a distant part of their island; and very soon
after we started I became aware from the cowed and sullen condition of
one of the crew that he was a slave. On inquiry I learned that this man
had been captured when a boy in the island of Bougainville, and I was
informed that if he was to return to his native place—a bush-village
named Kiata—he would undoubtedly be killed. Although in fact a slave, I
concluded from the bearing of the other men towards him that his
bondage was not a very hard one; and he evidently appeared to enjoy
most of the rights of a native of the common class. Sukai, however, for
such was his name, had to make himself generally useful in the course
of the day; and when at the close of the excursion we were seated
inside the house of a man who provided us with a meal of boiled taro,
sweet potatoes, and bananas, he was served with his repast on the beach
outside” [286].
We see that the difference between slaves and free men is more marked
here than in the other parts of the Solomon group. Neither with regard
to their work nor with regard to their social position are the slaves
on a footing of equality with the free men. The conclusion is that in
the north-western part of the group slavery certainly exists.
In the Nissan Islands, lying between the Solomon group and the Bismarck
Archipelago, there are no slaves. Prisoners of war are killed and eaten
[287].
Several describers of the Fijians speak of slaves, but it is not easy
to say what they mean by the term. According to Wilkes, there are five
social classes, viz. kings, chiefs, warriors, landholders and slaves
(kai-si). “The last have nominally little influence; but in this group,
as in other countries, the mere force of numbers is sufficient to
counterbalance or overcome the force of the prescriptive rights of the
higher and less numerous classes. This has been the case at Amban,
where the people at no distant period rose against and drove out their
kings.” In another place the same writer speaks of “the kai-si or
common people.” [288]. We see that “slaves,” “people” and “common
people” are synonymous terms with him. Williams equally states that the
lowest class was composed of slaves, but gives no particulars about the
condition of these slaves. Prisoners of war were barbarously tortured
[289]. In a legend told by Seemann mention is made of a woman who had
female slaves. But in another place the distinction into social classes
is drawn between the chiefs and gentry and the common people [290].
Waterhouse does not speak of slaves [291]. In Jackson’s narrative,
published by Erskine, we read: “The lowest condition of all, the
consequence of some late total defeat, or conquest, is absolute
slavery, the districts where such a state exists being called vanua
kaisis or slave lands”. “I visited nearly all the vanua kaisis ... the
meaning of vanua kaisi being slave-places, the inhabitants of which are
supposed to supply Tanoa’s and Thakombau’s [two chiefs’] houses with
daily food, and build the houses and keep them in repair; ... they also
pay tribute periodically.” Evidently we have to deal here with
subjection of districts as such, not with enslavement of individuals.
In another place of this narrative, kaisi is translated with “slave or
poor man”. But the same writer gives some details suggestive of real
slavery. An enemy, whose life I had saved, he says, “called and
considered himself my kaisi (slave)”. “Mara’s mother was saved when
Tanoa conquered Lakemba, and was considered as a prisoner, and
consequently as a slave” [292].
Though some of the details given seem to prove that there were formerly
not only people of the lowest class and inhabitants of conquered
districts, but also slaves in the proper sense, we are not quite
certain about it.
Codrington’s above quoted statement, that “there is no such thing as
slavery properly so called”, applies also to a part of the New
Hebrides. Meinicke, after speaking of the chiefs, adds: “The rest of
the people are free men” [293]. Our other informants [294] making no
mention of slavery, we may safely infer that it does not exist here.
The Bismarck Archipelago consists of Neu Pommern, Neu Mecklenburg and a
number of smaller islands. Danks gives an elaborate account of marriage
customs in this group, in which there is not a word to be found about
slaves. Pfeil’s description also applies to the whole archipelago.
According to him, debtors have to work for their creditors, but their
condition is not that of slaves. Slavery, in the sense we attach to it,
does not exist. Sale of full-grown people, as well as unrewarded
labour, is unknown. Children are bought, but only for the purpose of
adoption, and are not sold again. Boys, who run away to some other
tribe, are equally adopted. [295]
The information we have got about the separate islands does not wholly
agree with these general statements.
The best known part of Neu Pommern is the Gazelle Peninsula. According
to Hahl, slavery, in the country about Blanche Bay, is known by name,
but practically absent. On the north coast, however, it is general. The
Baining (an inland tribe) are kidnapped or captured in battle and sold
by the coast people, who prefer taking children. The slaves are not
allowed to marry; they have to perform female labour, especially to
cultivate the plantations, and always run the risk of being killed and
eaten at feasts. In the districts surrounding Mount Varzin some Taulil
(another inland tribe) are kept as slaves. Parkinson, in his splendid
work on the German possessions in the South Sea, also speaks of slaves.
Great numbers of Baining were formerly enslaved by the coast people,
who sold them to remote parts of the peninsula. The Taulil also were
victims of the slave raids; men and youths were killed, women and
children were made captives [296].
It is remarkable that Parkinson, describing the social organisation of
the several tribes, does not make any mention of a slave class or of
the work imposed on slaves. The social signification of slavery
therefore seems to be small. Yet the foregoing statements must lead to
the conclusion that slavery exists, at least in some parts of the
peninsula.
In his description of Neu Mecklenburg and neighbouring islands,
Parkinson also makes mention of slaves. On the isle of Lir or Lihir,
the chief, when about to give a cannibal repast, gathers around him his
whole tribe, inclusive of the slaves, who have been captured in war.
And on St. John’s Island slaves are said formerly to have been boiled
in the hot springs. These short notes do not seem to prove sufficiently
the existence of slavery, the less so, as Romilly, in his account of
Neu Mecklenburg, has not a word about slaves [297].
Speaking of the tribes inhabiting the Admiralty Islands, Parkinson
states that among the Usiai prisoners of war are allowed to buy their
liberty; if unable to do so, they are made slaves. Further particulars
are not given. Among the Moanus the retinue of the chief consists of
his nearest relations, further of servants or soldiers whom he has
attached to his person by payment of shell-money, and finally of youths
and boys captured in battle. The servants fight and work for their
lord, but enjoy a rather independent position. We are not sure whether
we have to deal here with slavery or with a voluntary submission. So
the existence of slavery in the Admiralty group, though probable in
some degree, does not seem to us to be proved as yet. As little is a
positive conclusion warranted by Parkinson’s statement, that in the
group of small islands to the west of the Admiralty group wars between
the separate islands were formerly frequent, owing to the slave
stealing propensities of the natives [298].
In the islands of Torres Straits, according to Meinicke, there is no
government and no social division, except the division into tribes.
Haddon, describing the western tribes of Torres Straits, says: “I never
heard of slavery being practised” [299]. So slavery is probably unknown
here.
The rest of this paragraph will be taken up with a survey of New Guinea
and in the first place of the Dutch part of the island.
Bink and Krieger both state the Papuans of Humboldt Bay have no slaves,
neither are slaves mentioned in Koning’s account [300].
In the district of Tabi some men were observed, who had their hair cut
short; according to a Dorey interpreter, they were slaves [301]. This
short note is not, however, sufficient to go upon.
The inhabitants of Seroei are much given to the kidnapping of slaves,
whom they sell. Whether they keep any slaves themselves, does not
appear [302].
The Papuans near Lake Sentani keep neither slaves nor pawns [303].
The natives of Ansus purchase many slaves, and sell slaves to Ternate
traders [304]. In this case, too, we are not told, whether all the
purchased slaves are sold abroad, or any of them are kept by the
natives.
The aborigines of Windessi in their raids make prisoners “to whom they
give the name of woman, slave” [305]. This short note does not enable
us to arrive at a clear conclusion.
Goudswaard says of the Papuans of Geelvinck Bay generally: “The Papuan
steals men, makes them slaves, and despises them.” “The wars of the
Papuans are little more than raids, in which they burn the houses of
their enemies, destroy their gardens, and if possible make women and
children prisoners, to restore them later on for an adequate ransom, or
else to keep them as slaves or exchange them” [306].
The accounts, given by Van Hasselt and De Clercq, prove that slavery
exists among the Nuforese [307].
The inhabitants of Dorey and Roon belong to the Nuforese. Rosenberg
gives some particulars about slavery in Dorey, and Robidé has a few
notes on slaves kept by the inhabitants of Roon [308].
Slavery also exists among the natives of Arfak [309].
The Hattamers, however, who live in the Arfak mountains, have no
slaves. “The Hattamers,” says Robidé, “keep no slaves; in their wars
with neighbouring tribes they do not enslave the prisoners, but cut off
their heads, which they bring home as trophies” [310].
The Karons, according to Bruijn, capture slaves from their neighbours,
but whether they keep them for their own use is not quite clear.
Another author tells us that they eat their prisoners [311].
The existence of slavery among the Papuans of the Gulf of Maccluer is
made probable by De Clercq’s and Strauch’s notes [312]. Another author
observed slaves in some districts at the south-west side of this gulf;
the population of these districts is a mongrel race of Buginese,
emigrants from Serang, and Papuans [313].
Slavery exists on the isle of Adie and along the Gulf of Kaimani [314].
The Papuans of Ayambori have no slaves [315].
In Krieger’s elaborate account of the natives of British and German New
Guinea there is not a word about slaves. Hence it would appear that
they are unacquainted with slavery and we shall presently see that this
conclusion is strengthened by the information we get about the separate
tribes.
Thomson states that several tribes of British New Guinea in warfare
kill alike men, women and children [316], and in the descriptions of
single tribes: Motu, Mowat, Toaripi, natives on the mouth of the
Wanigela River, no mention is made of slavery [317].
As for German New Guinea, Maclay does not speak of slaves and Finsch
says that every Papuan warrior considers it an honour to kill women and
children [318].
Among the Yabim slavery does not exist [319].
The same is the case among the natives of the Tami Islands [320].
Slavery is equally unknown among the Tamoes of Bogadjim [321] and the
natives of the adjacent Dampier Island [322].
Result. Positive North-western Solomon Islanders,
cases: Natives of the Gazelle Peninsula,
Nuforese,
Papuans of Arfak,
,, on the Gulf of Maccluer,
,, of Adie,
,, on the Gulf of Kaimani,
Central Solomon Islanders,
Fijians,
Natives of Neu Mecklenburg and neighbouring islands,
Admiralty Islanders,
Papuans of Tabi,
,, ,, Ansus.
Negative cases: New Caledonians,
South-eastern Solomon Islanders,
Nissan Islanders,
New Hebridians,
Natives of Torres Straits,
Papuans of Humboldt Bay,
,, near Lake Sentani,
Hattamers
Papuans of Ayambori,
Motu,
Mowat,
Toaripi,
Papuans on the mouth of the Wanigela river,
Yabim,
Natives of the Tami Islands,
Tamoes,
Natives of Dampier Island.
No conclusion: Papuans of Seroei,
,, ,, Windessi,
Karons.
§ 6. Polynesia.
All authors agree that the Maori of New Zealand had slaves; and the
many details they give prove that slavery really existed [323].
The Tongans, according to Meinicke, had slaves, partly prisoners of
war, partly condemned criminals [324]. Gerland, referring to a
missionary report, speaks of slaves, tamaiveiki [325]. But in his very
minute description of Tongan government and social classes [326] he
gives no more particulars about these slaves; and Mariner who,
according to Gerland, is very reliable [327], makes no mention of
slavery. Mariner enumerates five social classes; the lowest class were
the tooas, the bulk of the people, consisting of a. a few warriors, b.
professed cooks in the service of the chiefs, c. those who tilled the
soil and had no other occupation [328]. Mariner only makes mention of
captive women, so it is probable that no men were taken prisoners in
their wars [329]. West states that there was a monarchical despotism,
supported by an hereditary aristocracy. The people were divided into
several, strictly separated, classes. The lowest class where the tuas,
common people, subdivided into different trades: carpenters, fishermen,
etc. The feudal principle, that the whole country belonged exclusively
to the king, made the people slaves [330]. Such “slavery” of a whole
people is not, however, slavery in the true sense of the word. Of
slavery proper West makes as little mention as Mariner. We may,
therefore, safely suppose that Meinicke and Gerland have been mistaken,
and that slavery did not exist here.
With reference to Samoa Gerland speaks of two political parties who
were always at war, “but they do not destroy their adversaries”, he
says, “nor enslave them, as frequently members of the same family
belong to different parties” [331]. According to Meinicke the prisoners
were at different times differently disposed of; but among these modes
of treatment slavery is not mentioned [332]. Wilkes states that their
wars “were attended with great cruelty, and neither old or young of
either sex were spared” [333]. Turner, a good authority, remarks:
“Prisoners, if men, were generally killed; if women, distributed among
the conquerors” [334]. We are not told whether these women were
married, or kept in a slave-like state; but even in the last case this
would be slavery of women only, and therefore not slavery in the proper
sense. Krämer is the only author who speaks of slaves. The conquered
party had to ask the pardon of the conquerors and to bring firewood as
if to show that they considered themselves worth to be eaten like pigs.
Often also they had to perform degrading work as slaves (pologa), to
pay a tribute or even to furnish human flesh for cannibal purposes
[335]. It would seem that this degrading work was imposed upon the
conquered as a temporary punishment and that we have not to deal here
with a permanent system of forced labour as among slave-keeping tribes.
This being the only reference to slavery in Krämer’s very detailed
description of the Samoans, and slavery not being mentioned by any of
our other informants [336], we may safely infer that it did not exist.
Gardiner, in his excellent article on Rotuma, says: “Slaves as such did
not properly exist” [337].
Gerland and Meinicke, enumerating the social classes in the Rarotonga
group (or Hervey Islands, or Cook’s Islands), make no mention of
slaves. According to Meinicke, the lowest class are the common people
[338]. So slavery seems to have been unknown here.
In Tahiti, according to Ellis, “the lowest class included the titi and
the teuteu, the slaves and servants; the former were those who had lost
their liberty in battle, or who, in consequence of the defeat of the
chieftains to whom they were attached, had become the property of the
conquerors. This kind of slavery appears to have existed among them
from time immemorial. Individuals captured in actual combat, or who
fled to the chief for protection when disarmed or disabled in the
field, were considered the slaves of the captor or chief by whom they
were protected. The women, children and others who remained in the
districts of the vanquished, were also regarded as belonging to them;
and the lands they occupied, together with their fields and
plantations, were distributed among the victors.... If peace continued,
the captive frequently regained his liberty after a limited servitude,
and was permitted to return to his own land, or remain in voluntary
service with his master” [339]. Though the second kind of slaves Ellis
enumerates, the subjects of vanquished chiefs, probably were not
slaves, and the frequent liberating of captive slaves proves that
slavery was not of great significance, it would seem from Ellis’s
account that to a limited extent it was present. Another ancient
writer, however, tells us that the lowest class were the common
servants, called toutou, or, when they were in the service of women,
tuti. Nobody was obliged to serve longer than he liked. The manahoune
or peasants, who worked for the nobility, were also free to change
their master or remove to another district. Hence we should infer that
slavery did not exist [340]. Moerenhout says: In the Society Islands
there were no slaves; the people served the chiefs voluntarily.
Prisoners of war, men, women, and children, were almost always
mercilessly murdered [341]. Considering the details given by Ellis, who
was very well informed, we are inclined, notwithstanding the contrary
statements of the other writers, to conclude that slavery existed in
Tahiti, but we are not quite certain about it.
Of Hawaii Ellis says: “The wives and children of those whom they had
defeated were frequently made slaves, and attached to the soil for its
cultivation, and, together with the captives, treated with great
cruelty.” Captives were sometimes spared, “though perhaps spared only
to be slaves, or to be sacrificed when the priests should require human
victims. The persons of the captives were the property of the victors,
and their lives entirely at their disposal.” But in enumerating the
social classes he makes no mention of slaves. “In the fourth [lowest]
rank may be included the small farmers, who rent from ten to twenty or
thirty acres of land; the mechanics ... indeed, all the labouring
classes, those who attach themselves to some chief or farmer, and
labour on his land for their food and clothing, as well as those who
cultivate small portions of land for their own advantage” [342]. In the
accounts of the other writers, who knew the ancient institutions of
Hawaii by observation or personal information, we do not find anything
tending to prove that slavery existed. Wilkes, in his very detailed
account of government and land tenure, does not speak of slaves. “The
authority” he says “descended in the scale of rank, rising from the
lowest class of servants to tenants, agents, landholders, land-owners,
petty chiefs, high chiefs, and the king” [343]. Chamisso expressly
states that slavery was absent. The common people were entirely
subjected to the chiefs, but there were no slaves or serfs. Peasants
and servants were allowed to remove to any place they liked. The people
were free; they could be killed, but not sold or retained [344]. Remy
tells us that the common people were heavily oppressed by the chiefs.
Slaves are not mentioned by him. Prisoners were sacrificed [345]. All
this renders the existence of slavery in ancient Hawaii very improbable
and so we think we are justified, notwithstanding the second-hand
information, furnished by Meinicke, that there were a few slaves [346],
and Marcuse’s short remark, that “to allure the sharks, they
occasionally made human sacrifices, especially among the slaves” [347],
in concluding that slavery did not exist.
Hale states that in the Marquesas Islands there were no slaves [348].
The same follows from Radiguet’s description. According to this writer,
the natives were divided into the nobles and the common people. The
latter served the nobles, but were free at any time to leave their
employers [349]. According to Meinicke prisoners were either sacrificed
and eaten, or spared and adopted into the conquering tribe [350]. De
Rocquefeuil also states that the prisoners were eaten, unless, by the
priests’ intervention, they were buried; at any rate they were killed
[351]. Moerenhout tells us that the sole object of their wars was to
obtain a cannibal repast [352]. From all this we may safely infer that
there were no slaves and that Gerland, stating that “slaves were rare;
like the foreigners, who were always regarded as enemies, they had no
rights, could be quite arbitrarily treated and even killed” [353], has
mistaken for slaves persons intended to be sacrificed. Letourneau holds
the same view of the matter: “Everything seems to indicate, that
slavery did not exist in the Marquesas Islands” [354].
The natives of Tukopia, according to Gerland, formerly kept slaves, who
were prisoners of war [355]. No more details are given.
Wilkes, speaking of the Paumotu group, observes that Anaa or Chain
Island “is said to contain five thousand inhabitants, which large
number is accounted for by the conquest of the other islands, and
taking their inhabitants off as captives”. The influence of the
missionaries caused a change in “the treatment of their captives, whom
they allowed to return, if they chose, to their own island; but very
many of them had married at Anaa, and became permanent residents there,
and few have taken advantage of the permission to return” [356].
Whether the captives mentioned here were kept as slaves is not clear.
Moerenhout tells us that the natives of the Paumotu group often
preserved their prisoners to eat them later on at feasts [357]. We
cannot arrive at a definite conclusion here.
Geiseler states that on Easter Island male prisoners of war were
formerly eaten. Captured women and girls, however, were not killed, but
given to young warriors. Slaves are not mentioned. The king had
absolute power over the common people [358]. It would seem that slavery
was absent here; but we are not quite certain about it, as Geiseler
describes a state of things existing long before his visit to the
island.
In the Abgarris, Marqueen and Tasman groups, according to Parkinson,
there are three social classes, the chiefs and their parents, the
nobles and priests, and the common people [359]. Hence we may safely
infer, that slavery does not exist.
Result. Positive cases: Maori,
Tahitians.
Negative cases: Tongans,
Samoans,
Rotumians,
Rarotonga Islanders,
Hawaiians,
Marquesas Islanders,
Abgarris, Marqueen and Tasman Islanders,
Easter Islanders.
No conclusion: Tukopia Islanders,
Paumotu Islanders.
§ 7. Micronesia.
According to Meinicke none of the describers of the Marshall Islands
make mention of slaves. Gerland, too, does not speak of slaves [360].
According to Hernsheim the lowest class is composed of the poor, the
armidwon or kajur. They are forbidden to take more than one wife. The
next class is that of the leadagedag, who own property, have in most
instances three wives, and are provided with food by the kajur [361].
Kubary says: “The common people are called armidj kajur and form the
greater part of the subjects. They have no property, except the land
allotted to them by the chief, who can take it from them at his
pleasure. Every week they have, each of them, to provide the chief with
prepared food, the quantity and quality of which are determined”. These
people, according to Kubary, form the lowest class [362]. Hager quite
agrees with Kubary, to whom he frequently refers [363]. Senfft states
that sale or pawning of men is unknown. Captives, domestic slaves,
debt-slaves etc. are not found. The lowest class are the armidj kajur
or common people, who own no property. Hence we might infer that
slavery does not exist. But in another place the same writer remarks
that only the upper classes (kings, relations of kings and chiefs of
districts) are free, the rest of the population being unfree and
presenting all the characteristics of slaves. The armidj has no rights,
everything he acquires is the property of his chief. The chief has over
him the right of life and death. Yet we do not think the writer means
to say that these people of very low standing are really slaves, i.e.
the individual property of the chiefs. They are not bought and sold, as
is generally the case with slaves. The armidj do not become such
through captivity in war or indebtedness, the common manners in which
people are made slaves. So some of the ordinary features of slavery are
wanting. This already renders the existence of slavery doubtful. But we
think the following passage in Senfft’s description clearly shows that
the armidj are not slaves: “The armidj cannot leave the tribe without
the consent of his chief, but as most often he belongs by birth to
several chiefs, he can go over from the tribe of one of his chiefs to
that of another, i.e., he can place himself under the immediate control
of the other chief by rendering him services, especially by tilling his
land. He commonly does so, when he is badly treated.” From this it
appears that the armidj is not the individual property of his chief;
else he would not be able to change his condition so easily. We think
his relation to the chief is rather that of a subject to a petty despot
[364]. This conclusion is strengthened by what we learn from other
recent descriptions. Krämer makes no mention of slaves. The lowest
class, according to him, are the kajur or common people [365]. In a
report regarding the isle of Jaluit it is equally stated that the
lowest class are the armidj kajur or common people, who own no land.
They have to work for the landowners and to provide them with food.
This is more suggestive of tenancy than of slavery. It is true that the
writer calls them unfree; but then he says, that their becoming free
was synonymous with their rising to the rank of a chief, so it seems
that by “unfree” he means people whose condition is below that of the
chiefs and nobles [366]. Taking all this into consideration, we think
we may safely infer that there are no slaves in the Marshall group.
Though the isle of Nauru is often regarded as belonging to the Marshall
group, its situation is rather isolated and the social organisation of
the population is different from that on the other islands of the
group, so we think we must treat it separately. Krämer remarks that
there are three classes: chiefs, middle class and slaves. The chiefs
have unlimited power over the slaves, who are not allowed to marry
without their consent. A murderer in most cases has to yield his land
to the parents of his victim, but when there are attenuating
circumstances, he is allowed to give slaves as a compensation [367].
Jung gives more details. He speaks of serfs or slaves, but what he
tells about them is not very suggestive of slavery. The serfs, unlike
the other classes, own no land. A native who is supposed to have killed
another by means of sorcery becomes the serf of the parents of his
victim and his property is taken away. Many families stand in the
relation of serfs to the chiefs and other people of rank. The power of
the lords over these slaves is said formerly to have been very great.
The origin of serfdom was this. In their wars, families belonging to
the conquered party were driven from their lands and had to seek their
subsistence elsewhere. They then applied to a powerful chief, put
themselves under his protection and became entirely dependent on him.
In later times these serfs were placed by the chief as agents on their
own former property on condition of delivering the produce to him. It
then sometimes happened that these agents or their children behaved as
owners of the lands they lived upon and so came into conflict with the
chief [368]. From this account it appears that the so-called serfs
nowadays are not in a slave-like condition. Whether in former times
they were really slaves is not clear; we should rather think their
state was one of voluntary submission to a landowner; but we cannot
arrive at a definite conclusion.
Gerland, minutely describing the social classes on the several Caroline
Islands, only in one passage speaks of slaves. According to him, on the
isle of Ponape there are three classes: chiefs, freemen, and slaves.
Christian also makes mention of slaves. “After the chief ruler come
twelve orders of chiefs, Chaulik being the smallest title of all, and
after these the Aramach-mal, or common folk, and the Litu, or
slave-class” [369]. But the only details given about these slaves are
that the land “belongs exclusively to the two upper classes; the third
class are attached to the soil on which they live” [370]. We are
inclined to think that these so-called “slaves” are really free people
of low standing, the more so as on the isle of Kusaie, also belonging
to the Caroline group, the common people are subjected to the higher
classes who own all the land [371]. Kubary, describing the Mortlock
Islands (belonging to the same group), says: “Except the division into
tribes, there is no social division in the Caroline Islands, such as
into classes, ranks, secret societies, etc.; and I believe that all
suppositions of former observers relating to such a state of things
result from ignorance of tribal government. With these natives the
notions of “noble”, “gentleman”, “commoner” have but a relative value;
and special titles such as “king”, “chieftain”, “prince”, etc. depend
wholly upon the individual pleasure of the observer” [372]. The same
writer tells us that on the isle of Ruk in warfare “such captives as
may accidentally be taken are killed,” which statement is not very
suggestive of slavery [373]. Gräffe, compiling Tetens and Kubary’s
notes on the inhabitants of Yap, speaks of slaves: “The population is
composed of three classes, chiefs, freemen, and slaves or pomilingais.
The latter live together in separate villages and are obliged daily to
provide the freemen with agricultural products, and whenever the chiefs
require it to aid in constructing houses and canoes. Everything the
slaves possess, even their wives and daughters, may at any time be
required by the freemen and used at their pleasure. As we have already
hinted, the slaves are not allowed to wear the head-ornaments that the
freemen are in the habit of wearing, not even the combs worn in the
hair; and when waiting upon the chiefs, they must approach them in a
creeping, bowing attitude. One would, however, fail in supposing, that
all labour is exclusively incumbent on the slave-class. They are only
bound to definite taxes, viz. to a tribute of food, and of mats and
other materials for housebuilding; and their slave-state consists
rather in a low and dependent condition than in being taxed with
labour” [374]. From this last sentence we should infer, that these
people are not slaves, but only a despised lowest class. A slave always
has an individual master, whereas these people are subjected to the
higher classes en bloc. Krämer, in his short description of the isle of
Yap, equally speaks of slaves (milingai). They live in separate
villages. “Their villages, however, differ little from those of the
free inhabitants of Yap, and yet the milingai are a kind of slaves or
at least derive their origin from slaves.” Their social position is
lower than that of the other natives. This description, in which no
mention is made of the milingai serving individual masters, is little
suggestive of slavery [375]. According to Volkens, there are two
classes, the pilun, who are free and the pimlingai, who are slaves.
“There are no domestic slaves, the dwellings of the free people and
those of the slaves being strictly separated. Generally speaking, to
each pilun country belong one or more pimlingai countries; the former
are on the coast, the latter in the less fertile interior”. “The slaves
do not pay any tribute, but are obliged to perform in the pilun country
without payment public and private works, such as thatching roofs,
building roads and dams, etc.” [376]. From this account also we may
infer that the so-called slaves, who work for the governing districts,
not for individual masters, are not really slaves. Slavery therefore
seems to be unknown in the Caroline Islands.
In Gerland’s detailed account of government and social classes among
the ancient inhabitants of the Marianne Islands no mention is made of
slavery; and as this author uses this word in a too wide rather than in
a too restricted sense, we may safely suppose that there were no slaves
[377].
Kubary tells us, that “among the Pelau Islanders there can be no
question of a division of the people into ranks or classes, of a
nobility in our sense of the word” [378]. In another place he states
that a chief’s wants are generally provided for by the work of
dependent relatives, who are a kind of adopted children. If their work
does not suit them, they leave their employer [379]. Semper speaks of a
class of bondmen (Hörigen); but in another place he states that they
work for wages; so they are neither slaves nor serfs, but a despised
working class [380]. We may safely conclude that slavery does not exist
here [381].
In the Kingsmill or Gilbert Islands, according to Wilkes, there are
three classes: chief (nea), landholders (katoka), and slaves (kawa).
“The katokas are persons who possess land, but are not of noble birth;
many of these were originally slaves, who have obtained land by acts of
bravery, or through the favour of their chiefs. The kawas are those who
possess no land, and no one from whom they can claim support”. “They
have no term to designate a poor man, except that of slave. Anyone who
owns land can always call upon others to provide him with a house,
canoe, and the necessaries of life; but one who has none is considered
as a slave, and can hold no property whatever” [382]. It is evident
that these kawas, as described by Wilkes, are not slaves, but a
subjected and despised class of people destitute of land. Meinicke
enumerates the following classes: chiefs (in Tarawa: nea or oamata, in
Makin: jomata), free landholders (in Tarawa: katoka, in Makin:
tiomata), and the common people (in Tarawa: kawa, in Makin: rang); and
he adds: “There are also slaves, who originally were captives, and
whose children have remained such” [383]. So the kawa, called slaves by
Wilkes, are called freemen by Meinicke, according to whom there is a
class of slaves still below them. Behm asserts that on Makin there are
slaves besides the three other classes [384]. The best description is
given by Parkinson. According to him there are kings (these only on
some islands); further great landholders; then the class of small
landholders. Then there are two subjected classes. One is the class of
the te torre, who live as vassals on the lands of the great
landholders; they get a small piece of land for their own use; they
must provide their lord with men when in war, and bring him the number
of cocoanuts he desires, and what he needs for his household. The
lowest class are the te bei or kaungo. They have no property, no land
to live upon; they live with the great landholders by whom they are
maintained; they on their part must work for their lord, i.e. fish,
prepare food, etc. The lord, by giving them a piece of land, can raise
them to the class of the te torre. These two classes have no voice in
government matters; they follow their lord without grumbling; his will
is their will; an offence against the lord is regarded by them as a
personal offence, and avenged as such. Generally no one marries outside
his class. In ordinary life there is no difference between master and
vassal; they often sleep on the same mat; they drink, dance and play
together; they wear the same kind of dress. When a poor man dies, a
wealthy inhabitant of the village generally provides for his family;
but they must labour for him and are, so to speak, his slaves [385]. We
have to examine now, whether these two lowest classes are
slave-classes. We may remark, first, that, whereas most ethnographers
make a large use of the word “slave”, Parkinson does not use it, except
in the last sentence, and there with the qualification “so to speak”.
Moreover, some particulars are not mentioned, which we should expect to
find in such an elaborate description, if slavery really existed; e.g.
it is not stated that the subjected persons are bought and sold; nor
that care is taken that they do not run away; nor that the master is
not at all, or only to a limited extent, responsible for his behaviour
towards the person who serves him. As little does it appear, that these
vassals become such in the same manner in which men generally become
slaves. It is only stated that the family of a deceased poor man fall
into a state of dependence upon a rich inhabitant of the village; but
it is not clear, whether they voluntarily or involuntarily join the
rich man’s family. The principal objects of property, says Parkinson,
are houses, lands, and canoes [386]. Were there slaves, they would have
been mentioned here too. Krämer states that there are chiefs, a
nobility (aomata), a middle class (te vau), and slaves (te kanua). A
noble may not marry a girl of the middle class or a slave girl, nor is
he allowed to have any connection with a female slave who is his own
subject [387]. Krämer’s use of the word slave, without any particulars
suggestive of slavery, cannot impair the inference, to which Wilkes’s
notes and Parkinson’s detailed account lead us, that there are no
slaves on the Gilbert Islands.
Result. Negative cases: Marshall Islanders,
Caroline Islanders,
Marianne Islanders,
Pelau Islanders,
Kingsmill Islanders,
Natives of Nauru.
Schurtz asserts that in Polynesia and Micronesia slaves are found
everywhere; and Gerland is of the same opinion regarding Polynesia
[388]. Our survey of both these groups shows that these writers are
wrong: in Micronesia slavery is probably quite unknown; in Polynesia
absence of slavery is the rule, slavery the exception.
§ 8. Malay Archipelago.
I. Malay Peninsula.
The savage tribes of the Malay Peninsula are divided into the Semang,
the Sakai and the Jakun.
Among the Sakai, according to De Morgan “the debtor and his family work
for the creditor during one or two moons, according to the decision of
the panghulu (village-chief)”. This certainly is a commencement of
debt-slavery; but such compulsory labour, limited beforehand to one or
two months, is not yet slavery in the true sense.
Skeat and Blagden state that, among the Benua-Jakun, crimes of all
kinds might be expatiated by the payment of fines. If the offender
failed to pay the fine, he became the slave of his victim. No more
details being added, the existence of slavery does not seem to us to be
quite certain.
As neither in Skeat and Blagden’s exhaustive work, nor in the other
books and articles we have consulted, any further mention is made of
slaves, we are justified in concluding that these tribes, with the
exception perhaps of a division of the Jakun, do not practise slavery
[389].
II. Sumatra and neighbouring islands.
Brenner and Junghuhn speak of the Battas of Sumatra in general as
keeping slaves [390].
The existence or former existence of slavery is sufficiently proved
with regard to the following divisions of the Battas:
Battas on the Pane and Bila rivers [391],
,, of Mandheling [392],
,, of Pertibie [393],
Karo Battas [394],
Raja Battas [395],
Battas of Angkola [396],
,, of Simelungun [397],
,, of Singkel and Pak-pak [398],
,, of the country of Panei [399].
Among the Battas of Silindung slavery has never existed, according to
Meerwaldt [400]. Whether he means only slavery in the restricted sense,
or also pawning, is not clear.
The Toba Battas, according to Meerwaldt, formerly had slaves; but now
slavery is dying out under Dutch influence. Van Dijk, who visited the
Habinsaran district in the Toba-lands, states that in some parts of the
district there were slaves, in others there were not. Whether the
latter fact is to be accounted for by Dutch influence, does not appear
from his very short notes [401].
On the Lubus we have found only two short articles, in which slavery is
not mentioned; but this does not prove very much [402].
None of the describers of the Kubus make any mention of slaves; so we
may suppose, that slavery does not exist among them [403].
De Groot gives a detailed account of slavery and pawning in the Lampong
districts [404].
In Nias slavery certainly exists [405].
The Mentawei Islanders very probably have no slaves. None of their
describers make any mention of slavery [406]. “Their whole warfare
consists of treacherous attacks, in which nobody’s life is spared”
[407].
On the Anambas, Natuna and Tambelan Islands, belonging to the
Lingga-Riouw group, there are debtor-slaves [408].
Most of the writers on Enggano make no mention of slavery [409].
According to Walland, the Engganese wear ornaments in their ear-laps,
which are pierced for that purpose. If anybody’s ear-lap is broken, he
incurs great disgrace; he is no longer listened to in any deliberation,
nor considered a notable in his tribe, and becomes the slave of his
relatives, for whom he is obliged to work. And Rosenberg says: “If a
criminal does not pay the fine, this is done by his kindred; but if
they are unable to pay, they sell him as a slave. So slavery exists;
but it is of a very mild kind, and the number of slaves is very small”
[410]. The fact that both authors speak of slavery only in connection
with these particular cases, whereas the others do not speak of it at
all, makes us doubt, whether what Walland and Rosenberg call slavery is
slavery in the true sense. So we cannot come to a clear conclusion.
III. Borneo.
Among the Hill- or Land-Dyaks (Orang Gunong) slavery in the restricted
sense and slave-trade did not exist, but, says Low: “the system of
slave-debtors is carried on, though to a very small extent”. Later on
this kind of slavery also disappeared [411].
The Dyaks on the Barito have slaves and pawns [412].
The Sea-Dyaks also keep slaves, but not many [413].
Slavery equally exists among the
Dyaks on Rejang river [414],
Biadju-Dyaks [415],
Ot-danoms [416],
Olo-ngadju [417],
Dyaks of Tompassuk [418],
Kayans on the Mendalam [419],
Kayans on the Upper Mahakam [420],
Muruts [421],
Dyaks of Sambas [422],
Kindjin Dyaks [423],
Dyaks of Pasir [424].
Denison informs us that the Dusuns have no slaves [425].
Von Dewall, in his notes on the Dyaks of Matan or Kaping, speaks of
slaves of the chief. Whether these are the only slaves does not appear
[426].
Of the Dyaks of Simpang he says the same, and adds that pawning is
unknown amongst them. Here too we cannot arrive at a clear conclusion
[427].
The Rambai- and Sebruang-Dyaks probably have no slaves; for it is
stated, that their chiefs have no privileges; only, when some accident,
illness for instance, prevents them from cultivating their own
rice-fields, this is done by the people [428]. If there were slaves,
the chiefs would not have to cultivate their own rice-fields. Moreover
our informant, in his fairly detailed description, would probably have
mentioned slavery, if it existed.
IV. Celebes.
Slavery is proved by good authorities to exist or have existed in
several parts of this island. Such is the case
in the Minahassa [429],
in Bolaäng Mongondou [430],
in Lipu lo Holontalo [431],
in Buool [432],
among the Toradja of Central Celebes [433],
among the Tomori (East-Central Celebes) [434],
in the district of Sandjai [435],
in Bangkala [436],
among the Kailirese of Donggala or Banawa [437],
in Saleyer, an island near the South Coast of Celebes [438].
V. Little Sunda Islands and Moluccas.
Slavery on these islands seems almost universal. About the following
islands and groups of islands we have been able to obtain some
information:
Sumbawa [439],
Sumba [440],
Flores [441],
Solor group [442],
Bonerate and Kalao [443],
East Timor [444],
West Timor [445],
Savu [446],
Rote or Rotti [447],
Wetar [448],
Keisar [449],
Leti [450],
Dama [451],
Luang-Sermata group [452],
Babar group [453],
Tenimber and Timorlao Islands [454],
Aru Islands [455],
Kei Islands [456],
Watubela Islands [457],
Seranglao-Gorong group [458],
Serang [459],
Ambon and the Uliase [460],
Sangi and Talauer Islands [461].
In all these cases it is clear, that slavery either formerly existed or
still exists.
Slaves are also employed by the Galela and Tobelorese on Halmaheira
[462], and by the inhabitants of the district of Kau on the same island
[463].
Riedel states, that on Buru there were formerly slaves, and gives some
details about slavery as it was carried on here. Wilken however says
that there are neither slaves nor pawns [464]. Whether the latter means
to say, that slavery did not exist at the time at which he was writing
(1875), or that it had never existed, is not clear. Van der Miesen,
writing in 1902, states that, if a man is unable to pay his debt, he is
obliged to serve his creditor till his parents have collected the
required sum [465]. No further mention of slavery or pawning is made in
his detailed description. So we are left in doubt as to the former
existence of slavery here.
VI. Philippines.
The Tagals and Visayas, at the time of the conquista, already practised
slavery on a large scale [466].
Slavery certainly exists among the Bagobos [467], Manobos [468],
Maguindanaos and inhabitants of the Sulu islands [469], and Samales
[470].
Among the Subanos slaves are sacrificed at funerals [471]. But whether
these so-called slaves are really slaves, or persons captured or
purchased for sacrificing purposes only, does not appear.
The Kiangans sell their debtors as slaves; whether within the tribe or
abroad we are not told [472].
In Blumentritt’s rather short article on the Bungians no mention is
made of slaves [473].
From Venturillo’s and Miller’s descriptions it appears that slavery is
unknown among the Bataks of Palawan [474].
Jenks, in his minute account of the Bontoc Igorot of Northern Luzon,
gives a full description of the division of labour among them. The poor
serve the rich for wages. Slaves are not mentioned. Under the heading
of “conquest” he remarks: “Certain Igorot, as those of Asin, make
forcible conquests on their neighbours and carry away persons for
slavery. But Bontoc has no such conquests”. Schadenberg, too, does not
speak of slaves among the Bontoc people [475]. Hence we may safely
infer that the Bontoc Igorot do not keep slaves.
About the other divisions of the Igorot we are not so well informed.
From Jenks’s above-quoted incidental remark it would appear that some
of them practise slavery. But as in the other sources [476] we do not
find anything strengthening this presumption, we cannot arrive at a
positive conclusion.
Reed, describing the Negritos of Zambales (along the western coast of
Luzon), says: “Notwithstanding the statements of Montano that the
Negritos have no slaves and know nothing of slavery, the reverse is
true, in Zambales at least; so say the Negritos and also the Filipinos
who have spent several years among them. The word “a-li-pun” is used
among them to express such social condition. As has been stated, a man
caught steeling may become a slave, as also may a person captured from
another rancheria, a child left without support, a person under death
sentence, or a debtor. It was also stated that if a man committed a
crime and escaped a relative could be seized as a slave. It will take a
long acquaintance with the Negritos and an intimate knowledge of their
customs to get at the truth of these statements”. From this last
sentence, together with the fact that the other writers on the Negritos
we have consulted do not make any mention of slavery, we must infer
that it is doubtful whether slavery exists among the Negritos [477].
VII. Madagascar.
The Hovas and kindred tribes are considered by many investigators to be
Malays. Schurtz also classifies them among the Malays in the widest
sense of the word [478]. The anthropologists do not yet agree about the
origin of the Hovas; but as the divisions of this chapter are only
intended to give the reader a clear survey of the matter, and not to
answer any anthropological purpose, we may treat them here as well as
elsewhere.
The existence of slavery among the Hovas is proved by the statements of
several good authorities [479].
Sibree, describing the Betsileo, Betsimisaraka, Bara, Tankay or
Bezanozano, Sihanaka and Tanala, makes no mention of slavery; but his
notes are not detailed enough to make its non-existence certain [480].
Hildebrandt and Grandidier speak of slaves among the Antankarana [481].
As, however, in their short notes only slaves of the king are
mentioned, we may put this down as a doubtful case.
Result. Battas on the Pane and Bila rivers,
Positive ,, of Mandheling,
cases: ,, of Pertibie,
Karo Battas,
Raja Battas,
Battas of Angkola,
,, of Simelungun,
,, of Singkel and Pak-pak,
,, of the country of Panei,
Toba Battas,
Lampongs,
inhabitants of Nias,
,, ,, Anambas, etc.,
Hill-Dyaks,
Dyaks on the Barito,
Sea-Dyaks,
Dyaks on Rejang river,
Biadju-Dyaks,
Ot-danoms,
Olo-ngadju,
Dyaks of Tompassuk,
Kayans on the Mendalam,
,, on the Upper Mahakam,
Muruts,
Dyaks of Sambas,
Kindjin-Dyaks,
Dyaks of Pasir,
inhabitants of the Minahassa,
,, ,, Bolaäng,
,, ,, Holontalo,
,, ,, Buool,
Toradja,
Tomori,
inhabitants of Sandjai,
,, ,, Bangkala,
Kailirese,
inhabitants of Saleyer,
,, ,, Sumbawa,
,, ,, Sumba,
inhabitants of Flores,
,, ,, the Solor group,
,, ,, Bonerate and Kalao,
,, ,, East Timor,
,, ,, West Timor,
,, ,, Savu,
,, ,, Rote,
,, ,, Wetar,
,, ,, Keisar,
,, ,, Leti,
,, ,, Dama,
,, ,, the Luang-Sermata group,
,, ,, the Babar group,
,, ,, the Tenimber and Timorlao Islands,
,, ,, the Aru Islands,
,, ,, the Kei Islands,
,, ,, the Watubela Islands,
,, ,, the Seranglao-Gorong group,
,, ,, Serang,
,, ,, Ambon and the Uliase,
,, ,, the Sangi and Talauer Islands,
Galela and Tobelorese,
inhabitants of Kau,
Tagals and Visayas,
Bagobos,
Manobos,
Maguindanaos,
inhabitants of Sulu,
Samales,
Hovas,
Jakun,
Dyaks of Matan,
,, ,, Simpang,
Subanos,
Negritos,
Antankarana.
Negative Semang,
cases: Sakai,
Kubus,
Mentawei Islanders,
Dusuns,
Rambay and Sebruang Dyaks,
Bataks of Palawan,
Bontoc Igorot,
Battas of Silindung,
Lubus.
No Enganese,
conclusion: inhabitants of Buru,
Kiangans,
Bungians,
Igorot (except the Bontoc Igorot),
Betsileo,
Betsimisaraka,
Bara,
Tankay,
Sihanaka,
Tanala.
We shall add here a few notes on some Malay peoples, that have attained
to a too high degree of civilization to be quoted here as instances of
savages having or not having slaves. The purpose of this addition is
only to complete this survey of the Archipelago, and to show what
literature exists on these peoples.
In Java slavery has not prevailed for centuries. “In Mohammedan law a
large place is taken up with regulations of slavery, of the rights of
masters and slaves, and of the manner in which the latter can acquire
their freedom. The peculiar state of the aboriginal Javanese society
prevented the application of nearly all precepts relating to this
matter. Before the introduction of Islam slavery proper seems to have
been unknown; the universal subjection of the mass of the people, as
Sudras, to the members of the higher castes, had made slavery
superfluous. Nor has Islam introduced slavery into Java; for although
in later times Javanese chiefs in a few cases kept slaves, this was
done in imitation of the Europeans, and the legal status of these
slaves depended on Roman-Dutch law, not on Mohammedan law.” The desas
or villages, that did not accept Islam, were conquered; yet their
inhabitants were not enslaved, but the whole villages en bloc were
reduced to a subjected state: they had to pay extraordinary tributes
and to perform services to the Sultans. This ancient state of things
remained in force, even when gradually the whole population accepted
Islam. Even the concubines of the chiefs are not captured or purchased
slaves, but women taken from among the people [482]. This passage from
Veth’s book does not, however, inform us as to whether there were
slaves before the Hindu invasion and some time after. In the
“Encyclopaedie voor Nederlandsch-Indië” it is stated [483], that in old
times Africans were imported as slaves into Java, as appears from an
inscription of 800 A.D. The continued investigation of Javanese history
will probably throw more light on the subject.
In Bali slavery certainly exists, or at least formerly existed; but,
according to Liefrinck, only the chief and his family have slaves
[484]. Waanders, however, who gives a detailed account of the Balinese
slave-system, asserts that even Sudras have slaves, though he speaks
but incidentally of this [485]. Perhaps the slaves kept by the common
people are only debtor-slaves; for, according to Liefrinck, debtors
serve their creditors, and are sometimes sold by auction [486]. Tonkes,
who has (rather deficiently) collected the literature on the Balinese,
does not solve the question. At any rate, slavery here is not a
fundamental institution. The chief has great power, and the Hindu
caste-system prevails, so that the social classes are widely separated;
the Sudras are at the mercy of the upper castes [487]. Slavery, though
discountenanced by the Dutch government, still prevailed as late as
1877 [488].
Liefrinck states that in Lombok there were imported slaves and
native-born slaves or serfs; the condition of the latter was much
better than of the former, but they could be sold for debts and then
became slaves in the strict sense [489]. Van Eck has also some notes on
Lombok. According to him, Sasaks and Balinese of the Sudra-caste
frequently become slaves of the rich, as a punishment or in payment of
debts [490].
Van Hasselt gives a detailed account of slavery among the Malays of
Menangkabao. In 1876 the slaves and pawns on the West Coast of Sumatra
were emancipated by the Dutch government. But in the territories which
are not under Dutch control slavery in van Hasselt’s time was still
carried on to a great extent. In the little independent states a
chief’s power depended upon the number of his slaves, who tilled his
lands and strengthened his force in warfare. The slaves in the
restricted sense were purchased and captured persons and their
offspring. Besides these there were pawns [491]. Several further
particulars are given in Van Hasselt’s valuable book. Willinck, in his
recent work on the laws of the Malays of Menangkabao, describes their
slave system in details [492].
In many other Malay districts of Sumatra slavery exists or formerly
existed [493].
Particular mention has to be made of Atjeh, where slavery prevails to a
great extent [494]. Slaves are equally kept by the Gajos, whose country
borders on Atjeh [495].
Matthes gives some details on slavery among the Makassars and Bugis of
South Celebes [496].
In Tidore slavery formerly existed, many slaves being procured from New
Guinea [497]. It has, however, been abolished by the Dutch government
[498].
Among the Moros of Mindanao “slavery is such an established custom and
institution of the land that it is generally sanctioned and supported
in the Luwaran [laws]” [499].
§ 9. Indo-Chinese Peninsula.
Some tribes of this group undoubtedly have slaves. These are the
Kakhyens [500], the Shans of Zimmé [501], the Lawas and the Hill-tribes
of North Aracan [502], one of these hill-tribes being the Khyoungtha of
Chittagong [503].
The Lethtas have no slaves [504].
The Steins, according to Colquhoun, sometimes seize a slave in order to
sacrifice him [505]. No more particulars being given, we cannot make
out whether the word slave is used here in its true sense, or means a
captive taken to be sacrificed.
Mason remarks on the Karens: “In war they kill without regard to age or
sex.... The head of the war keeps the captives a considerable time,
when, if none of their friends come to redeem them, he sells them off
to other districts for oxen or buffaloes if practicable, that he may
have an ox or a buffalo to give to each village that came to his aid”
[506]. So the Karens seem to prefer oxen and buffaloes to captives.
There are, however, many debtor-slaves among the Karen-Nees [507]. They
are also noted for their kidnapping propensities; but it seems that the
kidnapped are only intended for sale abroad [508]. At any rate there
are debtor-slaves, and so slavery exists.
Wehrli, in his study on the Chingpaws (Sing-Phos or Kachins) of Upper
Burma, gives many details, which sufficiently prove that slavery
exists, or till recently existed among them [509].
We may add here the inhabitants of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands in
the Bay of Bengal.
Although Man does not explicitly state that the Andamanese have no
slaves, his elaborate account of their social life sufficiently proves
that they are unacquainted with slavery. Social status is dependent on
relationship, on skill in hunting, fishing etc., and on a reputation
for generosity and hospitality. A child captured in war “would meet
with kindly treatment, in the hope of his or her being induced
ultimately to become a member of the captor’s tribe” [510].
Of the Nicobarese Svoboda says: “All writers agree that nowhere in
these islands is there subordination, all inhabitants being of the same
rank. Only older and more experienced people have somewhat more
influence than the rest” [511]. Hence we may infer that slavery does
not exist.
Result. Positive cases: Kakhyens,
Shans of Zimmé,
Lawas,
Hill-tribes of North Aracan,
Karens,
Chingpaws,
Steins.
Negative cases: Lethtas,
Andamanese,
Nicobarese.
§ 10. India, Afghanistan, Himalaya.
Several authors state that the Meshmees have slaves [512].
The Hill-tribes near Rajamahall have no slaves [513].
Dalton gives several particulars about slavery among the Garos. Eliot
also affirms that they have slaves [514].
The Kookies, according to Macrae, “at times ... make captives of the
children, and often adopt them into their families, when they have none
of their own; and the only slaves among them are the captives thus
taken” [515]. What our informant means is not quite clear. The children
who have been adopted certainly are not slaves. Perhaps a part only of
the captured children are adopted, the rest constituting the
slave-class of the Kookies; but this is not clearly stated. Lewin
asserts that all the hill-tribes (Toungtha, divided into Lhoosai,
Tipperah and Kookies) formerly had debtor-slaves [516]; but as none of
our other authorities make any mention of this, we doubt whether this
general remark applies to the Kookies, the more so as, according to
Macrae, “the only slaves among them are the captives”. So it becomes
very doubtful whether the Kookies have slaves. Dalton’s statement that
“all the enemies he [the Kookie] has killed will be in the happy
hunting-fields in attendance on him as slaves” [517] is not sufficient
to decide the question. One thing only is certain: the Rajah has
slaves. According to Dalton, murderers and thieves become slaves of the
Rajah. Stewart affirms the same of those guilty of theft, burglary or
arson, and Butler of thieves [518]. But if only the Rajah, who
represents the public power, has slaves, the Kookies are not properly
to be called a slave-keeping people. Whether there are other slaves,
besides those of the Rajah, is not sufficiently clear.
The Todas very probably have no slaves. Neither Metz, nor the writers
quoted by Spencer, make any mention of slavery, though they fully
describe their social life [519].
The Santals also very probably are unacquainted with slavery. According
to Hunter “caste is unknown among the Santals”. “The classification of
the Santals depended not upon social rank or occupation, but upon the
family basis.” Dalton, describing the Santals, does not speak of slaves
[520].
The Khonds formerly offered human sacrifices. The victims were
purchased, and often kept for many years before being sacrificed. Our
informant adds: “I may just allude here to another class of persons who
are purchased by the Khonds, or procured by them for adoption into
their families as helps in household affairs, and in field labours.
These are called Possia Poes, and are usually obtained when young. They
run little or no risk of being sacrificed, and very often marry into
the families of their purchasers, and in the course of time merge into
the general population.” In another passage these Possia Poes are
called serfs: “These serfs are well treated, and in no immediate
danger; but there is always a remote probability of their sacrifice”
[521]. As it is stated that these Possia Poes are absorbed into the
general population, we may safely conclude that they are not slaves.
The Lushais, according to Dalton, enslave women and children [522].
Of the Manipuris Dalton says that “slavery is an institution amongst
them”, and he gives some details besides. So we need not doubt its
existence, though Watt makes no mention of it [523].
Among the Jyntias and Kasias the Rajah has slaves [524]. Whether there
are any other slaves does not appear.
“There is no such thing as slavery among the Oraons”, according to
Dalton [525].
The Korwas also very probably have no slaves. In their raids they kill
all they meet [526].
The Kafirs have slaves, according to several writers [527].
Among the Padam Abors slavery undoubtedly exists [528].
Dalton says of the Dophlas: “They have normally the same Mongolian type
of physiognomy, but from their intercourse with the people of the
plains and the number of Assamese slaves, which they have by fair means
or foul acquired, it is much modified and softened” [529]. Nothing more
is added about slavery. Perhaps these “slaves” are simply captured
women, no other slaves being ever taken. Whether slavery really exists
is not clear.
The Nagas keep slaves, if we are to believe Grange who “saw many
Muneeporees who had been thus seized whilst young, and sold both
amongst Kookies, Cacharees and Nagas”. “The children of slaves are
slaves.” Miss Godden remarks: “Slavery was unknown among one or more
tribes [of the Nagas] according to Dr. Brown.” “Among the Aos [one of
the Naga tribes] it is said to have been universal” [530].
Among the Bodo and Dhimals “there are neither servants nor slaves, nor
aliens of any kind” [531].
The Veddahs of Ceylon, according to Sarasin, are unacquainted with
slavery [532].
Result. Positive cases: Meshmees,
Garos,
Lushais,
Manipuris,
Kafirs,
Padam Abors,
Nagas,
Kookies,
Jyntias and Kasias,
Dophlas.
Negative cases: Hill-tribes near Rajamahall,
Todas,
Santals,
Khonds,
Oraons,
Korwas,
Bodo and Dhimals,
Veddahs.
§ 11. Central Asia.
The Kazak Kirghiz, according to Pallas, “much preferred the securing of
a slave to the killing of a man. They did not treat their slaves
cruelly, as long as the latter behaved well”. But the information we
get from other sources shows that they were not a slave-keeping people.
Boutakoff says nothing about slavery. According to Ujfalvy the poor
serve the rich; he calls this a real serfdom. But he adds that, if the
poor do not wish to serve, they must borrow from the rich at 100 per
cent. interest. So these poor are compelled to serve by hunger, not by
any social rule. Chambers says: “They ... have well earned for
themselves the title of the “Slavehunters of the Steppes” by seizing
upon caravans, appropriating the goods, and selling their captives at
the great slave-markets at Khiva, Bokhara, etc. Their wealth consists
of cattle, sheep, horses, and camels” [533]. This is clear: the
captives are sold abroad, and do not serve as slaves among the Kirghiz
themselves; therefore they are not enumerated as forming part of their
wealth. The best describer of the Kazak Kirghiz that we know of,
Levchine, agrees with Chambers. “Slavery is unknown among them.” “The
Turks, the Persians, and nearly all other sectaries of Mohammed keep
slaves.... The Kirghiz, on the contrary, have no slaves” [534]. In
several passages of his book, however, he makes mention of slaves
[535]. But this will be understood, if we pay attention to two other
statements of his. “They do not kill their prisoners, but sell them to
the Bokharians, Khivians, and other neighbouring nations.” They buy
many commodities from their neighbours, and “in exchange ... provide
them with slaves captured on the Russian frontiers” [536]. So the
Kirghiz in Levchine’s time made slaves; they did not, however,
themselves employ them; they were only slave-traders and not a
slave-keeping people. Radloff, who many years after Levchine visited
the Kazak Kirghiz, supposes that they formerly kept slaves. He says:
“The former serfs and slaves of the sultan, who have been for many
decades emancipated, always try still to nomadize in the vicinity of
the sultans, and, though at present entirely on a level with the other
Kirghiz, are still called telenguts” “The denominations kul (male
slave) and küng (female slave) now mean male and female servant” [537].
But we may compare this with a statement of Levchine’s: “We do not
arrange in a separate class the telenguts or servants of the khans, nor
the kuls or slaves. The former are taken from among the Kirghiz and
enjoy the same rights; the latter are looked upon as personal property
or commodities and are not Kirghiz. They are Russian, Persian, Kalmuck,
etc. prisoners” [538]. We see that Radloff’s “serfs or slaves”, the
telenguts, were not slaves, and the kuls were captured slaves intended
to be sold. Our inference is that the Kazak Kirghiz in their former
independent state did not keep slaves.
About the Kara Kirghiz we have got but little information. Radloff, in
a short article on them, says: “In the regions of their winter-quarters
(on the Issik-köl) they cultivate very large pieces of land, on which
they leave behind labourers or slaves (of whom there are but few)
whilst the tribe repairs en masse to the western mountains. These
labourers get no wages, but a part of the produce in kind” [539].
Although this receiving of a part of the produce is not incompatible
with slavery, their being left behind without any supervision, and
Radloff’s calling them labourers or slaves and in the latter sentence
labourers only, makes us doubt whether these people are really slaves,
the more so as in his book slavery among the Kara Kirghiz is not
mentioned [540].