Having now determined what is the meaning of the term “slavery”, we are about to inquire, what is its social signification, what place does it occupy in those societies where it formerly existed or still exists? As this book confines itself to ethnological investigations, we shall try to throw light on this problem with the help of the data supplied to us by the study of savage races. But then we must first know, whether slavery exists among all savage tribes, and, if not, whether it is confined to certain races of men or to certain parts of the world; and further, whether it is found on all levels of lower culture, or on some only, and if the latter, on which. The solution of these problems requires a survey of the occurrence of slavery among wild tribes in the several parts of the globe. This survey will occupy the present chapter.

A few words have still to be said about our method of ascertaining the existence or non-existence of slavery in every particular case.

To one unacquainted with our science the task to be performed now may seem very easy: we have only to consult the ethnographical literature bearing on any tribe, and to look whether slavery is mentioned; if it is mentioned in an affirmative sense, slavery exists; if in a negative sense or not at all, slavery does not exist. But every one familiar with ethnographical literature knows that it has not to be used in such a rough-and-ready manner. The statements of ethnographers [42]are not to be accepted without much caution and a thorough criticism1.

The observance of the following rules will, so far as we can judge, give to our conclusions the highest possible degree of probability.

1º. If it is stated that slavery exists, is this sufficient evidence of its existence? Our definition, arrived at in the first chapter, lies within the limits of ordinary language; therefore it is probable that our informants have used the term in the same sense we attach to it. There are, however, many cases in which the words “slave” and “slavery” are applied to something quite different from their true meaning, as will be seen from our survey of the matter. Thus it is necessary to ask for more evidence than is given by the mere term “slavery”.

a. If it sufficiently appears that in some tribe there are men considered to be the property of others, we need not doubt whether slavery exists.

b. If this is not clearly proved, there is still one particular, that being mentioned makes the existence of slavery very probable, viz. the fact that people are bought and sold within the tribe, except of course women sold for wives. For other kinds of subjected persons, serfs, lower classes, and subjects of a despot, are not bought or sold, at least not within the tribe. Beyond the limits of the tribe a man may be sold without previously having been a slave. Thus some African despots sell their subjects to Arabian slave-traders; such a sale does not prove that slavery exists within the tribe. But when a man is sold within the tribe, either he was already a [43]slave, or he becomes such, e.g. as a punishment; in both cases slavery is practised by the tribe2.

c. If the particulars on record are quite insufficient to determine the nature of the alleged slave-state, the possibility of a mistake is much lessened by several writers, independently of each other, stating that slavery exists.

d. Finally, the general trustworthiness of the writer or writers must be taken into account.

2º. If we are told that there are no slaves, it is very probable that slavery really does not exist, for slavery is a phenomenon rather easy to observe, and the ethnographers are generally inclined to use the word in a too wide rather than in a too restricted sense. There is no need here for the extreme scepticism with which we have to receive an assertion of any tribe having no religion3. This does not prevent, of course, that if we find the existence of slavery denied by a writer who is generally badly informed, we may reject such an assertion.

3º. The greatest difficulties are presented by those cases in which no mention is made of slavery. Here the utmost caution has to be observed.

a. If it clearly appears from the description, that there are people considered to be the property of others, without the word “slavery” being used, the conclusion is evident.

b. Perhaps some facts are mentioned which make the existence of slavery highly improbable. We shall see that the main source of slavery is captivity in war; so, if it is stated that no captives are made, or that the lot of the captives is something else than slavery, the non-existence of slavery is probable. But even then it is not quite certain: there may still be slaves, acquired by other means. Further: if it is stated that there are no social classes, or if the classes are enumerated and slaves are not among them, there is a strong presumption that slavery does not exist. Yet here too there is no certainty; for slaves, among savage tribes, have not always the aspect of a social class. The description of the [44]division of labour between the sexes may also suggest to us the non-existence of slavery. When we are informed that the men do some kinds of work and the women some other kinds, we are inclined to think: if there were slaves, their special work would be mentioned too. But this argument is most dangerous; for the slaves very often have no special kind of work allotted to them.

We see that none of these criteria prove quite reliable. Yet, taken together, they give a high degree of probability. And it is not even necessary that all of them can be ascertained. If an ethnographer, known to be trustworthy, gives us an elaborate description, pretending to be a picture of the whole social life of the tribe he describes, it were a wonder if he had entirely omitted slavery, while it existed; the more so as this phenomenon is not so difficult to recognize. The same argument obtains a fortiori, when several such descriptions of the same tribe exist.

4º. In doubtful cases we may take into account the state of the group to which a particular tribe belongs. It may be that in the general descriptions of a group no mention is made of slavery; that, further, all tribes belonging to this group of which we are well informed prove to have no slaves. If, then, the information we get concerning a particular tribe belonging to the same group, is not complete enough to rely upon, there is a strong presumption that this tribe will be in the same state as the rest of the group, i.e. that it does not keep slaves. Under the same conditions we may suppose that a tribe belonging to a slave-keeping group keeps slaves. The term “group” has to be taken here in a sociological, not in an anthropological or linguistic sense, and its application must be somewhat restricted. It must consist of tribes, that live in somewhat similar conditions and the institutions of which closely resemble each other; e.g. Australia (the continent) is a group in this sense, North America is not. It is almost superfluous to add, that this group-argument may be used only to strengthen existing, but insufficient, evidence.

We confine ourselves here to the phenomena of savage life; therefore we shall exclude the semi-civilized peoples. An exact distinction, however, between these two classes of peoples has [45]not yet been made4; so we are fully aware of the possibility of mistakes, made here in this respect. As we were not able to apply any exact criterion, we have more or less followed our general impressions, paying most attention to the development of political institutions. So for instance we have excluded the Kabyls of Northern Africa, because their detailed legal system, as described by Hanoteau and Letourneux5, proves that politically they have passed beyond the stage of savagery. And a developed political organization cannot exist without profoundly marking such an institution as slavery.

We shall find that several savage tribes have to a considerable extent been influenced by civilized or semi-civilized nations. In such cases the question arises: have we to deal here with phenomena of unadulterated savage life? This question is important and deserves full attention. We shall see that many savage tribes in their true aboriginal state have been acquainted with slavery, whereas many others when first discovered did not practise it; so neither the existence nor the non-existence of slavery must necessarily be due to foreign interference; either may be aboriginal, and must be supposed to be so wherever there is not a strong presumption to the contrary6. But there are also many cases in which foreign influence has undoubtedly been at work. We must, then, make a distinction. If the influence of the civilized or semi-civilized nation has led to a, so to speak, normal development, i.e. a development, which lies within the limits of primitive culture, we have to deal with a phenomenon of savage life. For instance, commercial intercourse with a nation of higher civilization has brought about an accumulation of wealth and a social differentiation, which render the existence of slavery possible. In such case we may safely speak of slavery as practised by savages, for it is the effect of trade in general, not of intercourse with a [46]civilized nation as such, that we have to deal with here. If, on the contrary, there has been an abnormal development, i.e. a development which does not take place in countries inhabited by savages only, the present condition of the savage tribe has no interest to us. For instance, measures have been taken by a civilized nation on purpose to abolish slavery. Then we, for our purpose, must consider the savage tribe concerned as keeping slaves, and pay attention only to the descriptions of its institutions as they were before the abolition.

The ensuing paragraphs will show which savage tribes keep slaves and which do not keep any. The groups into which we have divided the several tribes are mainly geographical, not intended to answer any anthropological purpose. As long as the meaning of the term “race” is so unstable as at present, we think it better not to operate with it. Our groups are nearly the same as those given by Schurtz in his Völkerkunde.

At the end of each paragraph its result will be mentioned. The “positive cases” are the tribes which probably keep slaves, the “negative cases” those which probably do not keep slaves. Under the head of “no conclusion” we have given the cases in which the probability that slavery exists is nearly as great, or as little, as the inverse probability. The tribes, the names of which are printed in italics, are those which afford “clear cases”, i.e. where the probability nearly amounts to certainty.

At the end of the chapter a brief recapitulation will show the occurrence of slavery among savages in the several parts of the globe.

When, in the following paragraphs, we say: “Such a tribe keeps slaves,” or: “Such a tribe does not keep slaves,” this does not imply that the same state of things still prevails. The tribe we speak of may have died out; or, where slavery existed, it may have been abolished. When we know that such a thing has taken place, we shall use the past tense. But in many cases the only information we have got concerning some tribe dates from many years back; and we do not know what has become of this tribe in the meantime. Then, not to be obliged always to use such tedious formulas as: “In Mr. X.’s time slavery existed among such a tribe,” we shall simply say: “slavery exists.” Whether it still exists is certainly of [47]much interest to a philanthropist; but to us, for the purposes we have set ourselves in the present volume, it is quite immaterial.

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”136. 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 [71]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”137. 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 slaves138. 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 slaves139.

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 slavery140. 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 16^th 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”141. [72]

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 slavery142.

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 slaves143. 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 sold144. 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 sexes145. [73]

The several describers of the Indians of Guiana146 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 fields147. 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 lands148.

In Sievers’, Reclus’ and Simons’ descriptions of the Goajiro no mention is made of slaves149. 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 slaves150. 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”151. 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 means152. According to another ancient writer, however, they kept prisoners as slaves. The slaves were kindly treated, allowed to [74]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 bush153. 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”154.

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 eaten155. 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 slaves156.

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 use157.

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”158. We do not know what this last second-hand information of Zu Wied’s is worth; but we are justified [75]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 left159. But according to Boggiani Guaycurû is a general name for the tribes that inhabit the Gran Chaco160, 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 Guaycurû161; 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”162. 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 slavery163. Thouar, however, does not seem to be very well informed164.

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 [76]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 accepted165. 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 work166. 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. [77]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 19^th century become settled agriculturists167. 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 commodities168.

Pohl states, that the Canoeiros had captured a young man and treated him well169. 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 Bororo170.

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 master171.

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 them172.

The Karayas on Rio Araguaya keep captive women in a somewhat slave-like state. Prisoners of war, adopted into the [78]tribe, sometimes are made chiefs if they have distinguished themselves173. 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 traders174. 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 improbable175.

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 feasts176. 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 tribe177. 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.”178. Whether the fate of the captive women and [79]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”179.

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 warlike180. 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 wives181. Whether these prisoners were slaves is not clear; we should rather think not.

The Chapacuras were very peaceable, and but seldom attacked their neighbours182. 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 know183.

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 nations184. 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; [80]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 character185.

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 slaves186.

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 slaves187. 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 slaves188. 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 people189. 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 [81]to be well informed, make no mention of slavery190. This fact, together with the above-quoted positive statement of Azara, who on the whole seems to be better informed than D’Orbigny191, 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 classes192. 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 Guimard193. 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”194. 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 children195. 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”196. In his detailed description of Araucanian social life he makes no further mention of slaves, nor do the [82]other authors197. 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”198. 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 slavery199.

The Australian tribes, as they are marked on the map in Mr. Thomas’s book on the “Natives of Australia”, are the following:

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 slaves200. 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 ethnographers201 and theorists202 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: [85]there are many differences in several respects between the Australian tribes203. 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 general204. 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”205. Gerland states that the Australians make no captives, except women sometimes206.

All this makes it sufficiently clear that the Australians have no slaves207. The 30 tribes we have enumerated here may therefore rank as clear cases of savage tribes without slaves.

Rochas, describing the New Caledonians, writes: “Slavery does not exist in the New Caledonian society”208. 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 [86]parents’ own children209. 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 slaves210. According to Glaumont there are four classes, the fourth of which is composed of slaves (en-dji-dio)211. 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”212. 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 [87]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”213.

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”214. 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 [88]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”215. 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”216.

From the foregoing statements it appears that the so-called [89]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”217. 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 them218. 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”219.

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. [90]

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 killed220. 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 slaves221. 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 [91]boiled taro, sweet potatoes, and bananas, he was served with his repast on the beach outside”222.

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 eaten223.

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.”224. 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 tortured225. 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 people226. Waterhouse does not speak of slaves227. 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 [92]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”228.

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”229. Our other informants230 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.231

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. [93]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 captives232.

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 slaves233.

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 [94]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 natives234.

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”235. 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 account236.

In the district of Tabi some men were observed, who had their hair cut short; according to a Dorey interpreter, they were slaves237. 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 appear238.

The Papuans near Lake Sentani keep neither slaves nor pawns239.

The natives of Ansus purchase many slaves, and sell slaves to Ternate traders240. 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 [95]“to whom they give the name of woman, slave”241. 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”242.

The accounts, given by Van Hasselt and De Clercq, prove that slavery exists among the Nuforese243.

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 Roon244.

Slavery also exists among the natives of Arfak245.

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”246.

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 prisoners247.

The existence of slavery among the Papuans of the Gulf of Maccluer is made probable by De Clercq’s and Strauch’s notes248. 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 Papuans249.

Slavery exists on the isle of Adie and along the Gulf of Kaimani250.

The Papuans of Ayambori have no slaves251. [96]

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 children252, and in the descriptions of single tribes: Motu, Mowat, Toaripi, natives on the mouth of the Wanigela River, no mention is made of slavery253.

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 children254.

Among the Yabim slavery does not exist255.

The same is the case among the natives of the Tami Islands256.

Slavery is equally unknown among the Tamoes of Bogadjim257 and the natives of the adjacent Dampier Island258.

All authors agree that the Maori of New Zealand had slaves; and the many details they give prove that slavery really existed259.

The Tongans, according to Meinicke, had slaves, partly prisoners of war, partly condemned criminals260. Gerland, referring to a missionary report, speaks of slaves, tamaiveiki261. But in his very minute description of Tongan government and social classes262 he gives no more particulars about these slaves; and Mariner who, according to Gerland, is very reliable263, 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 [98]other occupation264. Mariner only makes mention of captive women, so it is probable that no men were taken prisoners in their wars265. 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 slaves266. 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”267. According to Meinicke the prisoners were at different times differently disposed of; but among these modes of treatment slavery is not mentioned268. Wilkes states that their wars “were attended with great cruelty, and neither old or young of either sex were spared”269. Turner, a good authority, remarks: “Prisoners, if men, were generally killed; if women, distributed among the conquerors”270. 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 purposes271. 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 [99]reference to slavery in Krämer’s very detailed description of the Samoans, and slavery not being mentioned by any of our other informants272, we may safely infer that it did not exist.

Gardiner, in his excellent article on Rotuma, says: “Slaves as such did not properly exist”273.

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 people274. 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”275. 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 [100]exist276. 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 murdered277. 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”278. 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”279. 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 retained280. Remy tells us that the common people were heavily oppressed by the chiefs. Slaves are not mentioned by him. Prisoners were sacrificed281. All this renders the existence [101]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 slaves282, and Marcuse’s short remark, that “to allure the sharks, they occasionally made human sacrifices, especially among the slaves”283, in concluding that slavery did not exist.

Hale states that in the Marquesas Islands there were no slaves284. 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 employers285. According to Meinicke prisoners were either sacrificed and eaten, or spared and adopted into the conquering tribe286. De Rocquefeuil also states that the prisoners were eaten, unless, by the priests’ intervention, they were buried; at any rate they were killed287. Moerenhout tells us that the sole object of their wars was to obtain a cannibal repast288. 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”289, 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”290.

The natives of Tukopia, according to Gerland, formerly kept slaves, who were prisoners of war291. 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 [102]few have taken advantage of the permission to return”292. 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 feasts293. 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 people294. 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 people295. Hence we may safely infer, that slavery does not exist.

According to Meinicke none of the describers of the Marshall Islands make mention of slaves. Gerland, too, does not speak of slaves296. According to Hernsheim the lowest class is composed [103]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 kajur297. 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 class298. Hager quite agrees with Kubary, to whom he frequently refers299. 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 [104]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 despot300. 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 people301. 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 nobles302. 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 compensation303. 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 [105]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 chief304. 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”305. 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”306. 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 land307. 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”308. The same writer tells us that on the isle of Ruk in warfare [106]“such captives as may accidentally be taken are killed,” which statement is not very suggestive of slavery309. 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”310. 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 slavery311. 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 [107]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.”312. 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 slaves313.

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”314. 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 employer315. 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 class316. We may safely conclude that slavery does not exist here317.

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 [108]whatever”318. 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”319. 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 classes320. 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 slaves321. 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 [109]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 canoes322. 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 subject323. 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.

Schurtz asserts that in Polynesia and Micronesia slaves are found everywhere; and Gerland is of the same opinion regarding Polynesia324. 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. [110]

Some tribes of this group undoubtedly have slaves. These are the Kakhyens436, the Shans of Zimmé437, the Lawas and the Hill-tribes of North Aracan438, one of these hill-tribes being the Khyoungtha of Chittagong439.

The Lethtas have no slaves440.

The Steins, according to Colquhoun, sometimes seize a slave in order to sacrifice him441. 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”442. So the Karens seem to prefer oxen and buffaloes to captives. There are, however, many debtor-slaves among the Karen-Nees443. They are also noted for their kidnapping propensities; but it seems that the kidnapped are only intended for sale abroad444. 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 them445.

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 [124]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”446.

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”447. Hence we may infer that slavery does not exist.

Several authors state that the Meshmees have slaves448.

The Hill-tribes near Rajamahall have no slaves449.

Dalton gives several particulars about slavery among the Garos. Eliot also affirms that they have slaves450.

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”451. 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 [125]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-slaves452; 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”453 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 thieves454. 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 life455.

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 slaves456.

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 [126]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”457. 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 children458.

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 it459.

Among the Jyntias and Kasias the Rajah has slaves460. Whether there are any other slaves does not appear.

“There is no such thing as slavery among the Oraons”, according to Dalton461.

The Korwas also very probably have no slaves. In their raids they kill all they meet462.

The Kafirs have slaves, according to several writers463.

Among the Padam Abors slavery undoubtedly exists464.

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”465. 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 [127]to Dr. Brown.” “Among the Aos [one of the Naga tribes] it is said to have been universal”466.

Among the Bodo and Dhimals “there are neither servants nor slaves, nor aliens of any kind”467.

The Veddahs of Ceylon, according to Sarasin, are unacquainted with slavery468.

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. [128]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”469. 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”470. In several passages of his book, however, he makes mention of slaves471. 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”472. 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”473. 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 [129]Russian, Persian, Kalmuck, etc. prisoners”474. 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”475. 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 mentioned476.

Koehne, in his article on Kalmuck law, referring to Pallas and Bergmann, asserts that the Kalmucks had slaves477. But the particulars he gives are not sufficient for us to decide, whether the so-called slaves were slaves proper or retainers of the chiefs; and if slaves, whether they were employed by the Kalmucks, or intended for sale abroad. Spencer refers to a statement of Pallas’ (but from which of his books does not appear), according to which slavery was inflicted as a punishment478; but whether the person so punished was kept as a slave among the Kalmucks or sold abroad, we are not told. The only book of Pallas’ to which we have access does not throw much light on the subject. “Adultery and fornication” he says “which are voluntarily [?] committed with female slaves … are liable to punishment”. In another place he states that the Torguts (a division of the Kalmucks) had much changed in physical appearance, probably by their intercourse with females captured abroad. As a punishment for some offences [130]the culprit lost one or more of his children; but what was done with these children does not appear479. Nothing more definite on slavery is found is his detailed description of the Kalmucks. In an article on the Kalmucks of the Black Irtysch Valley we read: “Horrible is the state of the unfortunate people who are reduced to slavery; they are bartered and sold like cattle”480. Here probably slaves intended for sale abroad are meant; for such horrible treatment of slaves is more common with slave-dealers than with those who employ slaves. Radloff has nothing on slavery; but his description of the Kalmucks is too short to draw any inference from481. So we are left in doubt as to the existence of slavery, though we are inclined to think that it does not exist.

Much more fully than the Kalmucks proper Radloff describes the Altaians or Altaian Mountain-Kalmucks. Slaves not being mentioned, and it being stated in many places that the menial work is done by servants and by the poor who are fed by the rich482, it is certain that slavery does not exist. The word “slave” occurs in one place only, viz. in the mourning-song of the widow, who complains that “now she wears a leathern dress like base slaves; now she eats coarse food like slaves”483. If we have not here to deal with an inaccurate translation, this mourning-song might be a reminiscence of formerly existing slavery. Slavery would then have disappeared spontaneously, not through Russian influence, for the Altaians have maintained their position in the mountain-valleys of the South-west Altai, least accessible to Russian colonization. So we may safely consider the Altaians as a savage tribe keeping no slaves.

Radloff’s notes on the Teleuts, Tatars on the Kondoma and Abakan Tatars are too short to draw any safe inference from484.

Many Central Asiatic tribes have been described by Vambéry. The description of each of them fills many pages, but the information we get about social facts is rather incomplete. Therefore, though in most of his descriptions slavery is not [131]mentioned, we may not infer that it does not exist. The positive cases have of course more value.

The Usbegs, according to Vambéry, till their land aided by Persian slaves485. No more details being given, we may put this down as a positive case, though not a clear one.

The Kara Kalpaks, in the beginning of the 18^th century, were given to slave-stealing486, whether for their own use or for sale does not appear.

The Turkomans, according to Vambéry, sell foreigners as slaves487. In another book the same author tells us that in their internal wars they made slaves; and he speaks of their keeping female slaves488. Stein and Weil make no mention of slavery489. Letourneau, referring to Burnes, remarks: “The Persian captives are for the Turkomans a source of large profit; but the captors do not as a rule keep them for themselves, except sometimes the women, of whom they make concubines or wives”490. So we may safely infer that slavery does not exist here.

The Mongols have hired herdsmen who tend their camels491. Whether they have any slaves does not appear.

Ujfalvy informs us that among the Tadjiks of Hissar slavery was recently abolished by an order from Bokhara492.

According to the same writer “all Galtchas are free; for slavery does not exist and has never existed in their inaccessible valleys”493.

The Kurds of Eriwan probably have no slaves. They keep hired herdsmen. All members of the community, rich and poor, enjoy the same rights494.

Pallas in the 18^th century visited many Siberian tribes; but most of his notes are too short to draw any inference from as to the existence of slavery.

Of the Ostyaks he gives a detailed account. They probably had no slaves; for it is stated that the chiefs, like the common people, had to live by their own labour495. But in Pallas’ time they were already entirely under Russian control496, so it is not certain that in their aboriginal state they had no slaves.

The Samoyedes were not nearly so much under Russian influence. The details given by Pallas make it nearly certain that slavery did not exist. “Every Samoyede keeps his reindeer and tends them himself with the help of his family, except the richest, who hire poor men as herdsmen”497. Islawin and Finsch also make no mention of slavery498. And the account of Samoyede customs given by Von Stenin, who has largely drawn upon Russian literature, makes the non-existence of slavery quite certain499.

“The Ghiliaks” says Déniker in a valuable article “are all equal, and never have there been slaves among them”500.

Müller gives a somewhat minute description of the Tunguz, in which slavery is not mentioned, so it very probably does not exist501.

Sieroshevski, who lived more than 12 years among the Yakuts, concludes from their traditions, that they formerly kept slaves. “In ancient times, the Yakuts had a name for a man whom a [133]defeated hero gave to his conqueror as a compensation for sparing his own life. Such persons later were in fact slaves and were included in the gifts with a bride. If they were females, they became concubines of the master. Such a slave person was called an enne, and this word has new come to be used as an adjective for whatever is given with a bride”. However this may be, it appears from his detailed and excellent description, that now they have no slaves502.

Laufer, describing the Gold of that part of the Amoor lying between Chabarovsk and Sophisk, makes no mention of slavery. But as their whole mode of life is strongly influenced by the Russians, we are not certain whether in their aboriginal state they kept slaves503.

Steller’s statements about slavery among the Italmen or Kamchadales are not very clear. Speaking of their wars he says: “The victorious party enslaved the prisoners, made the women and girls concubines, and slaughtered all males they could to be henceforward safe from them.” In another place he states: “They do not steal anything from each other but women and dogs, which was the cause of their former wars.” In his survey of Kamchadale history he speaks of a chief who, in order to augment his power, exacted from his enemies a tribute of girls and boys. The Italmen of the Kurile Islands attacked those of the Kamchadale peninsula, and carried off many girls and boys into servitude. In a note he states: “The prisoners and slaves were employed in various rough and domestic labours.… If a prisoner behaved well, he was sometimes dismissed to his home after a two or three years’ imprisonment”504. In his chapters on male and female labour and on marriage he makes no mention of slaves. In Steller’s time Kamchatka had already been brought under Russian control; so he could not any more observe their warfare and taking of prisoners, but got his information about these matters from hearsay. This probably is the reason why this information is not more clear. As he gives some particulars about slaves kept by the Italmen of the Kurile Islands, we may suppose that these at least had slaves. The author of the “Histoire de Kamtschatka”, [134]who consulted Steller’s manuscript, says: “The end of their wars was to take prisoners in order to make the men work and to take the women as concubines”505. But he adds no details.

The Tuski or Chukchi are to be divided into the inland Tuski, who keep reindeer, and the Tuski of the coast, who are fishers. Nordenskiöld remarks: “According to some Russian authors there are slaves, undoubtedly descendants of war-captives, on the inland settlements. Amongst the natives of the coast, on the contrary, the most perfect equality prevails”506. A statement of Wrangell’s, referred to by Erman, gives some more particulars. Wrangell, having lived already some time with the Tuski, perceived to his great amazement that there were serfs (Leibeigenen); he saw some families that did menial work; they had no property, and were not allowed to go away from the rich on whom they were dependent. They received clothing and lodging from their employers, and did the hardest work; for instance they ran by the side of the sledges to urge on the dogs. The Tuski said that this state of things had always existed. Wrangell supposes that these serfs were the offspring of war-captives. It does not appear what this supposition is founded upon507. This record is worth more than Nordenskiöld’s vague reference to “some Russian authors.” But it is not easy to decide whether these subjected people are slaves. They might simply be poor men dependent on the rich without being slaves, such as are also found among the Eskimos. But the fact, that the poor Tuski are obliged to stay with their employers is more suggestive of slavery. Georgi however states that among the Tuski the poor serve the rich as herdsmen; and Dall, Hooper, and Kennan make no mention of slaves508. In the “Histoire de Kamtschatka” it is stated that they made raids on the tribes subjected to Russia, “killing or taking prisoners all they meet”509. But we are not told what was the fate of these captives. So we must leave this question undecided. At any rate this alleged slavery has been useful; for it led to Nordenskiöld’s positive [135]statement that among the Tuski of the coast, whom he had visited himself, slavery was unknown.

The Koryakes are to be divided into nomadic Koryakes and settled Koryakes. The former with their herds roam from one place to another, the latter live along the rivers. The languages of these two divisions differ so much, that they cannot understand each other. “The nomadic Koryakes consider them [the settled Koryakes] as slaves, and treat them accordingly” says our informant. But we know that such slavery of a tribe as a whole is not slavery in the true sense of the word. No other mention is made of slaves. The nomadic Koryakes “before they were subjected by the Russians, had neither government nor magistrates; only the rich exercized some authority over the poor”510. So we may infer that slavery is unknown among both nomadic and settled Koryakes.

Melnikow, minutely describing the Buriats, makes no mention of slaves; but as they have been long under Russian influence511, we are not certain whether slavery was not formerly an institution among them.

The Ainu, though not inhabiting Siberia, may find a place here, as they live nearer to this than to any other group. Batchelor, describing the raids which the several divisions of the Ainu made on each other, says: “On such occasions the whole of the male population were murdered during sleep, whilst the women and children were carried off as slaves to work in the gardens, and were called usshui ne guru. The women however were kept as concubines”512. Landor refers to this and some other remarks of Batchelor’s and then adds: “From my own experience—and I may add I am the only foreigner who has seen these Tokachi, or as others call them, Tokapchi Ainu—I came to a conclusion very different from this. I found that not only were they not cannibals, but that, taken altogether, they were the most peaceable, gentle, and kind Ainu I came across during my peregrinations through the land of the hairy people”513. Hitchcock also describes the Ainu as peaceable. Speaking of some cruel punishments in vogue amongst them, he remarks: “H. von Siebold has supposed from [136]these old customs, that the Ainos were once a savage and warlike people. They may have been so, as one might infer from Japanese tradition, but it seems to me unsafe to make the assumption on the grounds suggested by von Siebold. Their present character does not sustain it in any way”514. Some other describers of the Ainu we have consulted make no mention at all of slaves515. So we cannot arrive at a definite conclusion.

Slavery undoubtedly exists among the Ossetes516 and Circassians517.

The Shahsewenses, according to Radde, consist of two social classes, the nobles and the common people518. So they probably have no slaves.

According to Bodenstedt “every Suane who is not able to provide for his daughters and sisters, may sell them as slaves”519. This is the only reference made to slavery by any of our informants520. Telfer states that the independent Suanes [137]acknowledge neither king nor nobility, consider all men equal, despise all authority and have no laws521. Therefore it does not seem probable that they keep slaves; perhaps the daughters and sisters of whom Bodenstedt speaks are sold abroad.

In Klaproth’s detailed description of the Charachai no mention is made of slavery; so probably it does not exist522.

Chantre gives a few short notes on some Caucasus tribes. Gourien nobles, according to him, export slaves to Turkey523. Whether they also employ slaves, we do not know.

Among the Kabards of Asia Minor the families consist of about twelve persons, slaves included524.

The Abchases were formerly slave-traders. They coupled their prisoners, and sold the children born of these unions525. Whether these slave-breeders kept their slaves only for the sake of reproduction or for anything beyond this, does not appear.

The Tchetchenes “say: We are all equal. There were never slaves among them. Only the captives were not members of the tribe; but even these often married their master’s daughters and so became their equals”526. These captives bear a strong resemblance to slaves; and we should be very much inclined to call them such, were it not that Chantre positively asserts that there never were slaves in this tribe. The lack of further details prevents our coming to any definite conclusion.

[138]

The Aeneze Bedouins have slaves. “Slaves, both male and female, are numerous throughout the desert; there are but few sheiks or wealthy individuals who do not possess a couple of them”527.

Doughty makes no mention of slavery among the Fejir Bedouins; but his description is not elaborate enough for us to infer that slavery does not exist528.

Regarding the Larbas, a tribe of pastoral Arabs living in North Africa, we have got a very good description by Geoffroy. They keep Negro slaves529.

Theal remarks about the Bantu tribes in general that, when first discovered by the Portuguese, the coast tribes had no slaves, but in the inland there were heartless slave-owners530.

Fritsch, at the beginning of his description of the Hottentots or Koi-Koin, states that in his time these tribes had already been much changed from their aboriginal state; so he had to rely on the statements of ancient writers, several of which bear a rather fantastic character699.

Of the Namaqua, one of the Hottentot tribes, he says, that the state of women is not so bad as among most South African tribes. The men assist their wives in the hard work; moreover a class of servants or slaves exists here. “This lowest class of people—one might object to our calling them “slaves”, as there is no established law distinguishing slaves from freemen—among the Namaqua mainly consists of individuals belonging to the despised tribes of Mountain-Damara and Bushmen. These people are looked upon as inferior by their very birth, and (like the Vaalpenz among the Bechuanas) regard bad treatment as inevitably connected with their origin, without being slaves by law. Serfs (Leibeigenen) in the proper sense of the word may be called those only who, as prisoners of war, or by surrendering at discretion (like the Fengu among the Caffres), become subjected to men of power; of these there are but few among the Namaqua tribes, but among all South African natives the rich tyrannize over the poor who, in the hope of filling their stomachs, comply with a state of dependence which is not authorized by law.” According to Th. Hahn, he who ill-treats or even barbarously murders a slave, is not punished700. This statement is not very clear. Fritsch speaks here of three kinds of “servants or slaves”: a. poor dependent on the rich; these certainly are servants and not slaves; b. individuals belonging to despised tribes; of these Fritsch [162]says, that they are not slaves by law, and as no more details are given, we cannot make out what they are; c. prisoners of war and those who have surrendered at discretion. These, according to Fritsch, are the only Leibeigenen in the proper sense; but he compares them to the Fengu, who, as we saw in § 15, are subjected tribes rather than slaves701. Galton remarks: “Though no slaves are exported from the countries in which I travelled, yet there is a kind of slavery in the countries themselves. It is not easy to draw a line between slavery and servitude; but I should say that the relation of the master to the man was, at least in Damara and Hottentotland, that of owner rather than employer. The Namaqua Hottentots and Oorlams, in all their plundering excursions, capture and drive back with them such Damara youths as they take a fancy to, and they keep them, and assert every kind of right over them. They punish them just as they please, and even shoot them, without any one attempting to interfere. Next in the scale of slavery are those Damaras, Ghou Damup, or Bushmen, who place themselves under Hottentot “protection”, and on much the same footing as those among the Hottentots, are the paupers that are attached to different werfts among the Damaras702”. We see that Galton, like Fritsch, is uncertain as to whether the subjected classes among the Namaqua are to be called slaves. According to Wandrer, whose description applies to a later period than the foregoing accounts, there are no slaves, but a kind of serfs, most of them Herero, who were formerly prisoners of war703. Considering all this, we cannot arrive at any definite conclusion.

In his description of the other Hottentot tribes, viz. the Griqua, Korana, and Colonial Hottentots, Fritsch makes no mention of slavery. Holub remarks: “Where a well-to-do Korana can afford to keep some Makalahiri and Masarwa as servants and slaves, the soil is tilled to a small extent704”. We have before met with these Makalahiri and Masarwa as tribes subjected to the Bechuanas; this makes us doubt, whether the “slaves” Holub speaks of are not divisions of the same tribes subjected to the [163]Korana, rather than slaves in the proper sense; the more so as he speaks of “servants and slaves”.

The describers of the Bushmen705 make no mention of slavery. Fritsch tells us that they adopted parts of the declining Hottentots into their hordes706, so we may safely infer that slavery did not exist among them.

None of the describers of the Akkas707 speak of slaves. Burrows tells us that they “purchase their implements, such as spears, arrow-heads, and knives, from their neighbours, in exchange for dried meat, or for captives they have taken in the bush.” But as the same writer states that “each village is ruled by a chief or head man, but among the people there is no variation of rank708”, we may safely suppose that they sell abroad all captives they have made, and do not keep any of them as slaves.

Of the Abongos we know little, far too little to make out whether slavery exists among them709.

The Mucassequere, according to Serpa Pinto, sell the captives they make in their wars as slaves to the Ambuella, who transmit them to Bihé caravans710. We may therefore suppose that they do not keep slaves.

Munzinger, in his excellent books, describes several of these [164]tribes, all of which keep slaves: Beduan711, Takue712, Marea713, Beni Amer714, Barea and Kunama715, Bogos716.

The Gallas practise slavery to a great extent717.

The Somal and Danakil also have slaves, though not so many as the Gallas718.

Amongst the Massai slavery is unknown719.

Kannenberg, in his short notes on his journey through the country of the Warangi, remarks that captives are made slaves. But in Baumstark’s elaborate description of this tribe no mention is made of slavery720. We may therefore conclude, that the Warangi do not keep slaves. If Kannenberg’s statement is correct, the prisoners certainly become victims of the slave trade, which in his time was carried on to a great extent in German East Africa721.

The Wandorobo have been described by several authors722, who do not make any mention of slaves. They are themselves subjected to the Massai723. We may safely conclude that they have no slaves724.

The Wakwafi also probably have no slaves; for none of their describers725 say a word about slavery.

Several North-African peoples, such as the Fulbe, the Tuareg, the Kabyls, etc., being semi-civilized rather than savages, have been excluded here726.