ill. The prisoners had daily opportunity to run away, but they did not

desire it, for they were very contented. They were never beaten, nor even reproved. They hunted and fought together with the Abipones. And yet they were not merged into the nation of the Abipones; for the Abipone women generally would marry only a man of their own people; and the men never married female prisoners, nor had they any connection with them. It appears that every captive was assigned to an individual master. So we have here to deal with the fact, that one man is the property of another beyond the limits of the family proper, i.e. slavery, though slavery of an extraordinarily mild character [249].

The Payaguas in their wars killed all adult men, and preserved the women and children. What became of the latter does not appear. The Payaguas were absolutely free and did not recognize any difference of classes. From this it is probable, though not certain, that they had no slaves [250].

The Enimagas, according to Azara, were hunters; agriculture among them was incumbent on slaves. No further particulars are given about these slaves. The Enimagas are said formerly to have held the Mbayas in a kind of slavery; but such a subjection of a tribe as a whole is not slavery in the true sense; slavery is subjection of individuals. If the “slaves” the Enimagas had in Azara’s time were of the same description, they were not slaves [251]. So we cannot arrive here at any definite conclusion.

D’Orbigny remarks, that the Charruas when at war killed all the men, and preserved the women and children, whom they made concubines and slaves [252]. As Azara’s statement is quite different, we shall translate it literally: “All are equal; nobody serves another; or it must be some old woman who, having no means of subsistence, joins some family, or assists at the burying of the dead”. In their wars they kill all they meet, preserving none but the women and the children under twelve years of age. They take their prisoners along with them, and let them enjoy their freedom; most of them marry there and get so much accustomed to this mode of life, that they but rarely wish to return to their own people [253]. Although such kind treatment is compatible with slavery, Azara’s statement about nobody serving another is positive enough to exclude all notion of slavery. Heusser and Claraz, who seem to be well informed, make no mention of slavery [254]. This fact, together with the above-quoted positive statement of Azara, who on the whole seems to be better informed than D’Orbigny [255], and who also treats this matter much more fully, leads us to conclude that they had no slaves. The lapse of time between Azara’s and D’Orbigny’s travels (from about 30 to 50 years) might account for the difference of their descriptions; but it seems to us that so much importance need not be attached to the latter’s short remark.

The Minuanes, according to Azara, resemble the Charruas in their mode of warfare, and in acknowledging no social classes [256]. We may therefore suppose them to have had no slaves.

The Patagons or Tehuelches, according to Musters and Falkner, have slaves. The same is stated by Letourneau on the authority of Guimard [257]. And as these authors not only assert that there are slaves, but also give some particulars about them, we may be sure that slavery really exists.

About the Puelches we get some information from Azara, who calls them Pampas. “In war they kill all adult males, preserving none but the women and young boys; these they take home and treat in the same manner as the Charruas do. It is true, that they impose some kinds of work upon them, and use them as slaves or servants until they marry; but then they are as free as the others” [258]. Such men, who as soon as they marry are on a level with the members of the tribe, certainly are not slaves.

The Araucanians, according to D’Orbigny, kill their male enemies and enslave the women and children [259]. Molina says: “The prisoners of war, as is the custom of all semibarbarous nations, become tavaichi, i.e. slaves, until they are exchanged or ransomed” [260]. In his detailed description of Araucanian social life he makes no further mention of slaves, nor do the other authors [261]. So we may suppose that the prisoners are always exchanged or ransomed, and that slavery is unknown among them.

About the Fuegians we have this positive statement of Hyades and Déniker: “They have no chiefs, no labourers who work for pay, and no slaves” [262]. This statement, already valuable in itself, is corroborated by the fact, that none of the other authors we have consulted on the subject make any mention of slavery [263].

Result. Positive Ancient nations of Honduras, cases: Inhabitants of Panama and Costa Rica, Mundrucus, Mauhés, Mbayas, Caduvei, Suya, Abipones, Tehuelches, Arawaks, Saliva, Goajiro, Tupinambas, Chiriguanos, Yuruna, Sencis, Enimagas. Negative cases: Wild tribes of North Mexico, Natives of the Mosquito Coast, Caribs of the Isthmus, Warraus, Macusi, Roucouyennes, Apiacas, Botocudos, Bakairi, Paressi, Bororo, Guanas, Charruas, Minuanes, Puelches, Araucanians, Fuegians, Wild tribes of Central Mexico, Continental Caribs, Guaycurû, Tobas, Karayas, Zaparos, Campas, Conibos, Yuracarès, Mocéténès, Chiquitos, Chapacuras, Payaguas. No conclusion: Caribs of the Antilles, Wild tribes of South Mexico, Natives of Hispaniola, Miranhas, Canoeiros, Moxos.

§ 4. Australia.

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

In Western Australia: Yerkla-mining, In South Australia: Eucla, Arunta, Urabunna, Dieri, Narrinyeri, Booandik, Wotjoballak, In South Australia (N. Territory): Mara, Anula, Worgaia, Warramunga, Kaitish, In Victoria: Wolgai, Wurinyeri, Kurnai, Bangerang, In N. S. Wales: Tongaranka, Euahlayi, Kamilaroi, Wiimbaio, Geawegal, Yuin, Murring, In Queensland: Otati, Pitta Pitta, Kiabara, Kabi, Turribul.

The extinct Tasmanians also belonged to the Australian group.

Nowhere in all the books and articles we have consulted on the Australian tribes is any mention made of slaves [264]. Now it is true that, whereas on many of these tribes we are well informed, there are others on which we have little information or no information at all. But here our group-argument may be brought to bear. We have to deal here with an isolated district, inhabited by tribes living in similar conditions and physically and psychically resembling each other, so much so, that some ethnographers [265] and theorists [266] speak of the Australians as if they were one people, as if all Australians were in exactly the same state of culture. This really is erroneous: there are many differences in several respects between the Australian tribes [267]. But that they can be treated in this manner, proves that the differences are not so very great; it is unimaginable, that Grosse would have spoken in the same way of the American Indians or the Negroes. What we mean to say now is this: our information on some Australian tribes is not sufficient to prove that just in that district which each particular account relates to, slavery does not exist. But then the several accounts strengthen each other; for taking into consideration the great likeness existing between the Australian tribes, it is a priori unlikely that some of these tribes would have and others would not have slaves. Moreover, if in any part of Australia slavery existed, our informants probably would have found this too remarkable a fact to leave it unnoticed.

As little mention is made of slaves by those ethnographers who speak of the Australians in general [268]. According to Brough Smyth, “each of the principal men and priests seeks for his food, and ministers to his own wants (with such help as he gets from his wives); and has no one whom he can call servant” [269]. Gerland states that the Australians make no captives, except women sometimes [270].

All this makes it sufficiently clear that the Australians have no slaves [271]. The 30 tribes we have enumerated here may therefore rank as clear cases of savage tribes without slaves.

§ 5. Melanesia.

Rochas, describing the New Caledonians, writes: “Slavery does not exist in the New Caledonian society” [272]. Lambert tells us that the only division into social classes is that between the chief and his parents and the common people. Captive children are adopted and enjoy all the privileges of their adoptive parents’ own children [273]. Brainne informs us, that there are two social classes: chiefs of various kinds, and serfs; the latter term probably means the common people. De Vaux and Legrand make no mention whatever of slaves [274]. According to Glaumont there are four classes, the fourth of which is composed of slaves (en-dji-dio) [275]. But no further particulars are given about these slaves in his rather long article. Taking all this in consideration, we are justified in concluding that slavery does not exist.

On the state of things in the Solomon Islands we are well informed by several authors. Elton says: “If a man is married and has got a little money and a few slaves, he calls himself a chief, but does not exercise any power over his slaves; they do pretty well as they like” [276]. Guppy gives this general description of slavery in the Solomon Islands: “In the larger islands the bush-tribes and the coast-natives wage an unceasing warfare, in which the latter are usually the aggressors and the victors—the bushmen captured during these raids either affording materials for the cannibal feast or being detained in servitude by their captors. But there prevails in the group a recognized system of slave-traffic, in which a human being becomes a marketable commodity—the equivalent being represented in goods either of native or of foreign manufacture. This custom, which came under the notice of Surville’s expedition, during their visit to Port Praslin in Isabel, in 1769, obtains under the same conditions at the present time. These natives were in the habit of making voyages of ten and twelve days’ duration with the object of exchanging men for “fine cloths covered with designs”, articles which were manufactured by a race of people much fairer than their own, who were in all probability the inhabitants of Ontong Java. The servitude to which the victims of this traffic are doomed is not usually an arduous one. But there is one grave contingency attached to his thraldom which must be always before the mind of the captive, however lightly his chains of service may lie upon him. When a head is required to satisfy the offended honour of a neighbouring chief, or when a life has to be sacrificed on the completion of a tambu house or at the launching of a new war-canoe, the victim chosen is usually the man who is not a free-born native of the village. He may have been bought as a child and have lived amongst them from his boyhood up, a slave only in name, and enjoying all the rights of his fellow natives. But no feelings of compassion can save him from his doom; and the only consideration which he receives at the hands of those with whom he may have lived on terms of equality for many years is to be found in the circumstance that he gets no warning of his fate” [277].

The notes of the other ethnographers relate to single parts of this group. Verguet states that in St. Christoval (in the southeastern part of the group) the slaves “are treated as adopted children; the slave cultivates the master’s fields together with the master himself; he helps him to prepare the food and accompanies him when hunting or fighting; he shares in his pleasures as well as in his work; when the tribe celebrates a feast, the slaves are not excluded from it. When full-grown, they marry into their master’s tribe, erect their houses next to their master’s house or share the latter. Sometimes the master does not disdain to marry his slave” [278]. Codrington, whose notes mainly relate to the same parts of the group, remarks: “There is no such thing as slavery properly so called. In head-hunting expeditions prisoners are made for the sake of their heads, to be used when occasion requires, and such persons live with their captors in a condition very different from that of freedom, but they are not taken or maintained for the purposes of service. In the same islands when a successful attack and massacre enriches the victors with many heads, they spare and carry off children, whom they bring up among their own people. Such a seka will certainly be killed for a head or for a sacrifice before any native member of the community; but he lives as an adopted member, shares the work, pleasure and dangers of those with whom he dwells, and often becomes a leading personage among them. A refugee or a castaway is not a slave but a guest; his life is naturally much less valued than that of a man of the place, and useful services are expected from him, while he mixes freely and on equal terms with the common people” [279]. Guppy says: “I will turn for a moment to the subject of slavery in the eastern islands of the group. In Ugi it is the practice of infanticide which has given rise to a slave-commerce regularly conducted with the natives of the interior of St. Christoval. Three-fourths of the men of this island were originally bought as youths to supply the place of the natural offspring killed in infancy. But such natives when they attain manhood virtually acquire their independence, and their original purchaser has but little control over them.... Connected in the manner above shown with the subject of slavery is the practice of cannibalism. The completion of a new tambu-house is frequently celebrated among the St. Christoval natives by a cannibal feast. Residents in that part of the group tell me that if the victim is not procured in a raid amongst the neighbouring tribes of the interior, some man is usually selected from those men in the village who were originally purchased by the chief. The doomed man is not enlightened as to the fate which awaits him, and may perhaps have been engaged in the erection of the very building at the completion of which his life is forfeited”. On the neighbouring small island of Santa Anna the natives are reputed to abstain from human flesh; but “the war-chief has acquired a considerable fortune, in a native’s point of view, by following the profitable calling of purveyor of human flesh to the man-eaters of the adjacent coasts of St. Christoval.... I am told that there is a faint gleam of tender feeling shown in the case of a man who, by long residence in the village, has almost come to be looked upon as one of themselves. He is allowed to remain in ignorance of the dreaded moment until the last; and, perhaps, he may be standing on the beach assisting in the launching of the very canoe in which he is destined to take his final journey, when suddenly he is laid hold of, and in a few moments more he is being ferried across to the man-eaters of the opposite coast” [280].

From the foregoing statements it appears that the so-called slaves are kept either for cannibal purposes or to strengthen the number of the tribe into which they are incorporated. Hence we may safely infer, in accordance with Codrington, that slavery proper does not exist in the south-eastern part of the group.

Somerville, describing the New Georgia group (in the centre of the Solomon Islands), remarks: “Slavery certainly exists, but it is in so mild a form that it is scarcely possible to detect master from man. I have never been able to elicit any facts concerning its introduction, propagation or limits, or even if (in so many words) it existed at all.” “I was informed that slaves are kept chiefly for their heads, which are demanded whenever any occasion necessitates them, such as the death of the owner” [281]. Ribbe, too, speaks of slaves in the New Georgia group. On the isle of Wella-La-Wella the household commonly consists of the man with his wives, slaves and unmarried daughters. On Rubiana the master treats his slaves like his equals, but may at any time kill and eat them [282]. The following statement of Woodford’s also relates to New Georgia: “On their expeditions it is not heads alone that they bring back, but slaves as well. These are either bought or captured alive, and it is from among these slaves that the victims are selected in case a head is required. They appear to be well treated in other ways, and to have as much liberty as they please; in fact, seem to be on a perfect footing of equality and familiarity with their captors. But any day a head may be wanted to celebrate the completion of a new canoe or other work, and one of the luckless slaves is unexpectedly called upon to furnish it. Mercifully for the victim, the blow falls from behind and unexpectedly. These slaves are often employed as guides to lead a party of head-hunters unexpectedly upon the mountain villages on Ysabel, whence they originally came” [283].

These details do not make it quite clear whether the condition of the “slaves” in the New Georgia group is not yet slavery or slavery in an incipient stage. We should rather think the latter; but we are not certain about it.

Parkinson’s description of the north-western part of the group applies mainly to the isles of Bouka and Bougainville. In Bougainville individuals belonging to the inland tribes are sometimes enslaved by the coast people. Male slaves are not allowed to marry. (This has probably reference to both Bouka and Bougainville). At the death of a person of rank a slave was formerly, and in some parts still is killed [284]. Ribbe also states that in Bougainville slavery exists, though in a mild form, most of the slaves being children captured in war. In the Shortland Islands (to the south of Bougainville) slaves are prisoners of war, most of them being imported from Bougainville. They are well treated and not seldom attain power and consideration and even can marry the chiefs relations. Those slaves, however, who are not so fortunate, run the risk of being sacrificed at funeral feasts, at the building of a house or the launching of a canoe. On the fields the roughest work falls to the share of the slaves [285]. Guppy, speaking of the small isle of Treasury (near Bougainville), says: “There are in Treasury several men and women who, originally bought as slaves from the people of Bouka and Bougainville, now enjoy apparently the same privileges and freedom of action as their fellow islanders. It is sometimes not a matter of much difficulty to single out the slaves amongst a crowd of natives. On one occasion I engaged a canoe of Faromen to take me to a distant part of their island; and very soon after we started I became aware from the cowed and sullen condition of one of the crew that he was a slave. On inquiry I learned that this man had been captured when a boy in the island of Bougainville, and I was informed that if he was to return to his native place—a bush-village named Kiata—he would undoubtedly be killed. Although in fact a slave, I concluded from the bearing of the other men towards him that his bondage was not a very hard one; and he evidently appeared to enjoy most of the rights of a native of the common class. Sukai, however, for such was his name, had to make himself generally useful in the course of the day; and when at the close of the excursion we were seated inside the house of a man who provided us with a meal of boiled taro, sweet potatoes, and bananas, he was served with his repast on the beach outside” [286].

We see that the difference between slaves and free men is more marked here than in the other parts of the Solomon group. Neither with regard to their work nor with regard to their social position are the slaves on a footing of equality with the free men. The conclusion is that in the north-western part of the group slavery certainly exists.

In the Nissan Islands, lying between the Solomon group and the Bismarck Archipelago, there are no slaves. Prisoners of war are killed and eaten [287].

Several describers of the Fijians speak of slaves, but it is not easy to say what they mean by the term. According to Wilkes, there are five social classes, viz. kings, chiefs, warriors, landholders and slaves (kai-si). “The last have nominally little influence; but in this group, as in other countries, the mere force of numbers is sufficient to counterbalance or overcome the force of the prescriptive rights of the higher and less numerous classes. This has been the case at Amban, where the people at no distant period rose against and drove out their kings.” In another place the same writer speaks of “the kai-si or common people.” [288]. We see that “slaves,” “people” and “common people” are synonymous terms with him. Williams equally states that the lowest class was composed of slaves, but gives no particulars about the condition of these slaves. Prisoners of war were barbarously tortured [289]. In a legend told by Seemann mention is made of a woman who had female slaves. But in another place the distinction into social classes is drawn between the chiefs and gentry and the common people [290]. Waterhouse does not speak of slaves [291]. In Jackson’s narrative, published by Erskine, we read: “The lowest condition of all, the consequence of some late total defeat, or conquest, is absolute slavery, the districts where such a state exists being called vanua kaisis or slave lands”. “I visited nearly all the vanua kaisis ... the meaning of vanua kaisi being slave-places, the inhabitants of which are supposed to supply Tanoa’s and Thakombau’s [two chiefs’] houses with daily food, and build the houses and keep them in repair; ... they also pay tribute periodically.” Evidently we have to deal here with subjection of districts as such, not with enslavement of individuals. In another place of this narrative, kaisi is translated with “slave or poor man”. But the same writer gives some details suggestive of real slavery. An enemy, whose life I had saved, he says, “called and considered himself my kaisi (slave)”. “Mara’s mother was saved when Tanoa conquered Lakemba, and was considered as a prisoner, and consequently as a slave” [292].

Though some of the details given seem to prove that there were formerly not only people of the lowest class and inhabitants of conquered districts, but also slaves in the proper sense, we are not quite certain about it.

Codrington’s above quoted statement, that “there is no such thing as slavery properly so called”, applies also to a part of the New Hebrides. Meinicke, after speaking of the chiefs, adds: “The rest of the people are free men” [293]. Our other informants [294] making no mention of slavery, we may safely infer that it does not exist here.

The Bismarck Archipelago consists of Neu Pommern, Neu Mecklenburg and a number of smaller islands. Danks gives an elaborate account of marriage customs in this group, in which there is not a word to be found about slaves. Pfeil’s description also applies to the whole archipelago. According to him, debtors have to work for their creditors, but their condition is not that of slaves. Slavery, in the sense we attach to it, does not exist. Sale of full-grown people, as well as unrewarded labour, is unknown. Children are bought, but only for the purpose of adoption, and are not sold again. Boys, who run away to some other tribe, are equally adopted. [295]

The information we have got about the separate islands does not wholly agree with these general statements.

The best known part of Neu Pommern is the Gazelle Peninsula. According to Hahl, slavery, in the country about Blanche Bay, is known by name, but practically absent. On the north coast, however, it is general. The Baining (an inland tribe) are kidnapped or captured in battle and sold by the coast people, who prefer taking children. The slaves are not allowed to marry; they have to perform female labour, especially to cultivate the plantations, and always run the risk of being killed and eaten at feasts. In the districts surrounding Mount Varzin some Taulil (another inland tribe) are kept as slaves. Parkinson, in his splendid work on the German possessions in the South Sea, also speaks of slaves. Great numbers of Baining were formerly enslaved by the coast people, who sold them to remote parts of the peninsula. The Taulil also were victims of the slave raids; men and youths were killed, women and children were made captives [296].

It is remarkable that Parkinson, describing the social organisation of the several tribes, does not make any mention of a slave class or of the work imposed on slaves. The social signification of slavery therefore seems to be small. Yet the foregoing statements must lead to the conclusion that slavery exists, at least in some parts of the peninsula.

In his description of Neu Mecklenburg and neighbouring islands, Parkinson also makes mention of slaves. On the isle of Lir or Lihir, the chief, when about to give a cannibal repast, gathers around him his whole tribe, inclusive of the slaves, who have been captured in war. And on St. John’s Island slaves are said formerly to have been boiled in the hot springs. These short notes do not seem to prove sufficiently the existence of slavery, the less so, as Romilly, in his account of Neu Mecklenburg, has not a word about slaves [297].

Speaking of the tribes inhabiting the Admiralty Islands, Parkinson states that among the Usiai prisoners of war are allowed to buy their liberty; if unable to do so, they are made slaves. Further particulars are not given. Among the Moanus the retinue of the chief consists of his nearest relations, further of servants or soldiers whom he has attached to his person by payment of shell-money, and finally of youths and boys captured in battle. The servants fight and work for their lord, but enjoy a rather independent position. We are not sure whether we have to deal here with slavery or with a voluntary submission. So the existence of slavery in the Admiralty group, though probable in some degree, does not seem to us to be proved as yet. As little is a positive conclusion warranted by Parkinson’s statement, that in the group of small islands to the west of the Admiralty group wars between the separate islands were formerly frequent, owing to the slave stealing propensities of the natives [298].

In the islands of Torres Straits, according to Meinicke, there is no government and no social division, except the division into tribes. Haddon, describing the western tribes of Torres Straits, says: “I never heard of slavery being practised” [299]. So slavery is probably unknown here.

The rest of this paragraph will be taken up with a survey of New Guinea and in the first place of the Dutch part of the island.

Bink and Krieger both state the Papuans of Humboldt Bay have no slaves, neither are slaves mentioned in Koning’s account [300].

In the district of Tabi some men were observed, who had their hair cut short; according to a Dorey interpreter, they were slaves [301]. This short note is not, however, sufficient to go upon.

The inhabitants of Seroei are much given to the kidnapping of slaves, whom they sell. Whether they keep any slaves themselves, does not appear [302].

The Papuans near Lake Sentani keep neither slaves nor pawns [303].

The natives of Ansus purchase many slaves, and sell slaves to Ternate traders [304]. In this case, too, we are not told, whether all the purchased slaves are sold abroad, or any of them are kept by the natives.

The aborigines of Windessi in their raids make prisoners “to whom they give the name of woman, slave” [305]. This short note does not enable us to arrive at a clear conclusion.

Goudswaard says of the Papuans of Geelvinck Bay generally: “The Papuan steals men, makes them slaves, and despises them.” “The wars of the Papuans are little more than raids, in which they burn the houses of their enemies, destroy their gardens, and if possible make women and children prisoners, to restore them later on for an adequate ransom, or else to keep them as slaves or exchange them” [306].

The accounts, given by Van Hasselt and De Clercq, prove that slavery exists among the Nuforese [307].

The inhabitants of Dorey and Roon belong to the Nuforese. Rosenberg gives some particulars about slavery in Dorey, and Robidé has a few notes on slaves kept by the inhabitants of Roon [308].

Slavery also exists among the natives of Arfak [309].

The Hattamers, however, who live in the Arfak mountains, have no slaves. “The Hattamers,” says Robidé, “keep no slaves; in their wars with neighbouring tribes they do not enslave the prisoners, but cut off their heads, which they bring home as trophies” [310].

The Karons, according to Bruijn, capture slaves from their neighbours, but whether they keep them for their own use is not quite clear. Another author tells us that they eat their prisoners [311].

The existence of slavery among the Papuans of the Gulf of Maccluer is made probable by De Clercq’s and Strauch’s notes [312]. Another author observed slaves in some districts at the south-west side of this gulf; the population of these districts is a mongrel race of Buginese, emigrants from Serang, and Papuans [313].

Slavery exists on the isle of Adie and along the Gulf of Kaimani [314].

The Papuans of Ayambori have no slaves [315].

In Krieger’s elaborate account of the natives of British and German New Guinea there is not a word about slaves. Hence it would appear that they are unacquainted with slavery and we shall presently see that this conclusion is strengthened by the information we get about the separate tribes.

Thomson states that several tribes of British New Guinea in warfare kill alike men, women and children [316], and in the descriptions of single tribes: Motu, Mowat, Toaripi, natives on the mouth of the Wanigela River, no mention is made of slavery [317].

As for German New Guinea, Maclay does not speak of slaves and Finsch says that every Papuan warrior considers it an honour to kill women and children [318].

Among the Yabim slavery does not exist [319].

The same is the case among the natives of the Tami Islands [320].

Slavery is equally unknown among the Tamoes of Bogadjim [321] and the natives of the adjacent Dampier Island [322].

Result. Positive North-western Solomon Islanders, cases: Natives of the Gazelle Peninsula, Nuforese, Papuans of Arfak, ,, on the Gulf of Maccluer, ,, of Adie, ,, on the Gulf of Kaimani, Central Solomon Islanders, Fijians, Natives of Neu Mecklenburg and neighbouring islands, Admiralty Islanders, Papuans of Tabi, ,, ,, Ansus. Negative cases: New Caledonians, South-eastern Solomon Islanders, Nissan Islanders, New Hebridians, Natives of Torres Straits, Papuans of Humboldt Bay, ,, near Lake Sentani, Hattamers Papuans of Ayambori, Motu, Mowat, Toaripi, Papuans on the mouth of the Wanigela river, Yabim, Natives of the Tami Islands, Tamoes, Natives of Dampier Island.

No conclusion: Papuans of Seroei, ,, ,, Windessi, Karons.

§ 6. Polynesia.

All authors agree that the Maori of New Zealand had slaves; and the many details they give prove that slavery really existed [323].

The Tongans, according to Meinicke, had slaves, partly prisoners of war, partly condemned criminals [324]. Gerland, referring to a missionary report, speaks of slaves, tamaiveiki [325]. But in his very minute description of Tongan government and social classes [326] he gives no more particulars about these slaves; and Mariner who, according to Gerland, is very reliable [327], makes no mention of slavery. Mariner enumerates five social classes; the lowest class were the tooas, the bulk of the people, consisting of a. a few warriors, b. professed cooks in the service of the chiefs, c. those who tilled the soil and had no other occupation [328]. Mariner only makes mention of captive women, so it is probable that no men were taken prisoners in their wars [329]. West states that there was a monarchical despotism, supported by an hereditary aristocracy. The people were divided into several, strictly separated, classes. The lowest class where the tuas, common people, subdivided into different trades: carpenters, fishermen, etc. The feudal principle, that the whole country belonged exclusively to the king, made the people slaves [330]. Such “slavery” of a whole people is not, however, slavery in the true sense of the word. Of slavery proper West makes as little mention as Mariner. We may, therefore, safely suppose that Meinicke and Gerland have been mistaken, and that slavery did not exist here.

With reference to Samoa Gerland speaks of two political parties who were always at war, “but they do not destroy their adversaries”, he says, “nor enslave them, as frequently members of the same family belong to different parties” [331]. According to Meinicke the prisoners were at different times differently disposed of; but among these modes of treatment slavery is not mentioned [332]. Wilkes states that their wars “were attended with great cruelty, and neither old or young of either sex were spared” [333]. Turner, a good authority, remarks: “Prisoners, if men, were generally killed; if women, distributed among the conquerors” [334]. We are not told whether these women were married, or kept in a slave-like state; but even in the last case this would be slavery of women only, and therefore not slavery in the proper sense. Krämer is the only author who speaks of slaves. The conquered party had to ask the pardon of the conquerors and to bring firewood as if to show that they considered themselves worth to be eaten like pigs. Often also they had to perform degrading work as slaves (pologa), to pay a tribute or even to furnish human flesh for cannibal purposes [335]. It would seem that this degrading work was imposed upon the conquered as a temporary punishment and that we have not to deal here with a permanent system of forced labour as among slave-keeping tribes. This being the only reference to slavery in Krämer’s very detailed description of the Samoans, and slavery not being mentioned by any of our other informants [336], we may safely infer that it did not exist.

Gardiner, in his excellent article on Rotuma, says: “Slaves as such did not properly exist” [337].

Gerland and Meinicke, enumerating the social classes in the Rarotonga group (or Hervey Islands, or Cook’s Islands), make no mention of slaves. According to Meinicke, the lowest class are the common people [338]. So slavery seems to have been unknown here.

In Tahiti, according to Ellis, “the lowest class included the titi and the teuteu, the slaves and servants; the former were those who had lost their liberty in battle, or who, in consequence of the defeat of the chieftains to whom they were attached, had become the property of the conquerors. This kind of slavery appears to have existed among them from time immemorial. Individuals captured in actual combat, or who fled to the chief for protection when disarmed or disabled in the field, were considered the slaves of the captor or chief by whom they were protected. The women, children and others who remained in the districts of the vanquished, were also regarded as belonging to them; and the lands they occupied, together with their fields and plantations, were distributed among the victors.... If peace continued, the captive frequently regained his liberty after a limited servitude, and was permitted to return to his own land, or remain in voluntary service with his master” [339]. Though the second kind of slaves Ellis enumerates, the subjects of vanquished chiefs, probably were not slaves, and the frequent liberating of captive slaves proves that slavery was not of great significance, it would seem from Ellis’s account that to a limited extent it was present. Another ancient writer, however, tells us that the lowest class were the common servants, called toutou, or, when they were in the service of women, tuti. Nobody was obliged to serve longer than he liked. The manahoune or peasants, who worked for the nobility, were also free to change their master or remove to another district. Hence we should infer that slavery did not exist [340]. Moerenhout says: In the Society Islands there were no slaves; the people served the chiefs voluntarily. Prisoners of war, men, women, and children, were almost always mercilessly murdered [341]. Considering the details given by Ellis, who was very well informed, we are inclined, notwithstanding the contrary statements of the other writers, to conclude that slavery existed in Tahiti, but we are not quite certain about it.

Of Hawaii Ellis says: “The wives and children of those whom they had defeated were frequently made slaves, and attached to the soil for its cultivation, and, together with the captives, treated with great cruelty.” Captives were sometimes spared, “though perhaps spared only to be slaves, or to be sacrificed when the priests should require human victims. The persons of the captives were the property of the victors, and their lives entirely at their disposal.” But in enumerating the social classes he makes no mention of slaves. “In the fourth [lowest] rank may be included the small farmers, who rent from ten to twenty or thirty acres of land; the mechanics ... indeed, all the labouring classes, those who attach themselves to some chief or farmer, and labour on his land for their food and clothing, as well as those who cultivate small portions of land for their own advantage” [342]. In the accounts of the other writers, who knew the ancient institutions of Hawaii by observation or personal information, we do not find anything tending to prove that slavery existed. Wilkes, in his very detailed account of government and land tenure, does not speak of slaves. “The authority” he says “descended in the scale of rank, rising from the lowest class of servants to tenants, agents, landholders, land-owners, petty chiefs, high chiefs, and the king” [343]. Chamisso expressly states that slavery was absent. The common people were entirely subjected to the chiefs, but there were no slaves or serfs. Peasants and servants were allowed to remove to any place they liked. The people were free; they could be killed, but not sold or retained [344]. Remy tells us that the common people were heavily oppressed by the chiefs. Slaves are not mentioned by him. Prisoners were sacrificed [345]. All this renders the existence of slavery in ancient Hawaii very improbable and so we think we are justified, notwithstanding the second-hand information, furnished by Meinicke, that there were a few slaves [346], and Marcuse’s short remark, that “to allure the sharks, they occasionally made human sacrifices, especially among the slaves” [347], in concluding that slavery did not exist.

Hale states that in the Marquesas Islands there were no slaves [348]. The same follows from Radiguet’s description. According to this writer, the natives were divided into the nobles and the common people. The latter served the nobles, but were free at any time to leave their employers [349]. According to Meinicke prisoners were either sacrificed and eaten, or spared and adopted into the conquering tribe [350]. De Rocquefeuil also states that the prisoners were eaten, unless, by the priests’ intervention, they were buried; at any rate they were killed [351]. Moerenhout tells us that the sole object of their wars was to obtain a cannibal repast [352]. From all this we may safely infer that there were no slaves and that Gerland, stating that “slaves were rare; like the foreigners, who were always regarded as enemies, they had no rights, could be quite arbitrarily treated and even killed” [353], has mistaken for slaves persons intended to be sacrificed. Letourneau holds the same view of the matter: “Everything seems to indicate, that slavery did not exist in the Marquesas Islands” [354].

The natives of Tukopia, according to Gerland, formerly kept slaves, who were prisoners of war [355]. No more details are given.

Wilkes, speaking of the Paumotu group, observes that Anaa or Chain Island “is said to contain five thousand inhabitants, which large number is accounted for by the conquest of the other islands, and taking their inhabitants off as captives”. The influence of the missionaries caused a change in “the treatment of their captives, whom they allowed to return, if they chose, to their own island; but very many of them had married at Anaa, and became permanent residents there, and few have taken advantage of the permission to return” [356]. Whether the captives mentioned here were kept as slaves is not clear. Moerenhout tells us that the natives of the Paumotu group often preserved their prisoners to eat them later on at feasts [357]. We cannot arrive at a definite conclusion here.

Geiseler states that on Easter Island male prisoners of war were formerly eaten. Captured women and girls, however, were not killed, but given to young warriors. Slaves are not mentioned. The king had absolute power over the common people [358]. It would seem that slavery was absent here; but we are not quite certain about it, as Geiseler describes a state of things existing long before his visit to the island.

In the Abgarris, Marqueen and Tasman groups, according to Parkinson, there are three social classes, the chiefs and their parents, the nobles and priests, and the common people [359]. Hence we may safely infer, that slavery does not exist.

Result. Positive cases: Maori, Tahitians. Negative cases: Tongans, Samoans, Rotumians, Rarotonga Islanders, Hawaiians, Marquesas Islanders, Abgarris, Marqueen and Tasman Islanders, Easter Islanders. No conclusion: Tukopia Islanders, Paumotu Islanders.

§ 7. Micronesia.

According to Meinicke none of the describers of the Marshall Islands make mention of slaves. Gerland, too, does not speak of slaves [360]. According to Hernsheim the lowest class is composed of the poor, the armidwon or kajur. They are forbidden to take more than one wife. The next class is that of the leadagedag, who own property, have in most instances three wives, and are provided with food by the kajur [361]. Kubary says: “The common people are called armidj kajur and form the greater part of the subjects. They have no property, except the land allotted to them by the chief, who can take it from them at his pleasure. Every week they have, each of them, to provide the chief with prepared food, the quantity and quality of which are determined”. These people, according to Kubary, form the lowest class [362]. Hager quite agrees with Kubary, to whom he frequently refers [363]. Senfft states that sale or pawning of men is unknown. Captives, domestic slaves, debt-slaves etc. are not found. The lowest class are the armidj kajur or common people, who own no property. Hence we might infer that slavery does not exist. But in another place the same writer remarks that only the upper classes (kings, relations of kings and chiefs of districts) are free, the rest of the population being unfree and presenting all the characteristics of slaves. The armidj has no rights, everything he acquires is the property of his chief. The chief has over him the right of life and death. Yet we do not think the writer means to say that these people of very low standing are really slaves, i.e. the individual property of the chiefs. They are not bought and sold, as is generally the case with slaves. The armidj do not become such through captivity in war or indebtedness, the common manners in which people are made slaves. So some of the ordinary features of slavery are wanting. This already renders the existence of slavery doubtful. But we think the following passage in Senfft’s description clearly shows that the armidj are not slaves: “The armidj cannot leave the tribe without the consent of his chief, but as most often he belongs by birth to several chiefs, he can go over from the tribe of one of his chiefs to that of another, i.e., he can place himself under the immediate control of the other chief by rendering him services, especially by tilling his land. He commonly does so, when he is badly treated.” From this it appears that the armidj is not the individual property of his chief; else he would not be able to change his condition so easily. We think his relation to the chief is rather that of a subject to a petty despot [364]. This conclusion is strengthened by what we learn from other recent descriptions. Krämer makes no mention of slaves. The lowest class, according to him, are the kajur or common people [365]. In a report regarding the isle of Jaluit it is equally stated that the lowest class are the armidj kajur or common people, who own no land. They have to work for the landowners and to provide them with food. This is more suggestive of tenancy than of slavery. It is true that the writer calls them unfree; but then he says, that their becoming free was synonymous with their rising to the rank of a chief, so it seems that by “unfree” he means people whose condition is below that of the chiefs and nobles [366]. Taking all this into consideration, we think we may safely infer that there are no slaves in the Marshall group.

Though the isle of Nauru is often regarded as belonging to the Marshall group, its situation is rather isolated and the social organisation of the population is different from that on the other islands of the group, so we think we must treat it separately. Krämer remarks that there are three classes: chiefs, middle class and slaves. The chiefs have unlimited power over the slaves, who are not allowed to marry without their consent. A murderer in most cases has to yield his land to the parents of his victim, but when there are attenuating circumstances, he is allowed to give slaves as a compensation [367]. Jung gives more details. He speaks of serfs or slaves, but what he tells about them is not very suggestive of slavery. The serfs, unlike the other classes, own no land. A native who is supposed to have killed another by means of sorcery becomes the serf of the parents of his victim and his property is taken away. Many families stand in the relation of serfs to the chiefs and other people of rank. The power of the lords over these slaves is said formerly to have been very great. The origin of serfdom was this. In their wars, families belonging to the conquered party were driven from their lands and had to seek their subsistence elsewhere. They then applied to a powerful chief, put themselves under his protection and became entirely dependent on him. In later times these serfs were placed by the chief as agents on their own former property on condition of delivering the produce to him. It then sometimes happened that these agents or their children behaved as owners of the lands they lived upon and so came into conflict with the chief [368]. From this account it appears that the so-called serfs nowadays are not in a slave-like condition. Whether in former times they were really slaves is not clear; we should rather think their state was one of voluntary submission to a landowner; but we cannot arrive at a definite conclusion.

Gerland, minutely describing the social classes on the several Caroline Islands, only in one passage speaks of slaves. According to him, on the isle of Ponape there are three classes: chiefs, freemen, and slaves. Christian also makes mention of slaves. “After the chief ruler come twelve orders of chiefs, Chaulik being the smallest title of all, and after these the Aramach-mal, or common folk, and the Litu, or slave-class” [369]. But the only details given about these slaves are that the land “belongs exclusively to the two upper classes; the third class are attached to the soil on which they live” [370]. We are inclined to think that these so-called “slaves” are really free people of low standing, the more so as on the isle of Kusaie, also belonging to the Caroline group, the common people are subjected to the higher classes who own all the land [371]. Kubary, describing the Mortlock Islands (belonging to the same group), says: “Except the division into tribes, there is no social division in the Caroline Islands, such as into classes, ranks, secret societies, etc.; and I believe that all suppositions of former observers relating to such a state of things result from ignorance of tribal government. With these natives the notions of “noble”, “gentleman”, “commoner” have but a relative value; and special titles such as “king”, “chieftain”, “prince”, etc. depend wholly upon the individual pleasure of the observer” [372]. The same writer tells us that on the isle of Ruk in warfare “such captives as may accidentally be taken are killed,” which statement is not very suggestive of slavery [373]. Gräffe, compiling Tetens and Kubary’s notes on the inhabitants of Yap, speaks of slaves: “The population is composed of three classes, chiefs, freemen, and slaves or pomilingais. The latter live together in separate villages and are obliged daily to provide the freemen with agricultural products, and whenever the chiefs require it to aid in constructing houses and canoes. Everything the slaves possess, even their wives and daughters, may at any time be required by the freemen and used at their pleasure. As we have already hinted, the slaves are not allowed to wear the head-ornaments that the freemen are in the habit of wearing, not even the combs worn in the hair; and when waiting upon the chiefs, they must approach them in a creeping, bowing attitude. One would, however, fail in supposing, that all labour is exclusively incumbent on the slave-class. They are only bound to definite taxes, viz. to a tribute of food, and of mats and other materials for housebuilding; and their slave-state consists rather in a low and dependent condition than in being taxed with labour” [374]. From this last sentence we should infer, that these people are not slaves, but only a despised lowest class. A slave always has an individual master, whereas these people are subjected to the higher classes en bloc. Krämer, in his short description of the isle of Yap, equally speaks of slaves (milingai). They live in separate villages. “Their villages, however, differ little from those of the free inhabitants of Yap, and yet the milingai are a kind of slaves or at least derive their origin from slaves.” Their social position is lower than that of the other natives. This description, in which no mention is made of the milingai serving individual masters, is little suggestive of slavery [375]. According to Volkens, there are two classes, the pilun, who are free and the pimlingai, who are slaves. “There are no domestic slaves, the dwellings of the free people and those of the slaves being strictly separated. Generally speaking, to each pilun country belong one or more pimlingai countries; the former are on the coast, the latter in the less fertile interior”. “The slaves do not pay any tribute, but are obliged to perform in the pilun country without payment public and private works, such as thatching roofs, building roads and dams, etc.” [376]. From this account also we may infer that the so-called slaves, who work for the governing districts, not for individual masters, are not really slaves. Slavery therefore seems to be unknown in the Caroline Islands.

In Gerland’s detailed account of government and social classes among the ancient inhabitants of the Marianne Islands no mention is made of slavery; and as this author uses this word in a too wide rather than in a too restricted sense, we may safely suppose that there were no slaves [377].

Kubary tells us, that “among the Pelau Islanders there can be no question of a division of the people into ranks or classes, of a nobility in our sense of the word” [378]. In another place he states that a chief’s wants are generally provided for by the work of dependent relatives, who are a kind of adopted children. If their work does not suit them, they leave their employer [379]. Semper speaks of a class of bondmen (Hörigen); but in another place he states that they work for wages; so they are neither slaves nor serfs, but a despised working class [380]. We may safely conclude that slavery does not exist here [381].

In the Kingsmill or Gilbert Islands, according to Wilkes, there are three classes: chief (nea), landholders (katoka), and slaves (kawa). “The katokas are persons who possess land, but are not of noble birth; many of these were originally slaves, who have obtained land by acts of bravery, or through the favour of their chiefs. The kawas are those who possess no land, and no one from whom they can claim support”. “They have no term to designate a poor man, except that of slave. Anyone who owns land can always call upon others to provide him with a house, canoe, and the necessaries of life; but one who has none is considered as a slave, and can hold no property whatever” [382]. It is evident that these kawas, as described by Wilkes, are not slaves, but a subjected and despised class of people destitute of land. Meinicke enumerates the following classes: chiefs (in Tarawa: nea or oamata, in Makin: jomata), free landholders (in Tarawa: katoka, in Makin: tiomata), and the common people (in Tarawa: kawa, in Makin: rang); and he adds: “There are also slaves, who originally were captives, and whose children have remained such” [383]. So the kawa, called slaves by Wilkes, are called freemen by Meinicke, according to whom there is a class of slaves still below them. Behm asserts that on Makin there are slaves besides the three other classes [384]. The best description is given by Parkinson. According to him there are kings (these only on some islands); further great landholders; then the class of small landholders. Then there are two subjected classes. One is the class of the te torre, who live as vassals on the lands of the great landholders; they get a small piece of land for their own use; they must provide their lord with men when in war, and bring him the number of cocoanuts he desires, and what he needs for his household. The lowest class are the te bei or kaungo. They have no property, no land to live upon; they live with the great landholders by whom they are maintained; they on their part must work for their lord, i.e. fish, prepare food, etc. The lord, by giving them a piece of land, can raise them to the class of the te torre. These two classes have no voice in government matters; they follow their lord without grumbling; his will is their will; an offence against the lord is regarded by them as a personal offence, and avenged as such. Generally no one marries outside his class. In ordinary life there is no difference between master and vassal; they often sleep on the same mat; they drink, dance and play together; they wear the same kind of dress. When a poor man dies, a wealthy inhabitant of the village generally provides for his family; but they must labour for him and are, so to speak, his slaves [385]. We have to examine now, whether these two lowest classes are slave-classes. We may remark, first, that, whereas most ethnographers make a large use of the word “slave”, Parkinson does not use it, except in the last sentence, and there with the qualification “so to speak”. Moreover, some particulars are not mentioned, which we should expect to find in such an elaborate description, if slavery really existed; e.g. it is not stated that the subjected persons are bought and sold; nor that care is taken that they do not run away; nor that the master is not at all, or only to a limited extent, responsible for his behaviour towards the person who serves him. As little does it appear, that these vassals become such in the same manner in which men generally become slaves. It is only stated that the family of a deceased poor man fall into a state of dependence upon a rich inhabitant of the village; but it is not clear, whether they voluntarily or involuntarily join the rich man’s family. The principal objects of property, says Parkinson, are houses, lands, and canoes [386]. Were there slaves, they would have been mentioned here too. Krämer states that there are chiefs, a nobility (aomata), a middle class (te vau), and slaves (te kanua). A noble may not marry a girl of the middle class or a slave girl, nor is he allowed to have any connection with a female slave who is his own subject [387]. Krämer’s use of the word slave, without any particulars suggestive of slavery, cannot impair the inference, to which Wilkes’s notes and Parkinson’s detailed account lead us, that there are no slaves on the Gilbert Islands.

Result. Negative cases: Marshall Islanders, Caroline Islanders, Marianne Islanders, Pelau Islanders, Kingsmill Islanders, Natives of Nauru.

Schurtz asserts that in Polynesia and Micronesia slaves are found everywhere; and Gerland is of the same opinion regarding Polynesia [388]. Our survey of both these groups shows that these writers are wrong: in Micronesia slavery is probably quite unknown; in Polynesia absence of slavery is the rule, slavery the exception.

§ 8. Malay Archipelago.

I. Malay Peninsula.

The savage tribes of the Malay Peninsula are divided into the Semang, the Sakai and the Jakun.

Among the Sakai, according to De Morgan “the debtor and his family work for the creditor during one or two moons, according to the decision of the panghulu (village-chief)”. This certainly is a commencement of debt-slavery; but such compulsory labour, limited beforehand to one or two months, is not yet slavery in the true sense.

Skeat and Blagden state that, among the Benua-Jakun, crimes of all kinds might be expatiated by the payment of fines. If the offender failed to pay the fine, he became the slave of his victim. No more details being added, the existence of slavery does not seem to us to be quite certain.

As neither in Skeat and Blagden’s exhaustive work, nor in the other books and articles we have consulted, any further mention is made of slaves, we are justified in concluding that these tribes, with the exception perhaps of a division of the Jakun, do not practise slavery [389].

II. Sumatra and neighbouring islands.

Brenner and Junghuhn speak of the Battas of Sumatra in general as keeping slaves [390].

The existence or former existence of slavery is sufficiently proved with regard to the following divisions of the Battas:

Battas on the Pane and Bila rivers [391], ,, of Mandheling [392], ,, of Pertibie [393], Karo Battas [394], Raja Battas [395], Battas of Angkola [396], ,, of Simelungun [397], ,, of Singkel and Pak-pak [398], ,, of the country of Panei [399].

Among the Battas of Silindung slavery has never existed, according to Meerwaldt [400]. Whether he means only slavery in the restricted sense, or also pawning, is not clear.

The Toba Battas, according to Meerwaldt, formerly had slaves; but now slavery is dying out under Dutch influence. Van Dijk, who visited the Habinsaran district in the Toba-lands, states that in some parts of the district there were slaves, in others there were not. Whether the latter fact is to be accounted for by Dutch influence, does not appear from his very short notes [401].

On the Lubus we have found only two short articles, in which slavery is not mentioned; but this does not prove very much [402].

None of the describers of the Kubus make any mention of slaves; so we may suppose, that slavery does not exist among them [403].

De Groot gives a detailed account of slavery and pawning in the Lampong districts [404].

In Nias slavery certainly exists [405].

The Mentawei Islanders very probably have no slaves. None of their describers make any mention of slavery [406]. “Their whole warfare consists of treacherous attacks, in which nobody’s life is spared” [407].

On the Anambas, Natuna and Tambelan Islands, belonging to the Lingga-Riouw group, there are debtor-slaves [408].

Most of the writers on Enggano make no mention of slavery [409]. According to Walland, the Engganese wear ornaments in their ear-laps, which are pierced for that purpose. If anybody’s ear-lap is broken, he incurs great disgrace; he is no longer listened to in any deliberation, nor considered a notable in his tribe, and becomes the slave of his relatives, for whom he is obliged to work. And Rosenberg says: “If a criminal does not pay the fine, this is done by his kindred; but if they are unable to pay, they sell him as a slave. So slavery exists; but it is of a very mild kind, and the number of slaves is very small” [410]. The fact that both authors speak of slavery only in connection with these particular cases, whereas the others do not speak of it at all, makes us doubt, whether what Walland and Rosenberg call slavery is slavery in the true sense. So we cannot come to a clear conclusion.

III. Borneo.

Among the Hill- or Land-Dyaks (Orang Gunong) slavery in the restricted sense and slave-trade did not exist, but, says Low: “the system of slave-debtors is carried on, though to a very small extent”. Later on this kind of slavery also disappeared [411].

The Dyaks on the Barito have slaves and pawns [412].

The Sea-Dyaks also keep slaves, but not many [413].

Slavery equally exists among the

Dyaks on Rejang river [414], Biadju-Dyaks [415], Ot-danoms [416], Olo-ngadju [417], Dyaks of Tompassuk [418], Kayans on the Mendalam [419], Kayans on the Upper Mahakam [420], Muruts [421], Dyaks of Sambas [422], Kindjin Dyaks [423], Dyaks of Pasir [424].

Denison informs us that the Dusuns have no slaves [425].

Von Dewall, in his notes on the Dyaks of Matan or Kaping, speaks of slaves of the chief. Whether these are the only slaves does not appear [426].

Of the Dyaks of Simpang he says the same, and adds that pawning is unknown amongst them. Here too we cannot arrive at a clear conclusion [427].

The Rambai- and Sebruang-Dyaks probably have no slaves; for it is stated, that their chiefs have no privileges; only, when some accident, illness for instance, prevents them from cultivating their own rice-fields, this is done by the people [428]. If there were slaves, the chiefs would not have to cultivate their own rice-fields. Moreover our informant, in his fairly detailed description, would probably have mentioned slavery, if it existed.

IV. Celebes.

Slavery is proved by good authorities to exist or have existed in several parts of this island. Such is the case

in the Minahassa [429], in Bolaäng Mongondou [430], in Lipu lo Holontalo [431], in Buool [432], among the Toradja of Central Celebes [433], among the Tomori (East-Central Celebes) [434], in the district of Sandjai [435], in Bangkala [436], among the Kailirese of Donggala or Banawa [437], in Saleyer, an island near the South Coast of Celebes [438].

V. Little Sunda Islands and Moluccas.

Slavery on these islands seems almost universal. About the following islands and groups of islands we have been able to obtain some information:

Sumbawa [439], Sumba [440], Flores [441], Solor group [442], Bonerate and Kalao [443], East Timor [444], West Timor [445], Savu [446], Rote or Rotti [447], Wetar [448], Keisar [449], Leti [450], Dama [451], Luang-Sermata group [452], Babar group [453], Tenimber and Timorlao Islands [454], Aru Islands [455], Kei Islands [456], Watubela Islands [457], Seranglao-Gorong group [458], Serang [459], Ambon and the Uliase [460], Sangi and Talauer Islands [461].

In all these cases it is clear, that slavery either formerly existed or still exists.

Slaves are also employed by the Galela and Tobelorese on Halmaheira [462], and by the inhabitants of the district of Kau on the same island [463].

Riedel states, that on Buru there were formerly slaves, and gives some details about slavery as it was carried on here. Wilken however says that there are neither slaves nor pawns [464]. Whether the latter means to say, that slavery did not exist at the time at which he was writing (1875), or that it had never existed, is not clear. Van der Miesen, writing in 1902, states that, if a man is unable to pay his debt, he is obliged to serve his creditor till his parents have collected the required sum [465]. No further mention of slavery or pawning is made in his detailed description. So we are left in doubt as to the former existence of slavery here.

VI. Philippines.

The Tagals and Visayas, at the time of the conquista, already practised slavery on a large scale [466].

Slavery certainly exists among the Bagobos [467], Manobos [468], Maguindanaos and inhabitants of the Sulu islands [469], and Samales [470].

Among the Subanos slaves are sacrificed at funerals [471]. But whether these so-called slaves are really slaves, or persons captured or purchased for sacrificing purposes only, does not appear.

The Kiangans sell their debtors as slaves; whether within the tribe or abroad we are not told [472].

In Blumentritt’s rather short article on the Bungians no mention is made of slaves [473].

From Venturillo’s and Miller’s descriptions it appears that slavery is unknown among the Bataks of Palawan [474].

Jenks, in his minute account of the Bontoc Igorot of Northern Luzon, gives a full description of the division of labour among them. The poor serve the rich for wages. Slaves are not mentioned. Under the heading of “conquest” he remarks: “Certain Igorot, as those of Asin, make forcible conquests on their neighbours and carry away persons for slavery. But Bontoc has no such conquests”. Schadenberg, too, does not speak of slaves among the Bontoc people [475]. Hence we may safely infer that the Bontoc Igorot do not keep slaves.

About the other divisions of the Igorot we are not so well informed. From Jenks’s above-quoted incidental remark it would appear that some of them practise slavery. But as in the other sources [476] we do not find anything strengthening this presumption, we cannot arrive at a positive conclusion.

Reed, describing the Negritos of Zambales (along the western coast of Luzon), says: “Notwithstanding the statements of Montano that the Negritos have no slaves and know nothing of slavery, the reverse is true, in Zambales at least; so say the Negritos and also the Filipinos who have spent several years among them. The word “a-li-pun” is used among them to express such social condition. As has been stated, a man caught steeling may become a slave, as also may a person captured from another rancheria, a child left without support, a person under death sentence, or a debtor. It was also stated that if a man committed a crime and escaped a relative could be seized as a slave. It will take a long acquaintance with the Negritos and an intimate knowledge of their customs to get at the truth of these statements”. From this last sentence, together with the fact that the other writers on the Negritos we have consulted do not make any mention of slavery, we must infer that it is doubtful whether slavery exists among the Negritos [477].

VII. Madagascar.

The Hovas and kindred tribes are considered by many investigators to be Malays. Schurtz also classifies them among the Malays in the widest sense of the word [478]. The anthropologists do not yet agree about the origin of the Hovas; but as the divisions of this chapter are only intended to give the reader a clear survey of the matter, and not to answer any anthropological purpose, we may treat them here as well as elsewhere.

The existence of slavery among the Hovas is proved by the statements of several good authorities [479].

Sibree, describing the Betsileo, Betsimisaraka, Bara, Tankay or Bezanozano, Sihanaka and Tanala, makes no mention of slavery; but his notes are not detailed enough to make its non-existence certain [480].

Hildebrandt and Grandidier speak of slaves among the Antankarana [481]. As, however, in their short notes only slaves of the king are mentioned, we may put this down as a doubtful case.

Result. Battas on the Pane and Bila rivers, Positive ,, of Mandheling, cases: ,, of Pertibie, Karo Battas, Raja Battas, Battas of Angkola, ,, of Simelungun, ,, of Singkel and Pak-pak, ,, of the country of Panei, Toba Battas, Lampongs, inhabitants of Nias, ,, ,, Anambas, etc., Hill-Dyaks, Dyaks on the Barito, Sea-Dyaks, Dyaks on Rejang river, Biadju-Dyaks, Ot-danoms, Olo-ngadju, Dyaks of Tompassuk, Kayans on the Mendalam, ,, on the Upper Mahakam, Muruts, Dyaks of Sambas, Kindjin-Dyaks, Dyaks of Pasir, inhabitants of the Minahassa, ,, ,, Bolaäng, ,, ,, Holontalo, ,, ,, Buool, Toradja, Tomori, inhabitants of Sandjai, ,, ,, Bangkala, Kailirese, inhabitants of Saleyer, ,, ,, Sumbawa, ,, ,, Sumba, inhabitants of Flores, ,, ,, the Solor group, ,, ,, Bonerate and Kalao, ,, ,, East Timor, ,, ,, West Timor, ,, ,, Savu, ,, ,, Rote, ,, ,, Wetar, ,, ,, Keisar, ,, ,, Leti, ,, ,, Dama, ,, ,, the Luang-Sermata group, ,, ,, the Babar group, ,, ,, the Tenimber and Timorlao Islands, ,, ,, the Aru Islands, ,, ,, the Kei Islands, ,, ,, the Watubela Islands, ,, ,, the Seranglao-Gorong group, ,, ,, Serang, ,, ,, Ambon and the Uliase, ,, ,, the Sangi and Talauer Islands, Galela and Tobelorese, inhabitants of Kau, Tagals and Visayas, Bagobos, Manobos, Maguindanaos, inhabitants of Sulu, Samales, Hovas, Jakun, Dyaks of Matan, ,, ,, Simpang, Subanos, Negritos, Antankarana. Negative Semang, cases: Sakai, Kubus, Mentawei Islanders, Dusuns, Rambay and Sebruang Dyaks, Bataks of Palawan, Bontoc Igorot, Battas of Silindung, Lubus. No Enganese, conclusion: inhabitants of Buru, Kiangans, Bungians, Igorot (except the Bontoc Igorot), Betsileo, Betsimisaraka, Bara, Tankay, Sihanaka, Tanala.

We shall add here a few notes on some Malay peoples, that have attained to a too high degree of civilization to be quoted here as instances of savages having or not having slaves. The purpose of this addition is only to complete this survey of the Archipelago, and to show what literature exists on these peoples.

In Java slavery has not prevailed for centuries. “In Mohammedan law a large place is taken up with regulations of slavery, of the rights of masters and slaves, and of the manner in which the latter can acquire their freedom. The peculiar state of the aboriginal Javanese society prevented the application of nearly all precepts relating to this matter. Before the introduction of Islam slavery proper seems to have been unknown; the universal subjection of the mass of the people, as Sudras, to the members of the higher castes, had made slavery superfluous. Nor has Islam introduced slavery into Java; for although in later times Javanese chiefs in a few cases kept slaves, this was done in imitation of the Europeans, and the legal status of these slaves depended on Roman-Dutch law, not on Mohammedan law.” The desas or villages, that did not accept Islam, were conquered; yet their inhabitants were not enslaved, but the whole villages en bloc were reduced to a subjected state: they had to pay extraordinary tributes and to perform services to the Sultans. This ancient state of things remained in force, even when gradually the whole population accepted Islam. Even the concubines of the chiefs are not captured or purchased slaves, but women taken from among the people [482]. This passage from Veth’s book does not, however, inform us as to whether there were slaves before the Hindu invasion and some time after. In the “Encyclopaedie voor Nederlandsch-Indië” it is stated [483], that in old times Africans were imported as slaves into Java, as appears from an inscription of 800 A.D. The continued investigation of Javanese history will probably throw more light on the subject.

In Bali slavery certainly exists, or at least formerly existed; but, according to Liefrinck, only the chief and his family have slaves [484]. Waanders, however, who gives a detailed account of the Balinese slave-system, asserts that even Sudras have slaves, though he speaks but incidentally of this [485]. Perhaps the slaves kept by the common people are only debtor-slaves; for, according to Liefrinck, debtors serve their creditors, and are sometimes sold by auction [486]. Tonkes, who has (rather deficiently) collected the literature on the Balinese, does not solve the question. At any rate, slavery here is not a fundamental institution. The chief has great power, and the Hindu caste-system prevails, so that the social classes are widely separated; the Sudras are at the mercy of the upper castes [487]. Slavery, though discountenanced by the Dutch government, still prevailed as late as 1877 [488].

Liefrinck states that in Lombok there were imported slaves and native-born slaves or serfs; the condition of the latter was much better than of the former, but they could be sold for debts and then became slaves in the strict sense [489]. Van Eck has also some notes on Lombok. According to him, Sasaks and Balinese of the Sudra-caste frequently become slaves of the rich, as a punishment or in payment of debts [490].

Van Hasselt gives a detailed account of slavery among the Malays of Menangkabao. In 1876 the slaves and pawns on the West Coast of Sumatra were emancipated by the Dutch government. But in the territories which are not under Dutch control slavery in van Hasselt’s time was still carried on to a great extent. In the little independent states a chief’s power depended upon the number of his slaves, who tilled his lands and strengthened his force in warfare. The slaves in the restricted sense were purchased and captured persons and their offspring. Besides these there were pawns [491]. Several further particulars are given in Van Hasselt’s valuable book. Willinck, in his recent work on the laws of the Malays of Menangkabao, describes their slave system in details [492].

In many other Malay districts of Sumatra slavery exists or formerly existed [493].

Particular mention has to be made of Atjeh, where slavery prevails to a great extent [494]. Slaves are equally kept by the Gajos, whose country borders on Atjeh [495].

Matthes gives some details on slavery among the Makassars and Bugis of South Celebes [496].

In Tidore slavery formerly existed, many slaves being procured from New Guinea [497]. It has, however, been abolished by the Dutch government [498].

Among the Moros of Mindanao “slavery is such an established custom and institution of the land that it is generally sanctioned and supported in the Luwaran [laws]” [499].

§ 9. Indo-Chinese Peninsula.

Some tribes of this group undoubtedly have slaves. These are the Kakhyens [500], the Shans of Zimmé [501], the Lawas and the Hill-tribes of North Aracan [502], one of these hill-tribes being the Khyoungtha of Chittagong [503].

The Lethtas have no slaves [504].

The Steins, according to Colquhoun, sometimes seize a slave in order to sacrifice him [505]. No more particulars being given, we cannot make out whether the word slave is used here in its true sense, or means a captive taken to be sacrificed.

Mason remarks on the Karens: “In war they kill without regard to age or sex.... The head of the war keeps the captives a considerable time, when, if none of their friends come to redeem them, he sells them off to other districts for oxen or buffaloes if practicable, that he may have an ox or a buffalo to give to each village that came to his aid” [506]. So the Karens seem to prefer oxen and buffaloes to captives. There are, however, many debtor-slaves among the Karen-Nees [507]. They are also noted for their kidnapping propensities; but it seems that the kidnapped are only intended for sale abroad [508]. At any rate there are debtor-slaves, and so slavery exists.

Wehrli, in his study on the Chingpaws (Sing-Phos or Kachins) of Upper Burma, gives many details, which sufficiently prove that slavery exists, or till recently existed among them [509].

We may add here the inhabitants of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands in the Bay of Bengal.

Although Man does not explicitly state that the Andamanese have no slaves, his elaborate account of their social life sufficiently proves that they are unacquainted with slavery. Social status is dependent on relationship, on skill in hunting, fishing etc., and on a reputation for generosity and hospitality. A child captured in war “would meet with kindly treatment, in the hope of his or her being induced ultimately to become a member of the captor’s tribe” [510].

Of the Nicobarese Svoboda says: “All writers agree that nowhere in these islands is there subordination, all inhabitants being of the same rank. Only older and more experienced people have somewhat more influence than the rest” [511]. Hence we may infer that slavery does not exist.

Result. Positive cases: Kakhyens, Shans of Zimmé, Lawas, Hill-tribes of North Aracan, Karens, Chingpaws, Steins. Negative cases: Lethtas, Andamanese, Nicobarese.

§ 10. India, Afghanistan, Himalaya.

Several authors state that the Meshmees have slaves [512].

The Hill-tribes near Rajamahall have no slaves [513].

Dalton gives several particulars about slavery among the Garos. Eliot also affirms that they have slaves [514].

The Kookies, according to Macrae, “at times ... make captives of the children, and often adopt them into their families, when they have none of their own; and the only slaves among them are the captives thus taken” [515]. What our informant means is not quite clear. The children who have been adopted certainly are not slaves. Perhaps a part only of the captured children are adopted, the rest constituting the slave-class of the Kookies; but this is not clearly stated. Lewin asserts that all the hill-tribes (Toungtha, divided into Lhoosai, Tipperah and Kookies) formerly had debtor-slaves [516]; but as none of our other authorities make any mention of this, we doubt whether this general remark applies to the Kookies, the more so as, according to Macrae, “the only slaves among them are the captives”. So it becomes very doubtful whether the Kookies have slaves. Dalton’s statement that “all the enemies he [the Kookie] has killed will be in the happy hunting-fields in attendance on him as slaves” [517] is not sufficient to decide the question. One thing only is certain: the Rajah has slaves. According to Dalton, murderers and thieves become slaves of the Rajah. Stewart affirms the same of those guilty of theft, burglary or arson, and Butler of thieves [518]. But if only the Rajah, who represents the public power, has slaves, the Kookies are not properly to be called a slave-keeping people. Whether there are other slaves, besides those of the Rajah, is not sufficiently clear.

The Todas very probably have no slaves. Neither Metz, nor the writers quoted by Spencer, make any mention of slavery, though they fully describe their social life [519].

The Santals also very probably are unacquainted with slavery. According to Hunter “caste is unknown among the Santals”. “The classification of the Santals depended not upon social rank or occupation, but upon the family basis.” Dalton, describing the Santals, does not speak of slaves [520].

The Khonds formerly offered human sacrifices. The victims were purchased, and often kept for many years before being sacrificed. Our informant adds: “I may just allude here to another class of persons who are purchased by the Khonds, or procured by them for adoption into their families as helps in household affairs, and in field labours. These are called Possia Poes, and are usually obtained when young. They run little or no risk of being sacrificed, and very often marry into the families of their purchasers, and in the course of time merge into the general population.” In another passage these Possia Poes are called serfs: “These serfs are well treated, and in no immediate danger; but there is always a remote probability of their sacrifice” [521]. As it is stated that these Possia Poes are absorbed into the general population, we may safely conclude that they are not slaves.

The Lushais, according to Dalton, enslave women and children [522].

Of the Manipuris Dalton says that “slavery is an institution amongst them”, and he gives some details besides. So we need not doubt its existence, though Watt makes no mention of it [523].

Among the Jyntias and Kasias the Rajah has slaves [524]. Whether there are any other slaves does not appear.

“There is no such thing as slavery among the Oraons”, according to Dalton [525].

The Korwas also very probably have no slaves. In their raids they kill all they meet [526].

The Kafirs have slaves, according to several writers [527].

Among the Padam Abors slavery undoubtedly exists [528].

Dalton says of the Dophlas: “They have normally the same Mongolian type of physiognomy, but from their intercourse with the people of the plains and the number of Assamese slaves, which they have by fair means or foul acquired, it is much modified and softened” [529]. Nothing more is added about slavery. Perhaps these “slaves” are simply captured women, no other slaves being ever taken. Whether slavery really exists is not clear.

The Nagas keep slaves, if we are to believe Grange who “saw many Muneeporees who had been thus seized whilst young, and sold both amongst Kookies, Cacharees and Nagas”. “The children of slaves are slaves.” Miss Godden remarks: “Slavery was unknown among one or more tribes [of the Nagas] according to Dr. Brown.” “Among the Aos [one of the Naga tribes] it is said to have been universal” [530].

Among the Bodo and Dhimals “there are neither servants nor slaves, nor aliens of any kind” [531].

The Veddahs of Ceylon, according to Sarasin, are unacquainted with slavery [532].

Result. Positive cases: Meshmees, Garos, Lushais, Manipuris, Kafirs, Padam Abors, Nagas, Kookies, Jyntias and Kasias, Dophlas. Negative cases: Hill-tribes near Rajamahall, Todas, Santals, Khonds, Oraons, Korwas, Bodo and Dhimals, Veddahs.

§ 11. Central Asia.

The Kazak Kirghiz, according to Pallas, “much preferred the securing of a slave to the killing of a man. They did not treat their slaves cruelly, as long as the latter behaved well”. But the information we get from other sources shows that they were not a slave-keeping people. Boutakoff says nothing about slavery. According to Ujfalvy the poor serve the rich; he calls this a real serfdom. But he adds that, if the poor do not wish to serve, they must borrow from the rich at 100 per cent. interest. So these poor are compelled to serve by hunger, not by any social rule. Chambers says: “They ... have well earned for themselves the title of the “Slavehunters of the Steppes” by seizing upon caravans, appropriating the goods, and selling their captives at the great slave-markets at Khiva, Bokhara, etc. Their wealth consists of cattle, sheep, horses, and camels” [533]. This is clear: the captives are sold abroad, and do not serve as slaves among the Kirghiz themselves; therefore they are not enumerated as forming part of their wealth. The best describer of the Kazak Kirghiz that we know of, Levchine, agrees with Chambers. “Slavery is unknown among them.” “The Turks, the Persians, and nearly all other sectaries of Mohammed keep slaves.... The Kirghiz, on the contrary, have no slaves” [534]. In several passages of his book, however, he makes mention of slaves [535]. But this will be understood, if we pay attention to two other statements of his. “They do not kill their prisoners, but sell them to the Bokharians, Khivians, and other neighbouring nations.” They buy many commodities from their neighbours, and “in exchange ... provide them with slaves captured on the Russian frontiers” [536]. So the Kirghiz in Levchine’s time made slaves; they did not, however, themselves employ them; they were only slave-traders and not a slave-keeping people. Radloff, who many years after Levchine visited the Kazak Kirghiz, supposes that they formerly kept slaves. He says: “The former serfs and slaves of the sultan, who have been for many decades emancipated, always try still to nomadize in the vicinity of the sultans, and, though at present entirely on a level with the other Kirghiz, are still called telenguts” “The denominations kul (male slave) and küng (female slave) now mean male and female servant” [537]. But we may compare this with a statement of Levchine’s: “We do not arrange in a separate class the telenguts or servants of the khans, nor the kuls or slaves. The former are taken from among the Kirghiz and enjoy the same rights; the latter are looked upon as personal property or commodities and are not Kirghiz. They are Russian, Persian, Kalmuck, etc. prisoners” [538]. We see that Radloff’s “serfs or slaves”, the telenguts, were not slaves, and the kuls were captured slaves intended to be sold. Our inference is that the Kazak Kirghiz in their former independent state did not keep slaves.

About the Kara Kirghiz we have got but little information. Radloff, in a short article on them, says: “In the regions of their winter-quarters (on the Issik-köl) they cultivate very large pieces of land, on which they leave behind labourers or slaves (of whom there are but few) whilst the tribe repairs en masse to the western mountains. These labourers get no wages, but a part of the produce in kind” [539]. Although this receiving of a part of the produce is not incompatible with slavery, their being left behind without any supervision, and Radloff’s calling them labourers or slaves and in the latter sentence labourers only, makes us doubt whether these people are really slaves, the more so as in his book slavery among the Kara Kirghiz is not mentioned [540].

Koehne, in his article on Kalmuck law, referring to Pallas and Bergmann, asserts that the Kalmucks had slaves [541]. 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 punishment [542]; 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 the culprit lost one or more of his children; but what was done with these children does not appear [543]. 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” [544]. 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 from [545]. 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 rich [546], 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” [547]. 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 from [548].

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 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 slaves [549]. 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 18th century, were given to slave-stealing [550], whether for their own use or for sale does not appear.

The Turkomans, according to Vambéry, sell foreigners as slaves [551]. In another book the same author tells us that in their internal wars they made slaves; and he speaks of their keeping female slaves [552]. Stein and Weil make no mention of slavery [553]. 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” [554]. So we may safely infer that slavery does not exist here.

The Mongols have hired herdsmen who tend their camels [555]. 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 Bokhara [556].

According to the same writer “all Galtchas are free; for slavery does not exist and has never existed in their inaccessible valleys” [557].

The Kurds of Eriwan probably have no slaves. They keep hired herdsmen. All members of the community, rich and poor, enjoy the same rights [558].

Result. Positive cases: Usbegs, Tadjiks of Hissar. Negative cases: Kazak Kirghiz, Altaians, Turkomans, Galtchas, Kara Kirghiz, Kalmucks, Mongols, Kurds of Eriwan. No conclusion: Teleuts, Tatars on the Kondoma, Abakan Tatars, Kara Kalpaks.

§ 12. Siberia.

Pallas in the 18th 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 labour [559]. But in Pallas’ time they were already entirely under Russian control [560], 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” [561]. Islawin and Finsch also make no mention of slavery [562]. And the account of Samoyede customs given by Von Stenin, who has largely drawn upon Russian literature, makes the non-existence of slavery quite certain [563].

“The Ghiliaks” says Déniker in a valuable article “are all equal, and never have there been slaves among them” [564].

Müller gives a somewhat minute description of the Tunguz, in which slavery is not mentioned, so it very probably does not exist [565].

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 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 slaves [566].

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 slaves [567].

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” [568]. 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”, 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” [569]. 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” [570]. 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 upon [571]. 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 slaves [572]. 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” [573]. 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 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” [574]. 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 influence [575], 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” [576]. 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” [577]. Hitchcock also describes the Ainu as peaceable. Speaking of some cruel punishments in vogue amongst them, he remarks: “H. von Siebold has supposed from 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” [578]. Some other describers of the Ainu we have consulted make no mention at all of slaves [579]. So we cannot arrive at a definite conclusion.

Result. Positive case: Kamchadales. Negative cases: Samoyedes, Ghiliaks, Tunguz, Yakuts, Tuski of the coast, nomadic Koryakes, settled Koryakes, Ostyaks, Gold. No conclusion: inland Tuski, Ainu.

§ 13. Caucasus.

Slavery undoubtedly exists among the Ossetes [580] and Circassians [581].

The Shahsewenses, according to Radde, consist of two social classes, the nobles and the common people [582]. 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” [583]. This is the only reference made to slavery by any of our informants [584]. Telfer states that the independent Suanes acknowledge neither king nor nobility, consider all men equal, despise all authority and have no laws [585]. 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 exist [586].

Chantre gives a few short notes on some Caucasus tribes. Gourien nobles, according to him, export slaves to Turkey [587]. Whether they also employ slaves, we do not know.

Among the Kabards of Asia Minor the families consist of about twelve persons, slaves included [588].

The Abchases were formerly slave-traders. They coupled their prisoners, and sold the children born of these unions [589]. 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” [590]. 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.

Result. Positive cases: Ossetes, Circassians, Kabards of Asia Minor. Negative cases: Charachai, Shahsewenses. No conclusion: Suanes, Tchetchenes, Gouriens, Abchases.

§ 14. Arabia.

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” [591].

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 exist [592].

Regarding the Larbas, a tribe of pastoral Arabs living in North Africa, we have got a very good description by Geoffroy. They keep Negro slaves [593].

Result. Positive cases: Aeneze Bedouins, Larbas. No conclusion: Fejir Bedouins.

§ 15. Africa. A. Bantu tribes.

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-owners [594].

1. Caffres.

Tromp and Macdonald, describing the Caffres in general, make no mention of slavery [595]. Waitz remarks: “The poor join the rich as their “children”, live in servitude, and are often exposed to heavy oppression and arbitrary treatment; but they are not slaves in the true sense: slavery proper does not exist.” “The conquered are not enslaved, the conqueror requires only subjection; whereas often the object of their wars is the capturing of cattle rather than of men” [596].

The Ama-Xosa are described by Fritsch. War is seldom sanguinary, its main object being cattle-stealing; but if the attacked defend their cattle energetically, a general slaughter ensues; women and children are killed without discrimination. Fugitive enemies are mercilessly slaughtered. When a chief has great renown, he gets many followers, who crowd towards him from all sides and contribute to the enlargement of his power; for it is a custom among the Caffres never to deliver up a fugitive whatever the reason of his fleeing from his native country. The chiefs punish insurgents by taking away their cattle; then they are poor men without any influence in the tribe. These particulars make the existence of slavery improbable: no prisoners are taken, fugitives and insurgents are not enslaved. In one place, however, Fritsch speaks of slaves. The Fengu, remnants of destroyed tribes, fell into the hands of the Ama-Xosa, who spared the lives of these fugitives, but kept them in wretched bondage. “In 1835, after this slave-state had lasted for more than ten years, when the Caffres were at war with the colony, the Fengu begged the Governor Sir Benjamin d’Urban to liberate them. The Governor, complying with the request, sent troops to enable them to depart, and so at once 16800 men, women and children with what little cattle and other property they had, established themselves in the colony” [597]. It is clear that these Fengu were not slaves. That they could depart in such large numbers from the country of the Ama-Xosa, proves that they lived more or less separate. They were weaker tribes subjected by a stronger one; we shall see that this occurs very often in South Africa. The tribes were subjected as tribes, not the individuals as such; therefore they were not slaves. Kropf, who lived among the Ama-Xosa as a missionary for 42 years, describes them as they were some 70 years ago. In his detailed account he does not speak of slaves. Male prisoners were killed, women and children were sometimes left alive. We are not told what was the fate of these women and children. There were no social classes, the whole people, from the chief down to the last of his subjects, regarding themselves as one family [598]. From all this we may safely infer that slavery did not exist among the Ama-Xosa.

In his description of the Ama-Zulu Fritsch makes no mention of slavery. Livingstone says: “Zulus do not usually destroy any save the old, and able-bodied men. The object of their raids in general is that the captured women and children may be embodied into the tribe, and become Zulus. The masters of the captives are kind to them, and children are put on the same level as those of any ordinary man. In their usual plan, we seem to have the condition so bepraised by some advocates for slavery. The members of small disunited communities are taken under a powerful government, obtain kind masters, whom they are allowed to exchange for any one else within the tribe, and their children become freemen.... The Zulus are said never to sell their captives” [599]. These captives who are “embodied into the tribe, and become Zulus,” and are never sold, certainly are not slaves.

The Matabele are a division of the Zulus, who in 1820 separated from the mother-country. Their mode of life still bears much resemblance to that of the Zulus [600]. Livingstone remarks: “Among the coast tribes a fugitive is almost always sold, but here [i.e. among the Zulus] a man retains the same rank he held in his own tribe. The children of captives even have the same privileges as the children of their captors.” The Rev. T. M. Thomas, a missionary now living with Moselekatse, finds the same system prevailing among his Zulu or Matabele. He says that “the African slave, brought by a foray to the tribe, enjoys, from the beginning, the privileges and name of a child and looks upon his master and mistress in every respect as his new parents. He is not only nearly his master’s equal, but he may, with impunity, leave his master and go wherever he likes within the boundary of the kingdom: although a bondman or servant, his position, especially in Moselekatse’s country, does not convey the true idea of a state of slavery; for, by care and diligence, he may soon become a master himself, and even more rich and powerful than he who led him captive.” The practice pursued by these people, on returning from a foray, of selling the captives to each other for corn or cattle, might lead one to imagine, that slavery existed in all its intensity among the native Africans; but Mr. Thomas, observing, as we have often done, the actual working of the system, says very truly: “Neither the punctuality, quickness, thoroughness, nor amount of exertion is required by the African as by the European master. In Europe the difficulty is want of time, in Africa, what is to be done with it. Apart from the shocking waste of life, which takes place in these and all slave forays, their slavery is not so repulsive as it always becomes in European hands” [601]. Kerr states, that the masters must pay for the offences committed by their slaves [602]. Holub’s account throws quite another light on the subject. The captured boys are given to warriors in order to be instructed by them in warfare; those already accustomed to the use of weapons are instantly enrolled into the army. Female captives are lent to warriors. The king used yearly to make raids on the neighbouring countries; on these occasions thousands were slaughtered. Besides the men, old women no longer able to work, infants and young children were killed. When Mackenzie in 1863 visited Matabeleland, he found but a few Zulu-warriors. Most men in the prime of life were Bechuanas, whom the king had either captured or exacted as a tax. The regiments of young men consisted mainly of Makalaka and Mashona youths. In time of peace they had to tend the cattle, and on their return home to exercise themselves in the use of weapons [603]. Can these statements be brought to agree? It may be, that Holub’s account relates to a period of strong but short-lived despotism, such as so often occurs among these tribes, and Livingstone’s description to a more peaceful time. It may also be, that both relate to the same period, Livingstone not mentioning their military organization. Though Thomas (quoted by Livingstone) speaks of slaves, it is not easy to make out, whether the captives were really slaves; we should rather think not, as they were allowed to leave their masters and go wherever they liked. At any rate slavery, if it exists, is not much developed, the chief function of slaves probably being reinforcement of the tribe in warfare.

The Bechuana group consists of several tribes, the principal being, according to Schurtz [604], the Basuto, the Makololo, the Bamangwato, the Bakwains and the Bakalahari. Fritsch, describing the Bechuanas in general, makes no mention of slaves. According to Holub, however, they have Makalahiri slaves [605]. But from some particulars it appears that these Makalahiri are rather a tribe subjected as a whole than individual slaves. “These Makalahiri have to live in the more western parts, where game is plentiful, and have to kill the game and bring the spoil to their masters, who live in parts where the water is more abundant.” They are employed as hunters or herdsmen. “If a Makalahiri servant behaves well and kills a good many ostriches for his master, he is allowed to marry a Bechuana woman” [606]. Conder describes the Makalahiri as “nomadic hunters, living chiefly in the west, and considered in the light of serfs of the chief” [607]. It is clear that these hunters, living away from the Bechuanas, and considered as “serfs of the chiefs,” are a subjected tribe and not individual slaves. There are two other tribes subjected to the Bechuanas: the Barwa or Masarwa, and the Madenassana. That these are servile tribes and not slaves, appears still more clearly than with the Makalahiri [608]. Hence we should infer that the Bechuanas have no slaves. We shall presently see whether this conclusion agrees with the information we get about the single tribes belonging to this group.

According to Casalis, who was intimately acquainted with the Basutos, slavery was unknown among them, the servile work being performed by the women and children. Prisoners of war were admitted to be ransomed [609].

The Batauana are described by Passarge. Though he calls them a division of the Basutos, the state of things among them, as regards slavery, is quite different from that among the Basutos. Passarge speaks of slaves kept by them and also of tribes subjected by them, but living in separate settlements and leading a tribal life. Whether the so-called slaves are identical with the members of the subjected tribes or whether they are slaves in the proper sense, is not clear [610].

Livingstone tells us that the Makololo never make slaves. In another work he relates, how once a troop of Matabele was starving on an island; the Makololo finding them killed the adult people and adopted the rest. Formerly there was no slave-trade; now captured children are the object of it [611]. The Makololo therefore have no slaves.

As to the Bakwains, Livingstone speaks of a woman who, as a punishment for theft, became the property of the injured party [612]. But we do not know, whether she was intended to be sold abroad or to be kept as a slave. Holub speaks of Barwa and Makalahiri in a servile condition; but these are probably subjected tribes and not slaves [613].

Joest informs us that among the Barolong there are descendants of slaves, though not treated as such, who live with most of their families. They tend the cattle; their name “Bakhalahari” vouches for their western origin [614]. Perhaps they are a division of the same Makalahiri we have met with as a tribe subjected to the Bechuanas. But the statement that they live with Barolong families is more suggestive of slavery; they may, however, be free labourers. We cannot arrive here at any definite conclusion.

The Angoni are great slave-traders, but also keep domestic slaves. Wiese and Kerr give some particulars regarding their slave-system [615].

Junod gives a detailed description of the Baronga, living near Delagoa Bay. Slaves were formerly sold on a large scale to the coast people. Whether the Baronga themselves kept slaves does not appear [616].

Among the Vawenda the children of sorcerers are sold as slaves; whether at home or abroad we are not told [617]. No more particulars being given, we do not know whether slavery exists here.

Theal, describing the Makalanga or Makaranga, tells us of a chief who offered female slaves to the whites [618]. But this short note is by no means sufficient for us to go upon.

2. South-West Bantus.

The Ovampo, according to Galton, have members of foreign tribes living among them in a state of subjection; but whether these people are slaves in the true sense is not clear. “I cannot speak with certainty” he says “of the exact standing in which the Damaras and the Bushmen severally live among the Ovampo. The first are employed principally as cattle-watchers; the second, who are even more ornamented than the Ovampo themselves, are a kind of standing army; but I have great reason to doubt whether either one or the other class is independent. The Ovampo, as I have mentioned, looked down with much contempt on the Damaras; and there is not a single instance, so far as I could learn, of any Ovampo woman marrying a Damara, and settling in Damaraland, but the reverse is a very common case. The Bushmen appear to be naturalised among the negro tribes, and free in the border-lands between them to a distance very far north of Ondonga” [619].

Rautanen, in his description of the Ondonga, states that there are neither serfs nor slaves. But at the same time he repeatedly makes mention of slaves. Slaves have no rights of inheritance. The master is responsible for damages caused by his slaves. Nobody but the chief has the right to sell slaves [620]. These contradictory statements do not allow us to arrive at a definite conclusion.

The Ovaherero or Damaras, according to Andersson, have slaves. The men are lazy; all their work is done by women and slaves. The slaves are the offspring of impoverished families, and captured Bushmen. The former are enslaved when children and mainly employed as herdsmen [621]. It is strange that Fritsch, who often refers to Andersson, makes no mention whatever of slavery. Hahn and Haarhoff also have nothing on slavery [622], which is very puzzling, as according to Andersson slavery holds so large a place in their social life. Perhaps the children of impoverished families whom Andersson speaks of are not slaves but free labourers compelled to serve only by poverty; for “among all South-African natives the rich oppress the poor, who in the hope of filling their stomachs, submit to a state of dependence that is not authorized by law [623]”.

Viehe remarks, that slavery in the proper sense does not exist among the Ovaherero. But captive children are reared among them and regarded as making part of the low domestics, so to speak as serfs. These serfs are, most of them, Damaras of the mountains. They do the same kind of work as the Ovaherero. Many of them, when full-grown, acquire wealth and are on a footing of equality with the Ovaherero themselves. “The serfs live entirely without supervision and can at any time return to their free compatriots.” The serfs, as well as the servants of Ovaherero origin, are designated by a native name, originally meaning foreigner, but that has become to mean servant. In another place our informant states, that every individual is called a servant, when compared with a person of higher standing [624].

It is not easy to decide, whether this description is indicative of real slavery. Only some of the captives, when full-grown, arrive at a position equal to that of the free people; so it would seem that the others remain slaves. But if they are allowed at any time to return to their own country, their position is a voluntary one.

Kohler’s authorities, viz. the German magistrate Bensen and the missionaries Meyer and Büttner, all affirm that the Ovaherero keep slaves and give several details. Slaves are captives or children of such; but slavery can also take its origin in voluntary submission. Most of the slaves are Damaras of the mountains. All the goods of the slave belong to his master. The master is responsible for any crime committed by the slave and has the right of life and death over him. Slaves are bought and sold and inherited. They cannot be manumitted. Children of slaves are slaves [625].

From this it would appear that slavery really exists.

The seeming contradiction between Viehe and Kohler’s authorities might be solved, if we attend to the following remark, made by Kohler on Büttner’s authority: “The practical possibility for the slaves of escaping from their master is the best warrant for good treatment [626].” We may infer from this that, when Viehe says that the slaves can at any time return to their own country, it is only meant that it is easy from them to do so (as among a pastoral and nomadic nation it is likely to be), not that they are permitted to do so by law or custom.

The conclusion is that the Ovaherero keep slaves.

Among the Batoka the slave-trade had in Livingstone’s time been lately introduced [627]. We are not told whether they kept slaves themselves.

The Barotse have slaves; this is proved by the statements of several writers [628].

In the descriptions of the Makalaka no mention is made of slavery, so they probably have no slaves [629].

The Manansa are not fond of fighting [630], so they probably make no prisoners. They might have purchased slaves; but as nothing is told us of slavery amongst them, the probability is against this.

The Kimbunda have an elaborate slave-system, minutely described by Magyar [631].

The Lovalé people have the reputation of being harsh task-masters. Slaves are procured by exchange from abroad [632]. These short notes are all the evidence we know of, bearing on the existence of slavery among them.

The people of Lunda are great slave-traders. Several details given by our informants prove that they also keep slaves for their own use [633].

In the neighbouring country of Cazembe there are two social classes: the nobility and the Muzias or servants, including peasants, artisans, etc. Both classes are called slaves of the Muata (king); this of course is not slavery proper. All men able to fight must go to war; but this does not affect the cultivation of the land, which is carried on by the women only [634]. These statements make the existence of slavery improbable.

Among the Kioko slavery certainly exists [635].

The Selles, according to Magyar, have also slaves [636].

3. East-African Bantus.

Macdonald remarks that the East-Central African tribes in general have slaves [637].

The Manganja suffer much from slave-stealing tribes, but also keep slaves themselves [638].

Slavery also exists among the following tribes:

Banyai [639], Wagogo [640], Washambala [641], Wapare [642], Wajao [643], Makonde [644], Wahehe [645], Wachagga [646] Wanyamwesi [647], Azimba [648], Wajiji [649], Wapokomo [650], Bondei [651].

Among the Wasiba or Basiba slavery is practised, though not to a great extent. “There are few slaves in the country, most of them being women; a male slave generally runs away and joins another chief as a free man [652].”

The Wanyakyusa, according to Fülleborn, do not keep slaves [653].

Slavery is equally unknown among the Wambugu [654].

The Wazaramo have no weapons of war; warfare seems unknown among them. They formerly suffered much from the slave-trade [655]. We do not know, whether they have slaves; probably they have not.

Peters, in his account of the Maravis, gives some particulars about slaves; but they are not sufficient to decide, whether there is domestic slavery or slave-trade only [656].

The Wasinja and Wakerewe export slaves; but slaves are also imported into their country by caravans [657]. Probably the latter are kept among them; but this short note is not sufficient to draw a positive inference from.

The Wafipa are said never to make slaves or to sell them to traders. When a slave succeeds in arriving at the town of Kapufi, he is considered free. They never make war, though they defend themselves when attacked [658].

Among the Wanyaturu slavery is unknown [659].

Von Höhnel, visiting the country of the Wakikuyu, found two men, who some years before had joined a caravan and had been left behind because they were ill; from that time they had lived as slaves among the Wakikuyu [660]. This statement shows, that the Wakikuyu keep slaves for their own use, not for export only.

Of the Wawira we have a detailed description by Emin Pasha. As there is not a word about slaves in it, it is almost certain that slavery does not exist among them [661].

Slavery is also very probably not to be found among the Wataveta, minutely described by Thomson, Johnston and Von Höhnel [662].

4. Tribes on the Congo and in Lower Guinea.

Ward and De Bas, speaking of the Congo tribes in general, state that slavery exists [663].

On the Lower Congo, according to Phillips, the family consists of “the head man or patriarch, his wives, family proper, dependents and slaves.” There are also debtor-slaves [664].

Slavery certainly exists among the following tribes:

Bihés [665], Minungo [666], Mpongwe [667], Orungu [668], Mbengas [669], Apinchi [670], Duallas [671], Fiotes [672], Bayanzi [673], Bangala on the Congo [674], Baluba [675], Manyuema [676], Kabinda [677], Ininga and Galloa [678], Wangata [679], Bondo [680], Camas [681], Bakundu, Banyang, Batom, Mabum [682], Bali tribes [683], Bambala [684], Bayaka [685], Bahuana [686], Bakwese [687], Yaunde [688],

Hoesemann gives several particulars about the slave system of some tribes of Cameroon, the principal of which are the Indikki [689].

Regarding the Bakwiri, who are related to the Duallas, we are told that, unlike their neighbours, they do not keep slaves. On the death of a king a slave is bought from abroad and killed [690].

The describers of the Mundombe make no mention of slavery; so they probably have no slaves [691].

The writers on the Quillengue also are silent on this subject; but here the descriptions are not minute enough for us to arrive at any accurate conclusion [692].

The natives of Angola have slaves; whether for export only or also for their own use, does not appear [693].

The same applies to the Bangala on the Kuango, who are great slave-traders [694].

The Songo or Masongo use slaves as articles of exchange, and wherever the chief goes, he is accompanied by slaves; but whether they can rightly be called a slave-keeping people, is not clear from Pogge’s short notes [695].

Several authors inform us that the Fans have no slaves [696].

In a monography on the Banaka and Bapuku many particulars are given about their slave system [697]. Hence we infer that slavery exists among them, though Winwood Reade’s short remark that among the Bapuka the men are equal would seem to point to a contrary conclusion [698].

Buchholz, in a short note, speaks of slavery among the Bakele [699].

The slave-trade is almost the only trade of the Okota. On the death of a distinguished person slaves are killed [700]. This information is not, however, sufficient to put this case down as a clear one.

None of our informants on the Bateke make any mention of slavery. According to Guiral they sometimes eat their prisoners, when they find no occasion to sell them [701]. So they probably keep no slaves.

The Wagenia are stated to throw the corpses of slaves, and perhaps of all the dead, into the river [702]. This short note being the only evidence, we are not certain that slavery really exists.

Among the Warua at the funeral of a chief slaves are killed [703]. But this does not prove that slavery is a social institution here.

The Bakuba have slaves, according to Wissmann [704]. But the same author states in another place, that male slaves are bought only to be killed at funerals [705]. So slavery proper probably does not exist.

When Wissmann visited the Tuchilangue, they had no male slaves; but on a later visit he found that male slaves had been introduced among them. Pogge also observed male slaves [706]. So at present slavery exists here.

Of the Tupende we are told, that slaves have for two hundred years been exported from their country. They buy female slaves, and make them their wives [707]. Probably they keep no male slaves; but it is not certain.

The Aduma and Oschebo are slave-traders; but of domestic slavery no mention is made [708].

The same applies to the Hollo [709] and Milembue [710].

5. Natives of the Wahuma states.

Among the Waganda slavery is carried on to a great extent [711].

The describers of the Wanyoro [712] make no mention of slavery; but their notes are not detailed enough to infer that it does not exist.

The Bahima of Enkole keep slaves [713].

Slavery also exists among the natives of Bukoba [714].

Result. Positive Angoni, cases: Ovaherero, Barotse, Kimbunda, Lunda people, Kioko, Selles, Manganja, Banyai, Wagogo, Washambala, Wapare, Wajao, Makonde, Wahehe, Wachagga, Wanyamwesi, Azimba, Wajiji, Wapokomo, Bondei, Wasiba, Wakikuyu, Bihés, Minungo, Mpongwe, Orungu, Mbengas, Apinchi, Duallas, Fiotes, Bayanzi, Bangala on the Congo, Baluba, Manyuema, Kabinda, Ininga and Galloa, Wangata, Bondo, Camas, Bakundu, Banyang, Batom, Mabum, Bali tribes, Bambala, Bayaka, Bahuana, Bakwese, Yaunde, Indikki, Banaka and Bapuku, Tuchilangue, Waganda, Bahima, natives of Bukoba, Batawana, Lovalé people, Bakele, Wagenia, Warua. Negative cases: Ama-Xosa, Ama-Zulu, Basutos, Makololo, Makalaka, Wanyakyusa, Wambugu, Wafipa, Wanyaturu, Wawira, Wataveta, Bakwiri, Mumdombe, Fans, Bateke, Matebele, Manansa, Cazembe people, Wazaramo, Bakuba, Tupende. No conclusion: Bakwains, Baronga, Ovampo, Barolong, Vawenda, Makalanga, Batoka, Maravis, Wasinja and Wakerewe, Quillengue, Angola, Bangala on the Kuango, Songo or Masongo, Okota, Aduma and Oschebo, Hollo, Milembue, Wanyoro.

§ 16. Africa. B. Soudan Negroes.

1. Coast of Guinea.

Among several tribes here slavery certainly exists. These are the

Calabarese [715], inhabitants of Bonny [716], Brass people [717], inhabitants of Benin [718], Ewe [719], inhabitants of Dahomey [720], Geges and Nagos of Porto-Novo [721], Yorubas [722], inhabitants of Ashanti [723], Fanti [724], Gallinas [725], Mandingoes [726], Wolofs [727], Saracolays or Soninkays [728], Kagoros [729], Bambaras [730], Toucouleurs or Torodos [731], Jekris [732], Malinkays [733], Susu, Landuma, Limba [734].

Among the Ibo or Eboe in the hinterland of the Niger delta criminals are sold abroad as slaves [735]. Whether they keep slaves themselves does not appear.

Several writers affirm that the Krus keep slaves. Miss Kingsley, however, who seems to be well acquainted with them, speaks of “the Krus being a non-slave-holding tribe” [736]. So we cannot arrive at a positive conclusion.

“The Bobo” says Tautain “make no slaves; they hold slavery greatly in abhorrence.... It seems that the Bobo are very industrious; as they have no slaves, they probably have to work much harder than the Mandingoes and other neighbouring peoples” [737].

Corre informs us that “slavery exists among the Sereres. However, the inhabitants of Fadiouth are said to have had captives during the last few years only, imitating what they saw amongst the Wolof traders, most of whom are subjects of France. Independent persons, such as a woman without a husband or family, may sell themselves to any one who is willing to buy them” [738]. This case may well be called a doubtful one.

2. Haussa states.

3. Central Soudan.

The nations inhabiting these parts, such as the Haussa, Borgu, etc., are perhaps not properly to be called savage tribes, so we shall leave them out of regard here [739].

4. Upper Nile.

Chaillé Long tells us that among the Chillooks the sheikh of each tribe detains as slaves those who do not possess at least one cow [740]. No more particulars being given about slavery, we may put this down as a very doubtful case.

The Diour tribes make raids on each other. A large number of slaves are carried off every year by the Arabian slave-traders [741]. Whether domestic slavery exists or not, we are not told.

Among the Dinka every man has on an average three head of cattle, but there are also poor people, who are the slaves or servants of the rich [742]. These “slaves or servants” very probably are not slaves. We may not, however, infer that slavery does not exist here; for the notes our informants [743] give on their social life are very short.

The Bari are themselves victims of the slave trade [744]. Whether they keep slaves, we are not told.

Very minute descriptions are given in Stuhlmann’s book of the Latuka [745], Alur [746] and Lendu [747]. No mention being made of slavery, we may be sure that it does not exist among them.

Junker speaks of a chief of the Abukaja or Amadi, who made raids and divided the booty, consisting of captured women and girls, with the allied chiefs and his subjects. Such is the custom, says Junker, and therefore the men like to go to war. In another place he speaks of captured women with children and infants, and girls [748]. Whether these captured persons are kept among the Abukaja or exported, and if the former, whether they are made slaves, we do not know.

The same author speaks of slaves among the Makaraka; but it is not clear, whether they keep these slaves or sell them to the Arabians, who carry on the slave-trade on a large scale in these regions [749].

The Niam-Niam in their wars capture many women. Schweinfurth supposes, that they retain the captured women as slaves, but kill the men. Junker also speaks of female slaves. According to him male slaves are sometimes sacrificed; but it is not clear, whether the latter are ordinary slaves or only bought or captured to be sacrificed [750]. Our information does not admit of any accurate conclusion.

Schweinfurth’s description seems to show, that the Mombuttus have male slaves. Junker speaks only of female slaves [751]. Burrows says: “Between the chief and the people are a race of freed men, who do not engage in manual labour of any kind. From the term freed men it must not be inferred that the people below them are slaves; they are equally free, but are without the hereditary rank of the so-called freed men, who are generally relations of the chief or in some way connected with him [752].” Hence it would appear that slavery does not exist among them. These conflicting statements do not allow us to arrive at a safe conclusion.

The Wagungo proper, says Junker, do hardly any work themselves; they leave it all to their slaves, the Schuli and Tschappu [753]. These Schuli and Tschappu seem to be subjected tribes rather than slaves; but as further particulars are wanting, we feel unable to decide.

Among the Warundi slavery is unknown [754].

The same applies to the Wafiomi [755], Wataturu [756], and Wambugwe [757].

The several describers of the Bongos, who give many details of their social life, make no mention of slavery; hence we may infer that it does not exist among them [758].

5. Appendix. African Islands.

The Boobies of Fernando-Po, according to Compiègne, have numerous slaves. Hutchinson states, that in their wars they spare neither age nor sex [759]. So the slaves are probably purchased foreigners.

Sibree, describing the Sakalavas of Madagascar, speaks of a kind of temple, which slaves may not enter, for should they do so they would become free [760]. According to Hildebrandt the occupations of the Sakalavas are not multifarious. The men tend the cattle and now and then sell a beast, and sometimes help the women in the little plantations. In the rice district of North Sakalavaland, where rice is cultivated for export, more labour is wanted on the fields; therefore in this district many slaves are kept [761]. It is not clear, whether our informant means to say, that in the other districts of Sakalavaland there are no slaves; at any rate we may conclude, that among the Northern Sakalavas slavery exists.

Slavery also exists among the inhabitants of the small islands of Nossi-Bé and Mayotte, many of whom belong to the Sakalavas [762].

The other tribes of Madagascar have found a place in § 8 (Malay Archipelago).

Result. Positive Calabarese, cases: inhabitants of Bonny, Brass people, inhabitants of Benin, Ewe, inhabitants of Dahomey, Geges and Nagos, Yorubas, inhabitants of Ashanti, Fanti, Gallinas, Mandingoes, Wolofs, Saracolays, Kagoros, Bambaras, Toucouleurs, Jekris, Malinkays, Susu, Landuma, Limba, Boobies, Northern Sakalavas, Sakalavas of Nossi-Bé and Mayotte, Sereres, Niam-Niam, Mombuttus, Wagungo. Negative cases: Bobo, Latuka, Alur, Lendu, Warundi, Wafiomi, Wataturu, Wambugwe, Bongos. No conclusion: Ibo or Eboe, Krus, Chillooks, Diours, Dinka, Bari, Abukaja, Makaraka.

§ 17. Africa. C. Light-coloured South Africans and African pigmy-tribes.

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 character [763].

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 punished [764]. 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 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 slaves [765]. 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 Damaras [766]”. 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 war [767]. 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 extent [768]”. 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 Korana, rather than slaves in the proper sense; the more so as he speaks of “servants and slaves”.

The describers of the Bushmen [769] make no mention of slavery. Fritsch tells us that they adopted parts of the declining Hottentots into their hordes [770], so we may safely infer that slavery did not exist among them.

None of the describers of the Akkas [771] 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 rank [772]”, 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 them [773].

The Mucassequere, according to Serpa Pinto, sell the captives they make in their wars as slaves to the Ambuella, who transmit them to Bihé caravans [774]. We may therefore suppose that they do not keep slaves.

Result. Negative cases: Bushmen, Akkas, Mucassequere. No conclusion: Namaqua, Griqua, Korana, Colonial Hottentots, Abongos.

§ 18. Africa. D. Hamitic peoples.

Munzinger, in his excellent books, describes several of these tribes, all of which keep slaves: Beduan [775], Takue [776], Marea [777], Beni Amer [778], Barea and Kunama [779], Bogos [780].

The Gallas practise slavery to a great extent [781].

The Somal and Danakil also have slaves, though not so many as the Gallas [782].

Amongst the Massai slavery is unknown [783].

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 slavery [784]. 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 Africa [785].

The Wandorobo have been described by several authors [786], who do not make any mention of slaves. They are themselves subjected to the Massai [787]. We may safely conclude that they have no slaves [788].

The Wakwafi also probably have no slaves; for none of their describers [789] say a word about slavery.

Result. Positive cases: Beduan, Takue, Marea, Beni Amer, Barea and Kunama, Bogos, Gallas, Somal, Danakil. Negative cases: Massai, Warangi, Wandorobo, Wakwafi.

Several North-African peoples, such as the Fulbe, the Tuareg, the Kabyls, etc., being semi-civilized rather than savages, have been excluded here [790].

§ 19. Recapitulation.

In the preceding paragraphs we have tried to find, which savage tribes have, and which have not, slaves. But we suppose that our enumeration of positive and negative cases has not yet given the reader a clear idea of the occurrence of slavery in the several geographical districts; probably he does not see the wood for trees. So we shall take here a short survey, serving, so to speak, as a map and showing in which parts of the globe slave-keeping savage tribes are found.

In North America slavery exists along the Pacific Coast from Behring Strait to the Northern boundary of California (15 clear positive cases). Beyond this district it seems to be unknown (42 clear negative cases).

In Central and South America we find 9 positive and 17 negative cases [791]. The positive cases are scattered over the whole continent; there are no large positive or negative districts. Such, at least, is the result we arrive at with the aid of our rather incomplete literature; a better literature would perhaps show that such districts exist.

In Australia slavery is unknown (30 negative cases).

In Oceania, i.e. Melanesia, Polynesia and Micronesia, slaves are only found in New Zealand, the North-Western Solomon Islands, the Gazelle Peninsula of Neu Pommern and the Western part of New Guinea (altogether 8 pos. cases). In the rest of this group (except a few uncertain cases) slavery does not exist (30 neg. cases).

In the Malay Archipelago slavery very frequently occurs (69 pos. cases). The 8 negative cases are scattered over the group.

India and the Indo-Chinese Peninsula, taken together, afford 13 positive and 11 negative cases, the former being found in the Northern parts of both groups.

In Central Asia and Siberia slavery seems to be unknown, except among the Kamchadales (in Central Asia 4 neg. cases, in Siberia 1 pos. case and 7 neg. cases).

The Caucasus yields 3 positive cases, 1 negative case, and several doubtful cases. Our literature on this group is rather scanty.

The Arabian Aeneze Bedouins, as well as the Arabian Larbas who live in North Africa, keep slaves (2 positive and no negative cases).

As for Africa, the Northern part of this continent, being inhabited by semi-civilized peoples, is excluded from our survey. Among the savage Africans slavery very frequently occurs. There are only two districts, in which scarcely any clear positive cases are found, viz. South Africa to the South of the Zambesi, and the country about the Upper Nile, to the South-West of Abyssinia. Large agglomerations of slave-keeping tribes are found on the Coast of Guinea, and in the district formed by Lower Guinea and the territories bordering the Congo. A few negative cases, however, are interspersed among the members of both groups, especially of the latter. There are altogether 90 pos. and 31 neg. cases in Africa.

All over the globe, there are, among the savage tribes on which we are sufficiently informed, 210 with slaves and 181 without slaves.