Chapter II: Geographical Distribution of Slavery (2)

The Creeks already in Bartram’s time (1789) had slaves. He tells us of a chief who kept 15 Negroes; they were slaves until they married Indian women, and then acquired the privileges of the tribe. Schoolcraft informs us that “if an Indian should murder a Negro, the law is satisfied with the value of the Negro being paid to the owner” [196].

The Seminoles also had Negro-slaves, according to Roosevelt and Gregg [197]. But Maccauley is not quite certain about it. He observed a few Negroes living with them. It had been said that they were slaves; but our informant is not of that opinion [198]. Maccauley’s account, however, dates from a later period than the other statements.

The Shahnees in Gregg’s time also kept a few Negro slaves [199].

But these facts do not represent phenomena of unadulterated savage life. These Indian tribes had already undergone great changes by contact with the whites. Moreover, the Negroes kept by them as slaves were in a very peculiar condition, living in a foreign continent amongst foreign races. So we are justified in omitting these cases from our list of slave-keeping Indian tribes.

§ 3. Central and South America.

About the treatment of prisoners by the wild tribes of North Mexico Bancroft remarks: “Seldom is sex or age spared, and when prisoners are taken, they are handed over to the women for torture, who treat them most inhumanly, heaping upon them every insult devisable, besides searing their flesh with burning brands, and finally burning them at the stake, or sacrificing them in some equally cruel manner. Many cook and eat the flesh of their captives, reserving the bones as trophies” [200]. These particulars given, and no mention being made of slaves, slavery probably does not exist among them.

Among the wild tribes of Central Mexico “the heads of the slain were placed on poles and paraded through their villages in token of victory, the inhabitants meanwhile dancing round them. Young children were sometimes spared, and reared to fight in the ranks of their conquerors, and in order to brutalize their youthful minds and eradicate all feelings of affection toward their own kindred, the youthful captives were given to drink the brains and blood of their murdered parents” [201]. Whether these children became slaves is not quite clear; we should think not, as they were “reared to fight in the ranks of their conquerors”; but this may also be the case with slaves [202]. The lack of further particulars prevents our arriving at a positive conclusion.

Bancroft’s notes on the wild tribes of South Mexico are very scanty. They sacrificed their prisoners. The Mayas had female slaves [203].

Bancroft informs us that “one principal object of war among the ancient nations of Honduras was to make slaves; but the Mosquito Coast was free from this scourge, according to all accounts.” “When prisoners were taken they were usually held as slaves, after having the nose cut off.... The coast people ... usually kill their prisoners.” Wickham, who gives a detailed account of the Woolwa or Soumoo of the Mosquito Coast, makes no mention of slavery [204]. So the inhabitants of Honduras had slaves, whereas those of the Mosquito Coast had not.

Slavery, according to Bancroft, was in force among the inhabitants of the Isthmus of Panama and Costa Rica, with the exception of the Caribs. “The prisoner is the slave of the captor; he is branded on the face and one of his front teeth knocked out. The Caribs however used to kill and eat their prisoners”. Gabb, who gives several particulars about the tribes of Costa Rica, makes no mention of slavery. According to Pokalowsky, the Indians of Coctu in Costa Rica, when conquered by the Spaniards in the 16th century, had slaves. “They cut off the heads of their prisoners and preserve them as trophies; the boys and girls of the enemies are enslaved or sacrificed to their gods. If a master dies, his slaves are killed and buried with him; this custom prevails here to a greater extent than in any other part of India” [205].

Bancroft’s statement about the Caribs of the Isthmus is confirmed by the fact that Pinart, who has largely drawn upon ancient Spanish literature, makes no mention of slavery [206].

Rochefort speaks of slavery existing among the Caribs of the Antilles. They believed, that the bravest warriors of their nation after death would live in happy islands, and have their enemies, the Arawaks, for slaves, whereas the cowards would be the slaves of the Arawaks. In their wars with the Spaniards they did not kill the Negro slaves, but took them with them and made them work. Sometimes slaves were killed after their master’s death, to serve him in the other world. Male prisoners were killed and eaten after a few days. Captive women became slaves; their children were reared with those of the Caribs. Female prisoners were sometimes taken for wives; then the children were free, but the mothers remained slaves. In the isle of Saint Vincent there were in Rochefort’s time English boys and girls, captured when very young; they had quite forgotten their parents, and would not even return with them, so accustomed were they to the mode of life of the Caribs, who treated them very kindly, just as if they were of their own nation. De la Borde makes no mention of slaves [207]. It seems to us very doubtful whether slavery really existed here. Rochefort’s statement that captive children were reared with those of the conquerors is more suggestive of adoption of captives than of slavery, and the enslavement of Negroes by the Indians is something foreign to the aboriginal state of things, as has been said before. So we cannot arrive at a definite conclusion.

The Continental Caribs, according to Gumilla, killed all their prisoners, except the young women and children, whom they sold [208]. So slavery probably did not exist among them.

Ling Roth, in his article on Hispaniola or Hayti (inhabited by Arawaks), makes no mention of slavery; but this does not prove much, as his sources of information (early Spanish literature) were very incomplete. For instance, he has not been able to find anything bearing on the division of labour between the sexes [209].

The several describers of the Indians of Guiana [210] make no mention of slavery. The tribes most fully described are the Arawaks, Warraus, Macusi and Roucouyennes. Martius however states that the Arawaks have slaves, who work in their houses and on the fields [211]. So we are not certain about the Arawaks; but we may safely suppose that among the three other tribes slavery does not exist.

The Saliva of Columbia, according to Gumilla, made war in order to acquire slaves to till their lands [212].

In Sievers’, Reclus’ and Simons’ descriptions of the Goajiro no mention is made of slaves [213]. According to De Brettes, however, “slavery exists; but the slave is a member of the family, though looked upon as an inferior being that may be killed if he refuses to obey”. A few more details are added about these slaves [214]. Sievers, reviewing De Brettes’ articles, remarks that this author is generally not very trustworthy, but that the ethnographical parts are the best of his work. Speaking of a photograph of Goajiro slaves given by De Brettes, be adds: “If there can be any question at all of slavery among them” [215]. On the same page, however, he translates De Brettes’ ethnographical account of the Goajiro, in which it is stated that slavery exists, without any commentary. Considering all this, we cannot arrive at any accurate conclusion.

De Lery, speaking of the ancient Tupinambas, describes at considerable length the fate of their captives, who were killed and eaten; even the child of a captive and a woman of their own tribe was not allowed to live. Though an expert hunter or fisher, and a woman well able to work, were preserved somewhat longer than the rest, all were invariably killed after a few months. Nowhere in De Lery’s book does it appear, that they made slaves by capture or by any other means [216]. According to another ancient writer, however, they kept prisoners as slaves. The slaves were kindly treated, allowed to marry free women, but finally killed and eaten. They had to catch fish and game and to bring it to their master. Without the master’s consent they were not allowed to work for others. If they tried to escape and were caught, they were killed. A slave, who died a natural death, was not buried but thrown away in the bush [217]. All this is very suggestive of slavery. But the fact, that D’Evreux got his information through an interpreter, prevents us from decidedly concluding, against the testimony of our other informants, that the Tupinambas kept slaves.

Martius remarks about the Indians of Brazil in general: “Many of these tribes keep slaves.... Captivity in war is the only cause by which one loses his freedom, especially if a male; for the husband may sell his wife and children; but this is of rare occurrence” [218].

The Apiacas (a group of the Central Tupis), according to the same author, in their wars kill all adult prisoners, male and female, and eat them. Children they take with them and rear them with their own; they make them work in the plantations; but when about twelve or fourteen years old, these children are killed and eaten [219]. Though these children may be kept in a somewhat slave-like state, a tribe that kills its slaves when full-grown is not properly to be called a slave-keeping tribe.

The same author informs us, that the Mundrucus and Mauhés have slaves [220].

Of the Miranhas we are told that they enslave their prisoners; but usually these prisoners are intended to be sold to the whites. It does not appear whether any of them are kept for the Miranhas’ own use [221].

Keane, von Tschudi and Ehrenreich make no mention of slavery among the Botocudos. According to Zu Wied “the conqueror persecutes the vanquished, and but seldom makes captives, at least among the Botocudos; but on the Belmonte there are said to be seen some who were used as slaves for all kinds of work” [222]. We do not know what this last second-hand information of Zu Wied’s is worth; but we are justified in inferring that the Botocudos in general (except those on Rio Belmonte) have no slaves.

Azara states that in his time (he travelled in South America from 1781 to 1801) the Guaycurû had nearly died out, only one man being left [223]. But according to Boggiani Guaycurû is a general name for the tribes that inhabit the Gran Chaco [224], so this statement of Azara’s seems to apply to a small division of the Guaycurû only. Southey and Martius give some particulars about the slave system of the Guaycurû [225]; but Colini, who has taken great pains to ascertain the identity of these tribes, quotes these descriptions as referring to the Mbayás. Of the ancient Guaycurû he says: “In their combats they gave no quarter to the adult males; but they spared the lives of the youths, whom they educated after their customs and gave in marriage to their daughters, so as to augment the number of their tribe. Full-grown women were sold to the neighbouring nations, who made them slaves” [226]. The only captives whom they kept among them, the youths, were not slaves; so slavery probably did not exist among them.

Two tribes inhabiting the Gran Chaco and so belonging to the Guaycurû in Boggiani’s sense, are described by Thouar. Of the Chiriguanos he says: “The prisoners are the property of their captors and must serve the mistress of the hut.” In his description of the Tobas he makes no mention of slavery [227]. Thouar, however, does not seem to be very well informed [228].

The Mbayás, according to Azara, in his time had two kinds of slaves, one composed of the Guanás, the other of Indian and Spanish prisoners of war. But the former were no real slave class. The Guanás “used to repair in troops to the Mbayás, to obey and serve them and till their lands without any payment. Hence the Mbayás always call them their slaves. This slavery is indeed very mild, as the Guaná voluntarily submits to it, and leaves off whenever he likes.” Such “slaves”, who lead a tribal life and come and go when they like, certainly are not slaves. The others however were real slaves. They procured the fuel, cooked the food, took care of the horses and tilled the land. When Azara once offered a present to a Mbayá, the latter would not take it himself, but ordered his slaves to receive it for him. Even the poorest Mbayá had three of four slaves. During the mourning-time women and slaves were not allowed to speak or eat any meat. One place in Azara’s book seems to show that they had no slaves: “They said they had received a divine command to wage war against all nations, kill the adult males and adopt the women and children, in order to augment their number.” But where the recorded tradition and the description of the actual state of things disagree, we hold that the latter is to be accepted [229]. Colini refers to Azara and Martius, and then adds: “Serra however asserts that among the Mbayás slavery proper (la schiavitù vera e propria) did not exist; the slaves might rather be called servants.” They fought together with the freemen and took part in the public council, even when it decided upon war and peace. They married free persons, but were themselves looked upon as slaves. On the master’s death, the sons or next relations, according to the rules of inheritance, became masters of the slaves; but these rights were only nominal. The slaves gradually merged into the tribe. Yet it was always considered degrading to be a descendant of a slave; those who had in their ancestry none but members of the tribe were very proud of it. Generally the best slave girls were married to their masters; the boys of greatest promise were treated as sons, whereas the others were set to do the ruder work [230]. This account, however, does not prove that the captives were not slaves. Some of the boys only were treated as sons; what were the rest if not slaves? And even slaves may to a certain degree be treated as sons. The slaves gradually coalesced with the tribe (though not entirely); but we are told that this change took place “through personal merits and intermarriage.” This shows that all captives were not on a level with the freemen; probably it was only the most deserving prisoners, and the offspring of slaves and freemen, who attended the public council and were on an equal footing with the main body of tribesmen. Slaves may be kindly treated and yet be slaves. Our opinion is, that we have here a schiavitù vera e propria; the more so, as the description given by Azara leads to the same conclusion.

The present Caduvei, according to Boggiani, are the same people as the ancient Mbayás. Very probably he is right here. Yet we have seen how much confusion there is in the application of the terms Guaycurû and Mbayás; so we are a little sceptical. Moreover, there is a great lapse of time between the early descriptions of the Mbayás and Boggiani’s travels, and during that time their state of culture has greatly changed; from nomadic hunters they have in the 19th century become settled agriculturists [231]. So we are justified in treating them separately. The Caduvei keep slaves. The slaves are well treated, but looked upon as an inferior race. The ruder kinds of work, and the tilling of the soil, fall to their share. As a rule they are kindly treated, without being allowed to forget their duties. The Caduvei exchange the slaves among them for horses, cattle and various commodities [232].

Pohl states, that the Canoeiros had captured a young man and treated him well [233]. Nothing more being added, we cannot make out whether slavery exists.

Of the tribes of Central Brasil, visited by Von den Steinen, the principal are the Bakaïri, Paressi, Bororo, Suya and Yuruna. In his description of the Bakaïri, Paressi and Bororo he makes no mention of slavery. If it existed, this careful observer would certainly have mentioned it. Neither is a word about slaves to be found in Hensel’s description of the Coroados, who are often identified with the Bororo [234].

Among the Suya Von den Steinen observed Indians of other tribes, who were kept as slaves. The presents, which the author gave to one of these slaves, had to be delivered to his master [235].

The same writer speaks of captives residing among the Yuruna; but his short remark on this subject cannot lead us to a safe conclusion as to the existence of slavery among them [236].

The Karayas on Rio Araguaya keep captive women in a somewhat slave-like state. Prisoners of war, adopted into the tribe, sometimes are made chiefs if they have distinguished themselves [237]. This is not very suggestive of slavery; but the details given are not sufficient for us to arrive at a clear conclusion.

On the Záparos we get this scanty information. They are always at war, killing many of the men, and stealing the women, children and chattels of the enemies, the children either for use as servants or for sale. A boy or girl stolen by them is commonly sold to traders [238]. Apparently the author himself is in doubt, whether any of these captives are kept as slaves.

Some savage tribes of Peru are treated of by Ordinaire. In his account of the Campas or Antis there is nothing bearing on slavery. He states that he met with a Lorenzo child living among the Campas; but it is not clear whether this was a slave; and the rest of his ample record makes the existence of slavery rather improbable [239].

About the Conibos and kindred tribes the same writer remarks, that among their wives there are some slaves captured from neighbouring tribes. But as he states, that all the fatiguing work is incumbent on women, it would seem, that there are no male slaves and therefore no slavery proper. Prisoners of war are killed at their feasts [240]. From a description of about a hundred years ago we learn, that these tribes kept prisoners as slaves. Several of these slaves were observed among the Panos; the masters treated them with as much affection as their own children and married them to their daughters. The conquerors married the captive women in order to augment the number of their tribe [241]. The details given are not sufficient to decide, whether the prisoners merged into the tribe or constituted a slave class.

Smyth and Lowe, speaking of the Sencis of Peru, remark: “They give no quarter, and take no prisoners in the battle.... The women and children are taken for slaves, and if there are any in infancy, or much advanced in age, they are killed as useless.” [242]. Whether the fate of the captive women and children was really slavery, is not clear from this short note.

The Guanas probably had no slaves. We are told that the head of the tribe “is obliged to work for his subsistence, as nobody serves him” [243].

As little does it appear that the Yuracarés and Mocéténès are slave-keeping tribes. The former live in families, and even in these subordination is unknown. The latter are not warlike [244]. It is not, however, a first-rate authority to whom we owe these particulars.

The Chiquitos, according to the same author, in their wild state attacked their neighbours, and made prisoners, to whom they gave their own daughters as wives [245]. Whether these prisoners were slaves is not clear; we should rather think not.

The Chapacuras were very peaceable, and but seldom attacked their neighbours [246]. Whether slavery existed among them we are not told.

The Moxos, in D’Orbigny’s time, had already long been civilized and christianized. What their political institutions were in their former wild state we do not know [247].

Muratori, speaking of the Indians of Paraguay and some neighbouring districts, states that they kill and eat their prisoners of war. Some tribes, however, he tells us, are more peaceful and take all pains to induce their prisoners to reside among them. Children of prisoners are sold by some of the tribes to other nations [248]. From all this it would seem that slavery did not exist. But we shall presently see, that the other information we have got does not entirely agree with Muratori’s general statement.

The principal native tribe of Paraguay were the Abipones, described at large by Dobrizhoffer. The prisoners they made were very leniently treated. They gave them the best of their food, and tended them when ill. The prisoners had daily opportunity to run away, but they did not desire it, for they were very contented. They were never beaten, nor even reproved. They hunted and fought together with the Abipones. And yet they were not merged into the nation of the Abipones; for the Abipone women generally would marry only a man of their own people; and the men never married female prisoners, nor had they any connection with them. It appears that every captive was assigned to an individual master. So we have here to deal with the fact, that one man is the property of another beyond the limits of the family proper, i.e. slavery, though slavery of an extraordinarily mild character [249].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

§ 4. Australia.

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

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

The extinct Tasmanians also belonged to the Australian group.

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

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

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

§ 5. Melanesia.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Papuans of Ayambori have no slaves [315].

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

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

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

Among the Yabim slavery does not exist [319].

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

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

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

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

§ 6. Polynesia.

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