Chapter II: Geographical Distribution of Slavery (3)

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.