Chapter II: Geographical Distribution of Slavery (4)

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

Koehne, in his article on Kalmuck law, referring to Pallas and Bergmann, asserts that the Kalmucks had slaves [541]. But the particulars he gives are not sufficient for us to decide, whether the so-called slaves were slaves proper or retainers of the chiefs; and if slaves, whether they were employed by the Kalmucks, or intended for sale abroad. Spencer refers to a statement of Pallas’ (but from which of his books does not appear), according to which slavery was inflicted as a punishment [542]; but whether the person so punished was kept as a slave among the Kalmucks or sold abroad, we are not told. The only book of Pallas’ to which we have access does not throw much light on the subject. “Adultery and fornication” he says “which are voluntarily [?] committed with female slaves ... are liable to punishment”. In another place he states that the Torguts (a division of the Kalmucks) had much changed in physical appearance, probably by their intercourse with females captured abroad. As a punishment for some offences the culprit lost one or more of his children; but what was done with these children does not appear [543]. Nothing more definite on slavery is found is his detailed description of the Kalmucks. In an article on the Kalmucks of the Black Irtysch Valley we read: “Horrible is the state of the unfortunate people who are reduced to slavery; they are bartered and sold like cattle” [544]. Here probably slaves intended for sale abroad are meant; for such horrible treatment of slaves is more common with slave-dealers than with those who employ slaves. Radloff has nothing on slavery; but his description of the Kalmucks is too short to draw any inference from [545]. So we are left in doubt as to the existence of slavery, though we are inclined to think that it does not exist.

Much more fully than the Kalmucks proper Radloff describes the Altaians or Altaian Mountain-Kalmucks. Slaves not being mentioned, and it being stated in many places that the menial work is done by servants and by the poor who are fed by the rich [546], it is certain that slavery does not exist. The word “slave” occurs in one place only, viz. in the mourning-song of the widow, who complains that “now she wears a leathern dress like base slaves; now she eats coarse food like slaves” [547]. If we have not here to deal with an inaccurate translation, this mourning-song might be a reminiscence of formerly existing slavery. Slavery would then have disappeared spontaneously, not through Russian influence, for the Altaians have maintained their position in the mountain-valleys of the South-west Altai, least accessible to Russian colonization. So we may safely consider the Altaians as a savage tribe keeping no slaves.

Radloff’s notes on the Teleuts, Tatars on the Kondoma and Abakan Tatars are too short to draw any safe inference from [548].

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

The Usbegs, according to Vambéry, till their land aided by Persian slaves [549]. No more details being given, we may put this down as a positive case, though not a clear one.

The Kara Kalpaks, in the beginning of the 18th century, were given to slave-stealing [550], whether for their own use or for sale does not appear.

The Turkomans, according to Vambéry, sell foreigners as slaves [551]. In another book the same author tells us that in their internal wars they made slaves; and he speaks of their keeping female slaves [552]. Stein and Weil make no mention of slavery [553]. Letourneau, referring to Burnes, remarks: “The Persian captives are for the Turkomans a source of large profit; but the captors do not as a rule keep them for themselves, except sometimes the women, of whom they make concubines or wives” [554]. So we may safely infer that slavery does not exist here.

The Mongols have hired herdsmen who tend their camels [555]. Whether they have any slaves does not appear.

Ujfalvy informs us that among the Tadjiks of Hissar slavery was recently abolished by an order from Bokhara [556].

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

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

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

§ 12. Siberia.

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

Of the Ostyaks he gives a detailed account. They probably had no slaves; for it is stated that the chiefs, like the common people, had to live by their own labour [559]. But in Pallas’ time they were already entirely under Russian control [560], so it is not certain that in their aboriginal state they had no slaves.

The Samoyedes were not nearly so much under Russian influence. The details given by Pallas make it nearly certain that slavery did not exist. “Every Samoyede keeps his reindeer and tends them himself with the help of his family, except the richest, who hire poor men as herdsmen” [561]. Islawin and Finsch also make no mention of slavery [562]. And the account of Samoyede customs given by Von Stenin, who has largely drawn upon Russian literature, makes the non-existence of slavery quite certain [563].

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

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

Sieroshevski, who lived more than 12 years among the Yakuts, concludes from their traditions, that they formerly kept slaves. “In ancient times, the Yakuts had a name for a man whom a defeated hero gave to his conqueror as a compensation for sparing his own life. Such persons later were in fact slaves and were included in the gifts with a bride. If they were females, they became concubines of the master. Such a slave person was called an enne, and this word has new come to be used as an adjective for whatever is given with a bride”. However this may be, it appears from his detailed and excellent description, that now they have no slaves [566].

Laufer, describing the Gold of that part of the Amoor lying between Chabarovsk and Sophisk, makes no mention of slavery. But as their whole mode of life is strongly influenced by the Russians, we are not certain whether in their aboriginal state they kept slaves [567].

Steller’s statements about slavery among the Italmen or Kamchadales are not very clear. Speaking of their wars he says: “The victorious party enslaved the prisoners, made the women and girls concubines, and slaughtered all males they could to be henceforward safe from them.” In another place he states: “They do not steal anything from each other but women and dogs, which was the cause of their former wars.” In his survey of Kamchadale history he speaks of a chief who, in order to augment his power, exacted from his enemies a tribute of girls and boys. The Italmen of the Kurile Islands attacked those of the Kamchadale peninsula, and carried off many girls and boys into servitude. In a note he states: “The prisoners and slaves were employed in various rough and domestic labours.... If a prisoner behaved well, he was sometimes dismissed to his home after a two or three years’ imprisonment” [568]. In his chapters on male and female labour and on marriage he makes no mention of slaves. In Steller’s time Kamchatka had already been brought under Russian control; so he could not any more observe their warfare and taking of prisoners, but got his information about these matters from hearsay. This probably is the reason why this information is not more clear. As he gives some particulars about slaves kept by the Italmen of the Kurile Islands, we may suppose that these at least had slaves. The author of the “Histoire de Kamtschatka”, who consulted Steller’s manuscript, says: “The end of their wars was to take prisoners in order to make the men work and to take the women as concubines” [569]. But he adds no details.

The Tuski or Chukchi are to be divided into the inland Tuski, who keep reindeer, and the Tuski of the coast, who are fishers. Nordenskiöld remarks: “According to some Russian authors there are slaves, undoubtedly descendants of war-captives, on the inland settlements. Amongst the natives of the coast, on the contrary, the most perfect equality prevails” [570]. A statement of Wrangell’s, referred to by Erman, gives some more particulars. Wrangell, having lived already some time with the Tuski, perceived to his great amazement that there were serfs (Leibeigenen); he saw some families that did menial work; they had no property, and were not allowed to go away from the rich on whom they were dependent. They received clothing and lodging from their employers, and did the hardest work; for instance they ran by the side of the sledges to urge on the dogs. The Tuski said that this state of things had always existed. Wrangell supposes that these serfs were the offspring of war-captives. It does not appear what this supposition is founded upon [571]. This record is worth more than Nordenskiöld’s vague reference to “some Russian authors.” But it is not easy to decide whether these subjected people are slaves. They might simply be poor men dependent on the rich without being slaves, such as are also found among the Eskimos. But the fact, that the poor Tuski are obliged to stay with their employers is more suggestive of slavery. Georgi however states that among the Tuski the poor serve the rich as herdsmen; and Dall, Hooper, and Kennan make no mention of slaves [572]. In the “Histoire de Kamtschatka” it is stated that they made raids on the tribes subjected to Russia, “killing or taking prisoners all they meet” [573]. But we are not told what was the fate of these captives. So we must leave this question undecided. At any rate this alleged slavery has been useful; for it led to Nordenskiöld’s positive statement that among the Tuski of the coast, whom he had visited himself, slavery was unknown.

The Koryakes are to be divided into nomadic Koryakes and settled Koryakes. The former with their herds roam from one place to another, the latter live along the rivers. The languages of these two divisions differ so much, that they cannot understand each other. “The nomadic Koryakes consider them [the settled Koryakes] as slaves, and treat them accordingly” says our informant. But we know that such slavery of a tribe as a whole is not slavery in the true sense of the word. No other mention is made of slaves. The nomadic Koryakes “before they were subjected by the Russians, had neither government nor magistrates; only the rich exercized some authority over the poor” [574]. So we may infer that slavery is unknown among both nomadic and settled Koryakes.

Melnikow, minutely describing the Buriats, makes no mention of slaves; but as they have been long under Russian influence [575], we are not certain whether slavery was not formerly an institution among them.

The Ainu, though not inhabiting Siberia, may find a place here, as they live nearer to this than to any other group. Batchelor, describing the raids which the several divisions of the Ainu made on each other, says: “On such occasions the whole of the male population were murdered during sleep, whilst the women and children were carried off as slaves to work in the gardens, and were called usshui ne guru. The women however were kept as concubines” [576]. Landor refers to this and some other remarks of Batchelor’s and then adds: “From my own experience—and I may add I am the only foreigner who has seen these Tokachi, or as others call them, Tokapchi Ainu—I came to a conclusion very different from this. I found that not only were they not cannibals, but that, taken altogether, they were the most peaceable, gentle, and kind Ainu I came across during my peregrinations through the land of the hairy people” [577]. Hitchcock also describes the Ainu as peaceable. Speaking of some cruel punishments in vogue amongst them, he remarks: “H. von Siebold has supposed from these old customs, that the Ainos were once a savage and warlike people. They may have been so, as one might infer from Japanese tradition, but it seems to me unsafe to make the assumption on the grounds suggested by von Siebold. Their present character does not sustain it in any way” [578]. Some other describers of the Ainu we have consulted make no mention at all of slaves [579]. So we cannot arrive at a definite conclusion.

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

§ 13. Caucasus.

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

The Shahsewenses, according to Radde, consist of two social classes, the nobles and the common people [582]. So they probably have no slaves.

According to Bodenstedt “every Suane who is not able to provide for his daughters and sisters, may sell them as slaves” [583]. This is the only reference made to slavery by any of our informants [584]. Telfer states that the independent Suanes acknowledge neither king nor nobility, consider all men equal, despise all authority and have no laws [585]. Therefore it does not seem probable that they keep slaves; perhaps the daughters and sisters of whom Bodenstedt speaks are sold abroad.

In Klaproth’s detailed description of the Charachai no mention is made of slavery; so probably it does not exist [586].

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

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

The Abchases were formerly slave-traders. They coupled their prisoners, and sold the children born of these unions [589]. Whether these slave-breeders kept their slaves only for the sake of reproduction or for anything beyond this, does not appear.

The Tchetchenes “say: We are all equal. There were never slaves among them. Only the captives were not members of the tribe; but even these often married their master’s daughters and so became their equals” [590]. These captives bear a strong resemblance to slaves; and we should be very much inclined to call them such, were it not that Chantre positively asserts that there never were slaves in this tribe. The lack of further details prevents our coming to any definite conclusion.

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

§ 14. Arabia.

The Aeneze Bedouins have slaves. “Slaves, both male and female, are numerous throughout the desert; there are but few sheiks or wealthy individuals who do not possess a couple of them” [591].

Doughty makes no mention of slavery among the Fejir Bedouins; but his description is not elaborate enough for us to infer that slavery does not exist [592].

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

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

§ 15. Africa. A. Bantu tribes.

Theal remarks about the Bantu tribes in general that, when first discovered by the Portuguese, the coast tribes had no slaves, but in the inland there were heartless slave-owners [594].

1. Caffres.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. South-West Bantus.

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

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

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

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

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

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

From this it would appear that slavery really exists.

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

The conclusion is that the Ovaherero keep slaves.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Among the Kioko slavery certainly exists [635].

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

3. East-African Bantus.

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

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

Slavery also exists among the following tribes:

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

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

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

Slavery is equally unknown among the Wambugu [654].

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

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

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

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

Among the Wanyaturu slavery is unknown [659].

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

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

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

4. Tribes on the Congo and in Lower Guinea.

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

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

Slavery certainly exists among the following tribes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. Natives of the Wahuma states.

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

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

The Bahima of Enkole keep slaves [713].

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

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

§ 16. Africa. B. Soudan Negroes.

1. Coast of Guinea.

Among several tribes here slavery certainly exists. These are the

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

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

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

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

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

2. Haussa states.

3. Central Soudan.

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

4. Upper Nile.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Among the Warundi slavery is unknown [754].

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

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

5. Appendix. African Islands.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fritsch, at the beginning of his description of the Hottentots or Koi-Koin, states that in his time these tribes had already been much changed from their aboriginal state; so he had to rely on the statements of ancient writers, several of which bear a rather fantastic character [763].

Of the Namaqua, one of the Hottentot tribes, he says, that the state of women is not so bad as among most South African tribes. The men assist their wives in the hard work; moreover a class of servants or slaves exists here. “This lowest class of people—one might object to our calling them “slaves”, as there is no established law distinguishing slaves from freemen—among the Namaqua mainly consists of individuals belonging to the despised tribes of Mountain-Damara and Bushmen. These people are looked upon as inferior by their very birth, and (like the Vaalpenz among the Bechuanas) regard bad treatment as inevitably connected with their origin, without being slaves by law. Serfs (Leibeigenen) in the proper sense of the word may be called those only who, as prisoners of war, or by surrendering at discretion (like the Fengu among the Caffres), become subjected to men of power; of these there are but few among the Namaqua tribes, but among all South African natives the rich tyrannize over the poor who, in the hope of filling their stomachs, comply with a state of dependence which is not authorized by law.” According to Th. Hahn, he who ill-treats or even barbarously murders a slave, is not punished [764]. This statement is not very clear. Fritsch speaks here of three kinds of “servants or slaves”: a. poor dependent on the rich; these certainly are servants and not slaves; b. individuals belonging to despised tribes; of these Fritsch says, that they are not slaves by law, and as no more details are given, we cannot make out what they are; c. prisoners of war and those who have surrendered at discretion. These, according to Fritsch, are the only Leibeigenen in the proper sense; but he compares them to the Fengu, who, as we saw in § 15, are subjected tribes rather than slaves [765]. Galton remarks: “Though no slaves are exported from the countries in which I travelled, yet there is a kind of slavery in the countries themselves. It is not easy to draw a line between slavery and servitude; but I should say that the relation of the master to the man was, at least in Damara and Hottentotland, that of owner rather than employer. The Namaqua Hottentots and Oorlams, in all their plundering excursions, capture and drive back with them such Damara youths as they take a fancy to, and they keep them, and assert every kind of right over them. They punish them just as they please, and even shoot them, without any one attempting to interfere. Next in the scale of slavery are those Damaras, Ghou Damup, or Bushmen, who place themselves under Hottentot “protection”, and on much the same footing as those among the Hottentots, are the paupers that are attached to different werfts among the Damaras [766]”. We see that Galton, like Fritsch, is uncertain as to whether the subjected classes among the Namaqua are to be called slaves. According to Wandrer, whose description applies to a later period than the foregoing accounts, there are no slaves, but a kind of serfs, most of them Herero, who were formerly prisoners of war [767]. Considering all this, we cannot arrive at any definite conclusion.

In his description of the other Hottentot tribes, viz. the Griqua, Korana, and Colonial Hottentots, Fritsch makes no mention of slavery. Holub remarks: “Where a well-to-do Korana can afford to keep some Makalahiri and Masarwa as servants and slaves, the soil is tilled to a small extent [768]”. We have before met with these Makalahiri and Masarwa as tribes subjected to the Bechuanas; this makes us doubt, whether the “slaves” Holub speaks of are not divisions of the same tribes subjected to the Korana, rather than slaves in the proper sense; the more so as he speaks of “servants and slaves”.

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

None of the describers of the Akkas [771] speak of slaves. Burrows tells us that they “purchase their implements, such as spears, arrow-heads, and knives, from their neighbours, in exchange for dried meat, or for captives they have taken in the bush.” But as the same writer states that “each village is ruled by a chief or head man, but among the people there is no variation of rank [772]”, we may safely suppose that they sell abroad all captives they have made, and do not keep any of them as slaves.

Of the Abongos we know little, far too little to make out whether slavery exists among them [773].