About the treatment of prisoners by the wild tribes of North Mexico Bancroft remarks: “Seldom is sex or age spared, and when prisoners are taken, they are handed over to the women for torture, who treat them most inhumanly, heaping upon them every insult devisable, besides searing their flesh with burning brands, and finally burning them at the stake, or sacrificing them in some equally cruel manner. Many cook and eat the flesh of their captives, reserving the bones as trophies”136. These particulars given, and no mention being made of slaves, slavery probably does not exist among them.

Among the wild tribes of Central Mexico “the heads of the slain were placed on poles and paraded through their villages in token of victory, the inhabitants meanwhile dancing round them. Young children were sometimes spared, and reared to [71]fight in the ranks of their conquerors, and in order to brutalize their youthful minds and eradicate all feelings of affection toward their own kindred, the youthful captives were given to drink the brains and blood of their murdered parents”137. Whether these children became slaves is not quite clear; we should think not, as they were “reared to fight in the ranks of their conquerors”; but this may also be the case with slaves138. The lack of further particulars prevents our arriving at a positive conclusion.

Bancroft’s notes on the wild tribes of South Mexico are very scanty. They sacrificed their prisoners. The Mayas had female slaves139.

Bancroft informs us that “one principal object of war among the ancient nations of Honduras was to make slaves; but the Mosquito Coast was free from this scourge, according to all accounts.” “When prisoners were taken they were usually held as slaves, after having the nose cut off.… The coast people … usually kill their prisoners.” Wickham, who gives a detailed account of the Woolwa or Soumoo of the Mosquito Coast, makes no mention of slavery140. So the inhabitants of Honduras had slaves, whereas those of the Mosquito Coast had not.

Slavery, according to Bancroft, was in force among the inhabitants of the Isthmus of Panama and Costa Rica, with the exception of the Caribs. “The prisoner is the slave of the captor; he is branded on the face and one of his front teeth knocked out. The Caribs however used to kill and eat their prisoners”. Gabb, who gives several particulars about the tribes of Costa Rica, makes no mention of slavery. According to Pokalowsky, the Indians of Coctu in Costa Rica, when conquered by the Spaniards in the 16^th century, had slaves. “They cut off the heads of their prisoners and preserve them as trophies; the boys and girls of the enemies are enslaved or sacrificed to their gods. If a master dies, his slaves are killed and buried with him; this custom prevails here to a greater extent than in any other part of India”141. [72]

Bancroft’s statement about the Caribs of the Isthmus is confirmed by the fact that Pinart, who has largely drawn upon ancient Spanish literature, makes no mention of slavery142.

Rochefort speaks of slavery existing among the Caribs of the Antilles. They believed, that the bravest warriors of their nation after death would live in happy islands, and have their enemies, the Arawaks, for slaves, whereas the cowards would be the slaves of the Arawaks. In their wars with the Spaniards they did not kill the Negro slaves, but took them with them and made them work. Sometimes slaves were killed after their master’s death, to serve him in the other world. Male prisoners were killed and eaten after a few days. Captive women became slaves; their children were reared with those of the Caribs. Female prisoners were sometimes taken for wives; then the children were free, but the mothers remained slaves. In the isle of Saint Vincent there were in Rochefort’s time English boys and girls, captured when very young; they had quite forgotten their parents, and would not even return with them, so accustomed were they to the mode of life of the Caribs, who treated them very kindly, just as if they were of their own nation. De la Borde makes no mention of slaves143. It seems to us very doubtful whether slavery really existed here. Rochefort’s statement that captive children were reared with those of the conquerors is more suggestive of adoption of captives than of slavery, and the enslavement of Negroes by the Indians is something foreign to the aboriginal state of things, as has been said before. So we cannot arrive at a definite conclusion.

The Continental Caribs, according to Gumilla, killed all their prisoners, except the young women and children, whom they sold144. So slavery probably did not exist among them.

Ling Roth, in his article on Hispaniola or Hayti (inhabited by Arawaks), makes no mention of slavery; but this does not prove much, as his sources of information (early Spanish literature) were very incomplete. For instance, he has not been able to find anything bearing on the division of labour between the sexes145. [73]

The several describers of the Indians of Guiana146 make no mention of slavery. The tribes most fully described are the Arawaks, Warraus, Macusi and Roucouyennes. Martius however states that the Arawaks have slaves, who work in their houses and on the fields147. So we are not certain about the Arawaks; but we may safely suppose that among the three other tribes slavery does not exist.

The Saliva of Columbia, according to Gumilla, made war in order to acquire slaves to till their lands148.

In Sievers’, Reclus’ and Simons’ descriptions of the Goajiro no mention is made of slaves149. According to De Brettes, however, “slavery exists; but the slave is a member of the family, though looked upon as an inferior being that may be killed if he refuses to obey”. A few more details are added about these slaves150. Sievers, reviewing De Brettes’ articles, remarks that this author is generally not very trustworthy, but that the ethnographical parts are the best of his work. Speaking of a photograph of Goajiro slaves given by De Brettes, be adds: “If there can be any question at all of slavery among them”151. On the same page, however, he translates De Brettes’ ethnographical account of the Goajiro, in which it is stated that slavery exists, without any commentary. Considering all this, we cannot arrive at any accurate conclusion.

De Lery, speaking of the ancient Tupinambas, describes at considerable length the fate of their captives, who were killed and eaten; even the child of a captive and a woman of their own tribe was not allowed to live. Though an expert hunter or fisher, and a woman well able to work, were preserved somewhat longer than the rest, all were invariably killed after a few months. Nowhere in De Lery’s book does it appear, that they made slaves by capture or by any other means152. According to another ancient writer, however, they kept prisoners as slaves. The slaves were kindly treated, allowed to [74]marry free women, but finally killed and eaten. They had to catch fish and game and to bring it to their master. Without the master’s consent they were not allowed to work for others. If they tried to escape and were caught, they were killed. A slave, who died a natural death, was not buried but thrown away in the bush153. All this is very suggestive of slavery. But the fact, that D’Evreux got his information through an interpreter, prevents us from decidedly concluding, against the testimony of our other informants, that the Tupinambas kept slaves.

Martius remarks about the Indians of Brazil in general: “Many of these tribes keep slaves.… Captivity in war is the only cause by which one loses his freedom, especially if a male; for the husband may sell his wife and children; but this is of rare occurrence”154.

The Apiacas (a group of the Central Tupis), according to the same author, in their wars kill all adult prisoners, male and female, and eat them. Children they take with them and rear them with their own; they make them work in the plantations; but when about twelve or fourteen years old, these children are killed and eaten155. Though these children may be kept in a somewhat slave-like state, a tribe that kills its slaves when full-grown is not properly to be called a slave-keeping tribe.

The same author informs us, that the Mundrucus and Mauhés have slaves156.

Of the Miranhas we are told that they enslave their prisoners; but usually these prisoners are intended to be sold to the whites. It does not appear whether any of them are kept for the Miranhas’ own use157.

Keane, von Tschudi and Ehrenreich make no mention of slavery among the Botocudos. According to Zu Wied “the conqueror persecutes the vanquished, and but seldom makes captives, at least among the Botocudos; but on the Belmonte there are said to be seen some who were used as slaves for all kinds of work”158. We do not know what this last second-hand information of Zu Wied’s is worth; but we are justified [75]in inferring that the Botocudos in general (except those on Rio Belmonte) have no slaves.

Azara states that in his time (he travelled in South America from 1781 to 1801) the Guaycurû had nearly died out, only one man being left159. But according to Boggiani Guaycurû is a general name for the tribes that inhabit the Gran Chaco160, so this statement of Azara’s seems to apply to a small division of the Guaycurû only. Southey and Martius give some particulars about the slave system of the Guaycurû161; but Colini, who has taken great pains to ascertain the identity of these tribes, quotes these descriptions as referring to the Mbayás. Of the ancient Guaycurû he says: “In their combats they gave no quarter to the adult males; but they spared the lives of the youths, whom they educated after their customs and gave in marriage to their daughters, so as to augment the number of their tribe. Full-grown women were sold to the neighbouring nations, who made them slaves”162. The only captives whom they kept among them, the youths, were not slaves; so slavery probably did not exist among them.

Two tribes inhabiting the Gran Chaco and so belonging to the Guaycurû in Boggiani’s sense, are described by Thouar. Of the Chiriguanos he says: “The prisoners are the property of their captors and must serve the mistress of the hut.” In his description of the Tobas he makes no mention of slavery163. Thouar, however, does not seem to be very well informed164.

The Mbayás, according to Azara, in his time had two kinds of slaves, one composed of the Guanás, the other of Indian and Spanish prisoners of war. But the former were no real slave class. The Guanás “used to repair in troops to the Mbayás, to obey and serve them and till their lands without any payment. Hence the Mbayás always call them their slaves. This slavery is indeed very mild, as the Guaná voluntarily submits to it, and leaves off whenever he likes.” Such “slaves”, who lead a tribal life and come and go when they like, certainly are not slaves. The others however were real slaves. They procured the fuel, cooked the food, took care of the horses [76]and tilled the land. When Azara once offered a present to a Mbayá, the latter would not take it himself, but ordered his slaves to receive it for him. Even the poorest Mbayá had three of four slaves. During the mourning-time women and slaves were not allowed to speak or eat any meat. One place in Azara’s book seems to show that they had no slaves: “They said they had received a divine command to wage war against all nations, kill the adult males and adopt the women and children, in order to augment their number.” But where the recorded tradition and the description of the actual state of things disagree, we hold that the latter is to be accepted165. Colini refers to Azara and Martius, and then adds: “Serra however asserts that among the Mbayás slavery proper (la schiavitù vera e propria) did not exist; the slaves might rather be called servants.” They fought together with the freemen and took part in the public council, even when it decided upon war and peace. They married free persons, but were themselves looked upon as slaves. On the master’s death, the sons or next relations, according to the rules of inheritance, became masters of the slaves; but these rights were only nominal. The slaves gradually merged into the tribe. Yet it was always considered degrading to be a descendant of a slave; those who had in their ancestry none but members of the tribe were very proud of it. Generally the best slave girls were married to their masters; the boys of greatest promise were treated as sons, whereas the others were set to do the ruder work166. This account, however, does not prove that the captives were not slaves. Some of the boys only were treated as sons; what were the rest if not slaves? And even slaves may to a certain degree be treated as sons. The slaves gradually coalesced with the tribe (though not entirely); but we are told that this change took place “through personal merits and intermarriage.” This shows that all captives were not on a level with the freemen; probably it was only the most deserving prisoners, and the offspring of slaves and freemen, who attended the public council and were on an equal footing with the main body of tribesmen. Slaves may be kindly treated and yet be slaves. [77]Our opinion is, that we have here a schiavitù vera e propria; the more so, as the description given by Azara leads to the same conclusion.

The present Caduvei, according to Boggiani, are the same people as the ancient Mbayás. Very probably he is right here. Yet we have seen how much confusion there is in the application of the terms Guaycurû and Mbayás; so we are a little sceptical. Moreover, there is a great lapse of time between the early descriptions of the Mbayás and Boggiani’s travels, and during that time their state of culture has greatly changed; from nomadic hunters they have in the 19^th century become settled agriculturists167. So we are justified in treating them separately. The Caduvei keep slaves. The slaves are well treated, but looked upon as an inferior race. The ruder kinds of work, and the tilling of the soil, fall to their share. As a rule they are kindly treated, without being allowed to forget their duties. The Caduvei exchange the slaves among them for horses, cattle and various commodities168.

Pohl states, that the Canoeiros had captured a young man and treated him well169. Nothing more being added, we cannot make out whether slavery exists.

Of the tribes of Central Brasil, visited by Von den Steinen, the principal are the Bakaïri, Paressi, Bororo, Suya and Yuruna. In his description of the Bakaïri, Paressi and Bororo he makes no mention of slavery. If it existed, this careful observer would certainly have mentioned it. Neither is a word about slaves to be found in Hensel’s description of the Coroados, who are often identified with the Bororo170.

Among the Suya Von den Steinen observed Indians of other tribes, who were kept as slaves. The presents, which the author gave to one of these slaves, had to be delivered to his master171.

The same writer speaks of captives residing among the Yuruna; but his short remark on this subject cannot lead us to a safe conclusion as to the existence of slavery among them172.

The Karayas on Rio Araguaya keep captive women in a somewhat slave-like state. Prisoners of war, adopted into the [78]tribe, sometimes are made chiefs if they have distinguished themselves173. This is not very suggestive of slavery; but the details given are not sufficient for us to arrive at a clear conclusion.

On the Záparos we get this scanty information. They are always at war, killing many of the men, and stealing the women, children and chattels of the enemies, the children either for use as servants or for sale. A boy or girl stolen by them is commonly sold to traders174. Apparently the author himself is in doubt, whether any of these captives are kept as slaves.

Some savage tribes of Peru are treated of by Ordinaire. In his account of the Campas or Antis there is nothing bearing on slavery. He states that he met with a Lorenzo child living among the Campas; but it is not clear whether this was a slave; and the rest of his ample record makes the existence of slavery rather improbable175.

About the Conibos and kindred tribes the same writer remarks, that among their wives there are some slaves captured from neighbouring tribes. But as he states, that all the fatiguing work is incumbent on women, it would seem, that there are no male slaves and therefore no slavery proper. Prisoners of war are killed at their feasts176. From a description of about a hundred years ago we learn, that these tribes kept prisoners as slaves. Several of these slaves were observed among the Panos; the masters treated them with as much affection as their own children and married them to their daughters. The conquerors married the captive women in order to augment the number of their tribe177. The details given are not sufficient to decide, whether the prisoners merged into the tribe or constituted a slave class.

Smyth and Lowe, speaking of the Sencis of Peru, remark: “They give no quarter, and take no prisoners in the battle.… The women and children are taken for slaves, and if there are any in infancy, or much advanced in age, they are killed as useless.”178. Whether the fate of the captive women and [79]children was really slavery, is not clear from this short note.

The Guanas probably had no slaves. We are told that the head of the tribe “is obliged to work for his subsistence, as nobody serves him”179.

As little does it appear that the Yuracarés and Mocéténès are slave-keeping tribes. The former live in families, and even in these subordination is unknown. The latter are not warlike180. It is not, however, a first-rate authority to whom we owe these particulars.

The Chiquitos, according to the same author, in their wild state attacked their neighbours, and made prisoners, to whom they gave their own daughters as wives181. Whether these prisoners were slaves is not clear; we should rather think not.

The Chapacuras were very peaceable, and but seldom attacked their neighbours182. Whether slavery existed among them we are not told.

The Moxos, in D’Orbigny’s time, had already long been civilized and christianized. What their political institutions were in their former wild state we do not know183.

Muratori, speaking of the Indians of Paraguay and some neighbouring districts, states that they kill and eat their prisoners of war. Some tribes, however, he tells us, are more peaceful and take all pains to induce their prisoners to reside among them. Children of prisoners are sold by some of the tribes to other nations184. From all this it would seem that slavery did not exist. But we shall presently see, that the other information we have got does not entirely agree with Muratori’s general statement.

The principal native tribe of Paraguay were the Abipones, described at large by Dobrizhoffer. The prisoners they made were very leniently treated. They gave them the best of their food, and tended them when ill. The prisoners had daily opportunity to run away, but they did not desire it, for they were very contented. They were never beaten, nor even reproved. They hunted and fought together with the Abipones. And yet they were not merged into the nation of the Abipones; [80]for the Abipone women generally would marry only a man of their own people; and the men never married female prisoners, nor had they any connection with them. It appears that every captive was assigned to an individual master. So we have here to deal with the fact, that one man is the property of another beyond the limits of the family proper, i.e. slavery, though slavery of an extraordinarily mild character185.

The Payaguas in their wars killed all adult men, and preserved the women and children. What became of the latter does not appear. The Payaguas were absolutely free and did not recognize any difference of classes. From this it is probable, though not certain, that they had no slaves186.

The Enimagas, according to Azara, were hunters; agriculture among them was incumbent on slaves. No further particulars are given about these slaves. The Enimagas are said formerly to have held the Mbayas in a kind of slavery; but such a subjection of a tribe as a whole is not slavery in the true sense; slavery is subjection of individuals. If the “slaves” the Enimagas had in Azara’s time were of the same description, they were not slaves187. So we cannot arrive here at any definite conclusion.

D’Orbigny remarks, that the Charruas when at war killed all the men, and preserved the women and children, whom they made concubines and slaves188. As Azara’s statement is quite different, we shall translate it literally: “All are equal; nobody serves another; or it must be some old woman who, having no means of subsistence, joins some family, or assists at the burying of the dead”. In their wars they kill all they meet, preserving none but the women and the children under twelve years of age. They take their prisoners along with them, and let them enjoy their freedom; most of them marry there and get so much accustomed to this mode of life, that they but rarely wish to return to their own people189. Although such kind treatment is compatible with slavery, Azara’s statement about nobody serving another is positive enough to exclude all notion of slavery. Heusser and Claraz, who seem [81]to be well informed, make no mention of slavery190. This fact, together with the above-quoted positive statement of Azara, who on the whole seems to be better informed than D’Orbigny191, and who also treats this matter much more fully, leads us to conclude that they had no slaves. The lapse of time between Azara’s and D’Orbigny’s travels (from about 30 to 50 years) might account for the difference of their descriptions; but it seems to us that so much importance need not be attached to the latter’s short remark.

The Minuanes, according to Azara, resemble the Charruas in their mode of warfare, and in acknowledging no social classes192. We may therefore suppose them to have had no slaves.

The Patagons or Tehuelches, according to Musters and Falkner, have slaves. The same is stated by Letourneau on the authority of Guimard193. And as these authors not only assert that there are slaves, but also give some particulars about them, we may be sure that slavery really exists.

About the Puelches we get some information from Azara, who calls them Pampas. “In war they kill all adult males, preserving none but the women and young boys; these they take home and treat in the same manner as the Charruas do. It is true, that they impose some kinds of work upon them, and use them as slaves or servants until they marry; but then they are as free as the others”194. Such men, who as soon as they marry are on a level with the members of the tribe, certainly are not slaves.

The Araucanians, according to D’Orbigny, kill their male enemies and enslave the women and children195. Molina says: “The prisoners of war, as is the custom of all semibarbarous nations, become tavaichi, i.e. slaves, until they are exchanged or ransomed”196. In his detailed description of Araucanian social life he makes no further mention of slaves, nor do the [82]other authors197. So we may suppose that the prisoners are always exchanged or ransomed, and that slavery is unknown among them.

About the Fuegians we have this positive statement of Hyades and Déniker: “They have no chiefs, no labourers who work for pay, and no slaves”198. This statement, already valuable in itself, is corroborated by the fact, that none of the other authors we have consulted on the subject make any mention of slavery199.