The Shahnees in Gregg’s time also kept a few Negro slaves[135].
But these facts do not represent phenomena of unadulterated savage life. These Indian tribes had already undergone great changes by contact with the whites. Moreover, the Negroes kept by them as slaves were in a very peculiar condition, living in a foreign continent amongst foreign races. So we are justified in omitting these cases from our list of slave-keeping Indian tribes.
§ 3. Central and South America.
About the treatment of prisoners by the wild tribes of North Mexico Bancroft remarks: “Seldom is sex or age spared, and when prisoners are taken, they are handed over to the women for torture, who treat them most inhumanly, heaping upon them every insult devisable, besides searing their flesh with burning brands, and finally burning them at the stake, or sacrificing them in some equally cruel manner. Many cook and eat the flesh of their captives, reserving the bones as trophies”[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 slaves[138]. The lack of further particulars prevents our arriving at a positive conclusion.
Bancroft’s notes on the wild tribes of South Mexico are very scanty. They sacrificed their prisoners. The Mayas had female slaves[139].
Bancroft informs us that “one principal object of war among the ancient nations of Honduras was to make slaves; but the Mosquito Coast was free from this scourge, according to all accounts.” “When prisoners were taken they were usually held as slaves, after having the nose cut off.… The coast people … usually kill their prisoners.” Wickham, who gives a detailed account of the Woolwa or Soumoo of the Mosquito Coast, makes no mention of slavery[140]. So the inhabitants of Honduras had slaves, whereas those of the Mosquito Coast had not.
Slavery, according to Bancroft, was in force among the inhabitants of the Isthmus of Panama and Costa Rica, with the exception of the Caribs. “The prisoner is the slave of the captor; he is branded on the face and one of his front teeth knocked out. The Caribs however used to kill and eat their prisoners”. Gabb, who gives several particulars about the tribes of Costa Rica, makes no mention of slavery. According to Pokalowsky, the Indians of Coctu in Costa Rica, when conquered by the Spaniards in the 16th century, had slaves. “They cut off the heads of their prisoners and preserve them as trophies; the boys and girls of the enemies are enslaved or sacrificed to their gods. If a master dies, his slaves are killed and buried with him; this custom prevails here to a greater extent than in any other part of India”[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 slavery[142].