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 themselves[173]. This is not very suggestive of slavery; but the details given are not sufficient for us to arrive at a clear conclusion.
On the Záparos we get this scanty information. They are always at war, killing many of the men, and stealing the women, children and chattels of the enemies, the children either for use as servants or for sale. A boy or girl stolen by them is commonly sold to traders[174]. Apparently the author himself is in doubt, whether any of these captives are kept as slaves.
Some savage tribes of Peru are treated of by Ordinaire. In his account of the Campas or Antis there is nothing bearing on slavery. He states that he met with a Lorenzo child living among the Campas; but it is not clear whether this was a slave; and the rest of his ample record makes the existence of slavery rather improbable[175].
About the Conibos and kindred tribes the same writer remarks, that among their wives there are some slaves captured from neighbouring tribes. But as he states, that all the fatiguing work is incumbent on women, it would seem, that there are no male slaves and therefore no slavery proper. Prisoners of war are killed at their feasts[176]. From a description of about a hundred years ago we learn, that these tribes kept prisoners as slaves. Several of these slaves were observed among the Panos; the masters treated them with as much affection as their own children and married them to their daughters. The conquerors married the captive women in order to augment the number of their tribe[177]. 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 warlike[180]. It is not, however, a first-rate authority to whom we owe these particulars.
The Chiquitos, according to the same author, in their wild state attacked their neighbours, and made prisoners, to whom they gave their own daughters as wives[181]. Whether these prisoners were slaves is not clear; we should rather think not.
The Chapacuras were very peaceable, and but seldom attacked their neighbours[182]. Whether slavery existed among them we are not told.
The Moxos, in D’Orbigny’s time, had already long been civilized and christianized. What their political institutions were in their former wild state we do not know[183].