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”[275]. 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 [[100]]exist[276]. 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[277]. 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”[278]. 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”[279]. 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[280]. Remy tells us that the common people were heavily oppressed by the chiefs. Slaves are not mentioned by him. Prisoners were sacrificed[281]. All this renders the existence [[101]]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[282], and Marcuse’s short remark, that “to allure the sharks, they occasionally made human sacrifices, especially among the slaves”[283], in concluding that slavery did not exist.
Hale states that in the Marquesas Islands there were no slaves[284]. 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[285]. According to Meinicke prisoners were either sacrificed and eaten, or spared and adopted into the conquering tribe[286]. De Rocquefeuil also states that the prisoners were eaten, unless, by the priests’ intervention, they were buried; at any rate they were killed[287]. Moerenhout tells us that the sole object of their wars was to obtain a cannibal repast[288]. 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”[289], 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”[290].
The natives of Tukopia, according to Gerland, formerly kept slaves, who were prisoners of war[291]. 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 [[102]]few have taken advantage of the permission to return”[292]. 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[293]. 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[294]. 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[295]. 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. |