Slavery from Known to Unknown: A comparative study of slavery in ancient Greek poleis and ancient Sri Lanka 9781841717302, 9781407329116

Table of contents :
1463 verso.pdf
John and Erica Hedges Ltd.
British Archaeological Reports
Front Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Dedication
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements
Foreword
List of Maps and Plates
Abbreviations
Introduction
Chapter 1: Modes of enslavement in ancient Greek poleis and ancient Sri Lanka
Chapter 2: Ownership of slaves in ancient Greek poleis and Sri Lanka
Chapter 3: Conditions of slaves in ancient Greek poleis and ancient Sri Lanka
Chapter 4: Temple slavery and Helotage
Chapter 5: Manumissions of slaves in ancient Greek poleis and Sri Lanka
Conclusions
Appendix 1: Dāsa, vahal, vaharala etc in Sri Lankan historical sources
Appendix 2: Sri Lankan epigraphic records citing terms denoting ‘slave’ and manumissions
Appendix 3: Sri Lankan literary sources
Appendix 4: Sri Lankan Inscriptions
Appendix 5: Religious and social set up in ancient Sri Lanka
Maps and Plates
Bibliography

Citation preview

BAR S1463 2005  WICKRAMASINGHE  SLAVERY FROM KNOWN TO UNKNOWN

Slavery from Known to Unknown A comparative study of slavery in ancient Greek poleis and ancient Sri Lanka

Chandima S. M. Wickramasinghe

BAR International Series 1463 B A R

2005

Slavery from Known to Unknown A comparative study of slavery in ancient Greek poleis and ancient Sri Lanka

Chandima S. M. Wickramasinghe

BAR International Series 1463 2005

Published in 2016 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR International Series 1463 Slavery from Known to Unknown © C S M Wickramasinghe and the Publisher 2005 The author's moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher.

ISBN 9781841717302 paperback ISBN 9781407329116 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781841717302 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library BAR Publishing is the trading name of British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd. British Archaeological Reports was first incorporated in 1974 to publish the BAR Series, International and British. In 1992 Hadrian Books Ltd became part of the BAR group. This volume was originally published by John and Erica Hedges Ltd. in conjunction with British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd / Hadrian Books Ltd, the Series principal publisher, in 2005. This present volume is published by BAR Publishing, 2016.

BAR

PUBLISHING BAR titles are available from:

E MAIL P HONE F AX

BAR Publishing 122 Banbury Rd, Oxford, OX2 7BP, UK [email protected] +44 (0)1865 310431 +44 (0)1865 316916 www.barpublishing.com

To

My dear parents &

my darling husband Nandana

i

ii

Contents

Acknowledgements Foreword

…………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………..

List of maps and plates

v vii

…………………………………………………

ix

Abbreviations

……………………………………………………..……

xi

Introduction

………………………………………………...

xv

Chapter 1

Modes of enslavement in ancient Greek poleis and ancient Sri Lanka.

1

Chapter 2

Ownership of slaves in ancient Greek poleis and ancient Sri Lanka.

16

Chapter 3

Conditions of slaves in ancient Greek poleis and ancient Sri Lanka.

27

Chapter 4

Temple slavery and helotage.

49

Chapter 5

Manumission of slaves in ancient Greek poleis and ancient Sri Lanka.

73

Conclusion

94

………………………………………………………….

Appendix 1 Dasa, vahal, vaharala, etc, in Sri Lankan historical sources.

97

Appendix 2 Sri Lankan epigraphic records that cite the terms denoting ‘slave’ and manumissions.

103

Appendix 3 Sri Lankan literary sources.

116

Appendix 4 Sri Lankan inscriptions.

120

Appendix 5 Religious and Social set up in ancient Sri Lanka

122

Maps and Plates

126

Bibliography

…..…………………………………………………….

iii

133

iv

Acknowledgements This study results from my doctoral research project, which I successfully completed as a postgraduate student of the University of Nottingham, England in 2004. This is the revised version of the thesis I presented to the above-mentioned University for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. The amount of research embedded in this volume would have been impossible if not for the initial support I received from Prof. D.P.M. Weerakkody (University of Peradeniya) who notified me about the scholarships for studies on slavery leading to PhD advertised by the International Centre for the study of the History of Slavery (ICHOS),1 attached to the Dept. of Classics in the University of Nottingham. I am equally grateful to late Prof. Thomas E. J. Wiedemanne (University of Nottingham), then director of ICHOS, for encouraging me to undertake this challenging, yet interesting, research into studying Sri Lankan slavery systematically and comparing it with ancient Greek slavery. I also offer my sincere gratitude to the ICHOS and the University of Nottingham for providing me full financial assistance throughout my postgraduate studies and without which this research would have been impossible. This work has benefited from the kind support of many scholars, friends and relatives in various degrees. Most of all I extend my heartfelt gratitude to my supervisor, Dr. Jim Roy, a scholarly Greek historian, who patiently went through several versions of the manuscript and offered me generous advice and judicious criticisms and revisions throughout my post-graduate career, which tremendously helped me to improve my research. I am also thankful to him for kindly writing the foreword for this volume. Dr. Riet van Bremen (University College London) is also remembered with great appreciation for her scholarly advice and suggestions especially towards improving the chapter on temple slavery. Valuable discussions and suggestions of Prof. Alan Sommerstein and Dr. John Salmon (Universtiy of Nottingham) at various stages in my research also helped me to strengthen my arguments. Dr. Hans van Wees (University College London) and Prof. Stephen Hodkinson (University of Nottingham) kindly allowed me to use manuscripts of two of their articles, still in the press at the time. I am also indebted to Sirima Kiribamune a retired professor of the University of Peradeniya for reading all sections of the manuscript on Sri Lankan slavery and furnishing me with scholarly suggestions and advice. Professors K. N. O. Dharmadasa and Tilaka Mettananda (University of Peradeniya) also kindly read parts of the manuscript and offered kind advice. Prof. (Rev.) Premarathana and Dr. P. Senanayake (University of Peradeniya) helped me with diacritical marks in Pāli and ancient Sinhalese words. The discussion with Prof. Meegaskumbura (University of Peradeniya) also assisted me to strengthen my arguments on Sri Lankan slavery and to find more reading material for Sri Lankan social history. I have presented several aspects included in the thesis at several research seminars and conferences held in various universities in England and Scotland, and I appreciate the comments and suggestions I received from the respective scholarly audiences which armed me with new insights in formulating and strengthening my arguments and approach. I am deeply indebted to judicious criticisms, revisions and suggestions offered by Professors Nick Fisher (University of Cardiff) and Stephen Hodkinson (University of Nottingham), examiners of my doctoral thesis, in revising this work for publication. The discussions with Dr. (Rev.) Deerananda and Prof. W. I. Siriweera (University of Peradeniya) also sharpened my mind when revising the thesis for publication. Nonetheless, any errors or lapses that may occur in this work are entirely my own. I have used many libraries in the course of preparing this work and I am grateful to their staff. Of these, especial thanks goes to the staff in the Hallward library Nottingham, Institute of Classical Studies Library and the library of the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), both, in London. The support of the staff in the University of Peradeniya is also commendable especially at the stage of revising the thesis. 1

Presently known as the Institute for the Study Of Slavery (ISOS).

v

Moreover, the technical support I received from various individuals, especially from Prof. Weerakkody, Dr. Chet Van Duzer (University of California), Dr. Asanga Rathnaweera, Dr. Nirmal Weerasekara, Prof. Sudharshan Senevirathne, Mr. Rohana Senevirathne (University of Peradeniya) at various stages when preparing the manuscript for publication is greatly appreciated with many thanks. I would also like to extend my thanks to the staff and my fellow postgraduates of the Department of Classics in Nottingham for all friendly support they provided me during my stay as a postgraduate student at Nottingham. I also take this opportunity to thank my parents for the wonderful support and encouragement they showered upon me throughout my student life. Last but not least, a big thank you goes to my dearest husband, Nandana Wickramasinghe, for offering me generous loving support and encouragement, especially when I mostly needed them, throughout my research career. Also I am heavily indebted to his kind patience and endurance which gave me a great strength towards completing the research successfully and in revising it for publication. Chandima S. M. Wickramasinghe Dept. of Classical Languages University of Peradeniya 02.12.2005

vi

Foreword It is a pleasure to introduce this book by Chandima Wickramasinghe, who is uniquely qualified to write about the history of unfree labour both in historical Sri Lanka and in classical Greece. She is a native Sri Lankan, familiar with the culture and history of her country, and has studied classical Greece and the Greek language first at the University of Peradeniya in Sri Lanka and subsequently in England at the University of Nottingham. She has thus been able to undertake the research that has led to the present volume, a comparative study of unfree labour both in classical Greece and in historical Sri Lanka. The study of classical Greek slavery, both chattel slavery supported by a commercial trade in slaves and other forms of unfree labour such as Spartan helotage, has been a major concern of historians of ancient Greece since the nineteenth century. Considerable evidence is available both in classical literary texts and in inscriptions engraved on stone or, more rarely, metal, and as a result there is now a large and sophisticated scholarly literature, growing steadily year by year, on ancient Greek slavery. Much less attention has been given to the forms of unfree labour that existed in historical Sri Lanka in the period before the arrival of colonial powers profoundly altered Sri Lankan society. Yet in Sri Lanka too there is relevant evidence in literary texts and in inscriptions, admittedly less abundant than the Greek material but certainly sufficient to allow historical analysis. Fortunately a considerable effort has been made to produce scholarly publications of the Sri Lankan inscriptions, but no full and detailed analysis of the entire range of evidence had been undertaken before Chandima Wickramasinghe began her research. Her first achievement has been to provide the historical overview, lacking hitherto, of unfree labour in historical Sri Lanka, and with it a significant contribution to the history of her country. She has however worked throughout in a comparative perspective, seeking to illuminate through their similarities and differences the histories of unfree labour in classical Greece as well as in Sri Lanka, and this has led to valuable insights also into Greek slavery. One example will suffice. The value laid by Buddhism on the merit to be acquired by freeing a slave led in Sri Lanka to records of manumission that gave most prominence to the former owner, the manumittor, and when Greek records of manumission are compared to Sri Lankan practice it becomes clear that they had a very different purpose, not to record the ex-master’s generosity but to protect the former slave from any attempt at re-enslavement. The book is thus a considerable achievement that has much to offer the historian of ancient Greek slavery as well as the historian of historical Sri Lanka. J. Roy, Honorary Research Fellow, Department of Classics, University of Nottingham.

vii

viii

List of Maps and Plates

Maps 1.

Chief climatic zones, ancient capitals and the Kandyan kingdom of Sri Lanka.§

2. Geographical locations of manumission records (so far) found in ancient Sri Lanka. ‡ 3.

The spread of ancient inscriptions of Sri Lanka in a modern district map. ‡

126

127

129

Plates 1.

The Cost of Full and conditional freedom of adult slaves according to the Delphic manumission records (201-1 BC).

130

2. The average manumission prices paid by slaves at Delphi (201-1 BC).

131

3. The general themes of records published in the eight volumes of Epigraphia Zeylanica, Epigraphical Notes 1-18 and in the Inscriptions of Ceylon vols. 1-2.

132

‡ The primary version of the modern district map adopted to demonstrate the above details is courtesy of the following site: http://www.nepc.lk/Sectoral%20Atlas/M_Education/3-districts%20srilanka.jpg. § The primary version of this map is from M. Banks (1960): 62, Map 4 - Ceylon.

ix

x

Abbreviations Ancient Greece: Gortyn code- Willets, R.F., (1967) The law code of Gortyn.

Ancient Sri Lanka: Abppika -

Abbhidhanappadipikā or dictionary of Pāli language by W. Subhuti (1865; Colombo)

Avmdsva Dehiwala).

Anāgathavamsadēsanāva, of Rev. Wilgammula Sangarāja, S. Nanāyakkāra (1997/1977;

Cv Cūlavamsa the translation of the last parts of Mahāvamsa by W. Geiger in 2 vols (1929 & 1930; London). Dkvata -

Dambadenikatikāvata in A. V. Suraveera 123-142, isxy, l;sldj;a yd NslaIq

iudch (1971; Colombo) DhA Dhammapada Attakata or Dhammapada commentary vols. 1-5 PTS ed. H. Norman (1906-1915; London). DN -

Dīganikāya PTS ed. J. E. Carpenter (1911; London)

EB -

Encyclopaedia Britanica

Fa Hien Fa-Hien, A Record of Buddhist Kingdoms tr. to English by James Lagge, (2000) for the Project Gutenberg e-text. ftp://ibiblio.org/pub/docs/books/gutenberg/etext00/rbddh10.txt (2002.4.14). Gazetteer - The Gazetteer of the central provinces by A. C. Lawrie (1896 & 1898; Colombo). Ibn Batuta Ibn Batuta: Travels in Asia and Africa 1325-1354 tr. & selected by H. A. R. Gibb (1997; Delhi & Madras). JCD Knox Glasgow).

Judicial Commissioner’s Diary. Robert Knox: Historical relations, together with his Autobiography ed. J. Rayan (1911:

Lawrie Mss - Kandyan law and history (Materials collected for 2 projected works by A. C. Lawrie). Mpuvata -

Mandārampuvata, ed. L. Lankānanda (1996: Battaramulla).

Mv -

Mahāvamsa ed. by H. Sumangala (1908; Colombo).

NN -

Niti-Niganduwa, ed. C. J. R Le Mesurier & T. B. Pānabokke, (1880; Colombo).

Pjōtika -

Paramatthajōtikā Hewāvitharana bequest series, (1922; Colombo).

PBC -

Proceedings of the Board of Commissioners.

xi

Psudāni Pāpancasudāni or the commentary of Majjima-nikāya, ed. by D. Sri Dhammārāma (1917; Colombo). Rjv Rājāvaliya: or historical narrative of Sinhalese kings from Vijaya to Vimala Dharmasūriya II, ed. Gunasekara, B., (1900; Colombo). Rsv -

Rasavāhini

RBC -

Report of the Board of Commissioners.

SBv -

Simhala Bōdhivamsaya ed. A. I. Sabihela (1965; Colombo).

Sdlkya Pānadura).

Saddharmālankāraya by Ven. Rev. Dharmakirtthi, rev. & ed. Rev. B. Sadhātissa, (1934;

Sdrvya -

Saddharmarathnāvaliya of Dhammasena ed. by D. B. Jayatilake (1930; Colombo).

Sihalavattu - Le Sihalavatthūpakarana,ed. & tr. J. van Eecke, (1980; Paris). Smp -

Samantapāsādika PTS ed. vols 1-7, J. Takakusu & M. Nagai (1924-1947; London).

Svini Sumangalavilāsini PTS ed. pt. I, T.W.R. Davids & Carpenter (1886; London), Pt. III, W. Stede (1932; London). Svinōdani -

Sammōhavinōdani PTS ed. A.P. Buddhadattha (1923; London).

Vimāna Elucidation of the intrinsic meaning so named: the commentary on the Vimāna stories. Peter Masfield & N.A. Jayawickrama, (1989; Oxford). Vinaya -

Vinaya pitakaya-Mahavagga PTS ed. H. Oldenberg vol. I (1964; London).

Yālpāna Yālpānavaipavamālaya of Madagal Mailvākana (1736) translated by M. K. H de Silva & A. Wijaya Sriwardhana as the Yāpāpatuna vamsakatāva (1999: Colombo)

Epigraphic material: EZ -

Epigraphiya Zeylanica

EN -

Epigraphical Notes 1-18

IC -

Inscriptions of Ceylon

CTI -

Ceylon Tamil Inscription

Journals: CALR -

Ceylon Antiquary and Literary Register.

CJS -

Ceylon Journal of Science.

CJHSS -

Ceylon Journal of Historical and Social Studies.

CHJ -

Ceylon Historical Journal.

xii

JRASCB -

Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Colombo branch.

Kalyani -

Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences of the University of Kelaniya.

SLJH -

The Sri Lanka Journal of Humanities.

SSR -

Social Science Review.

SZ -

Spolia Zeylanica- Bulletin of the national Museums of Ceylon.

UCR -

University of Ceylon Review.

xiii

xiv

Introduction The aim of this comparative study is to examine resemblances and contrasts in the ancient Greek and Sri Lankan systems of servitude in order to examine to what extent the contrasts could illuminate the two systems. Ancient Greece is chosen here for comparison because the contrasting political, social and religious character of the Greek society enables me to highlight the distinctive features of Sri Lankan systems of servitude. Moreover, the well-known Greek systems of servitude shed light in exploring the yet unclear servile groups in historic Sri Lanka. Having noted the setting and aim for undertaking this project as a whole, it is necessary to clarify very briefly my definitions of the types of servitude that occur in this research. Notably, in the spectrum of servitude, subjection to another, though in varying degrees, brings chattel slavery, serfdom and bondage together. Further, as Klein argues, it is hard to trace borders between slavery and other forms of servitude in all cases.1 As Fisher2 rightly points out, their definitions are matters of argument exposing different approaches. This study, nonetheless, focuses on basic general definitions. Chattel slaves were those who were mostly acquired through purchase though their offspring also join this servile team as house-born slaves. Whether purchased or house born, chattel slaves were liable to be disposed of at the will of the master and were subject to his absolute control. Serfs were those fixed to the land: they worked for a particular master while residing upon it though they had some control over their labour.3 Those in bondage, as the name shows, were bonded, either voluntarily or by enforcement, to work for their creditor or the damaged party until the due debt or penalty restitution was settled. Obviously, ‘slavery’, ‘serfdom’ and ‘bondage’ are English terms that translate different indigenous terms, each with their nuances, social context and obligations, though not satisfactorily in all cases. The terms used to denote ‘slavery’ in ancient Sri Lanka are notoriously confused as most terms do not refer to one single group of unfree and also the slave and serf statuses are interlinked or mixed.4 Thus, when it is hard to trace the exact type of servile group implied in a particular context or by 1

Klein (1993): 6.

2

Fisher (1995): 3.

a particular indigenous term in relation to ancient Sri Lanka, the word slave or slavery will be mentioned in my texts within inverted commas. Furthermore, such appearance of slave or slavery followed by ‘/bondsmen’ or ‘/bondage’ denote the mixed characteristics (i.e. both slave and serf features) embedded in the servile status as implied by (a) local term (s). Similar circumstances are observable concerning Greek terms, for instance, Finley states that, the term doulos and the verb douleuo were used for any form of subjection, and not only for chattel slaves.5 But different types of servitude can be more easily distinguished in Greek sources than in ancient Sri Lankan sources. The sheer quantity of the academic work on Greek servitude reflects the enthusiasm on the subject and compels us to cite only the recent works that provided substance for this study. Y. Garlan’s (1988) Slavery in ancient Greece6 is valuable for its detailed study on the subject presented under three main headings, chattel slavery, between liberty and slavery where he discusses communal servitude, and, thirdly, theory and practice of slave holding. E. M. Wood (1988) devotes one of the three main portions of discussions of her Peasant, citizen and slave to study slavery, mainly Athenian. Slavery in Classical Greece of N. R. E. Fisher (1993), reprinted with corrections in 1995, is notable for its brief, clear and authoritative presentation on ancient Greek slavery from Homeric times to the fourth century BC. He covers a wide range of themes such as community slaves (Spartan helots), economic functions and treatment of Athenian slaves, and ideologies and justifications of slavery, which are vital for a comprehensive study on Greek slavery. T. E. J. Wiedemann (1997) Slavery is also packed with details, theories and arguments on Graeco-Roman slavery. P. Hunt (1998) Slaves, warfare and ideology in the Greek historians is a challenging work that addresses the theme of employing Greek slaves in warfare. H. Klees’s (1998) Sklavenleben im klassischen Griechenland (Stuttgart) is another detailed work on Classical Greek slavery focusing from enslavement to manumission of slaves. Apart from these two themes, Klees devotes seven chapters to discuss treatments and conditions of Greek slaves at the hand of their master, society and state. Schumacher’s (2001) Sklaverei in der Antike: Alltage und Schicksal der unfreien focuses on both Greek and Roman slavery in more general terms and proceeds under three main chapters, the sources of slaves and their distribution, employment of slaves, and slaves in society. In the concluding chapter he compares classical Greek and Roman slave systems and draws attention to many central distinctions between the two cultures. The

3

For a general study on chattel slaves and serfs, cf. Bush (1996): 1-17 & Engerman (1996): 18-26.

5

4

6

Cf. infra App. 1 for discussion of the issue.

Finley (1981): 156.

This is the translation of the French work of Y. Garlan, Les esclaves en Grèce ancienne by J. Lloyd.

xv

archaeology of Greek and Roman slavery of F. H. Thompson (2003) studies slave sources and trade; slave occupations such as mining, stone quarrying, and in mills; means of restraint on slaves and slave revolts in ancient Greece and Rome, largely based on archaeological evidence. R. Zelnik-Abramovitz’s (2005) Not wholly free: the concept of manumission and the status of manumitted slaves in the ancient Greek world is the latest on the subject which draws special attention to different aspects of manumission of slaves such as definitions and approaches on slavery and freedom, ‘diversity and similarity of manumissions practised in the Greek world, manumittors and manumitted slaves, the act of manumission it self, laws and legal action visà-vis freed slaves and finally on the reality of freedom.1 J. Ducat’s Les Hilotes (1990) and Penestes des Thessalie (1994) are more specialised work on other systems of Greek servitude. The former discusses various points of Spartan helotage in detail including the invention of helotism, their status, functions and revolts. The latter is a source book that gathers all historical evidence on Thesselian Penestai. Besides these detailed works on Greek servitude there are many articles recently written on the subject. Among which R. Osborne’s ‘The economics and politics of slavery at Athens’(1995) and ‘Religion, imperial politics and the offering of freedom to slaves’ (2000), those on torture of Athenian slaves by M. Gargarin (1996), D. C. Mirhady (2000), and that on debt bondage by E. M. Harris (2002) are invaluable for their contribution to Athenian slavery. Apart from these, the articles of S. Hodkinson (1992, 1997, 2000 and 20032), H .W. Singor (1993), M. Whitby (1994), N. Birgalias (2002) and N. Luraghi (2002) are commendable for the contribution to the knowledge of Spartan helotage. The article of van Wees (2003) ‘Conquerors and serfs: wars of conquest and forced labour in archaic Greece’ is of special importance as it brings together Spartan helots and other similar servile groups. E. Lévy’s (1997) ‘Libres et nonlibres dans le code de Gortyne’ also deserves attention for its contribution on Cretan servile systems. Regarding slavery in ancient Sri Lanka, scholarship is limited only to two articles written on the subject. Of these, P. A. T. Gunasinghe’s (1960) ‘Slavery in Ceylon during Anurādhapura kingdom’ (12 pages) provides a general picture of the institution of ‘slavery’ in the Anurādhapura period based on literary and epigraphic evidence. The other is N. Wijesekara’s (1974) ‘Slavery in Sri Lanka’ (21 and a half pages) which touches upon several aspects on the subject of ‘slavery’, such as sources, ownership, condition of slaves, names of slaves,

very superficially, from very early times to the time of abolition during English occupation.3 Nonetheless, the other general studies on the social history of the island refer to ‘slavery’ very briefly or in passing. It is also worth examining to what extent this subject is treated in the works on social history in the island. L. S. Perera’s thesis (1949) on The institutions of ancient Ceylon from inscriptions from third century BC to the tenth century AD compiled in three volumes of 1200 pages4 devotes only a few scattered paragraphs to discuss ‘slavery’ briefly based on manumission records and other epigraphic sources within this time frame. M.B. Ariyapāla’s The society in Medieval Ceylon as depicted in the Saddharmaratnāvaliya (1956) discusses many aspects such as domestic life, administration, coins and currency, weight and measures and the ‘Buddhist church.’ But, in this work of more than 300 pages he spares just about two pages to discuss or rather to list the available evidence on temple ‘slavery’. R. Peiris’ (1956) work on Sinhalese social organisation in the Kändyan times only uses three pages to talk of ‘slavery’ in Kändyan times. W. Rāhula’s (1956) History of Buddhism in Ceylon in the Anurādhapura period (the third century BC to the tenth century AD) also contains a few scattered references to ‘slavery’ in relation to donation of ‘slaves’ to temples and wealth to maintain this institution in temples. W. Geiger’s (1960) Culture of Ceylon in Medieval times as depicted in the Mahāvamsa, discusses slaves or dāsa in a handful of paragraphs scattered in his work. C. W. Nicolas and S. Paranavitāna’s (1961) Concise history of Ceylon is no exception regarding the amount of attention given to discuss ‘slavery’. H. W. Tambiah’s (1968) work on Sinhala laws and customs during the Kandyan period devotes one short chapter of nine pages to ‘slavery’ and the discussion is based on the evidence from the NitiNiganduwa and that reported or collected by Englishmen such as Knox, D’Oyly, Lawrie and Hayley. Gunewardhana’s (1979) Robe and Plough is about organization of Buddhist monks and monastic property and it refers to the existence of slaves in temples when discussing the management of monastic property. S. B. Hettiārachchi’s (1988) Social and cultural history of ancient Sri Lanka in the Anurādhapura period limits the discussion on dāsa to a subsection (of five pages) at the end of the chapter on ‘social groups and ranking.’ The focus is mainly on donation of dāsa to temples by people of high social ranks.5 The articles of M. Banks (1960) 3

The accounts of Dutch slavery are more familiar than that of indigenous slavery, but even for this subject there is no separate monograph available. For the Dutch period the standard work is still that of Arsarathnam (1958). Cf. also P. E. Peiris (1929) & Winius (1971).

4 1

I am very grateful to Dr. Chet Van Duzer for sending me the review of this book, but regretfully I have to mention that all atempts to obtain this book, which would have been helpful for my chapter on manumission, failed.

2

The first volume of the thesis, which focuses on the third century BC–830 AD was only published in 2001with updated inscriptions found on the island after 1948 edited by S. Kiribamune and P. Senanayake.

5

However, W. I. Siriweera’s (2002) History of Sri Lanka does not bear any reference to slavery despite the wide rage of topics discussed in the volume.

For details see the Bibliography of the present volume.

xvi

and Pfaffenberger (1982) on ‘Caste in Jaffna’ and ‘The form of Sudra domination in Tamil Jaffna’ respectively refers very briefly to ‘slavery’ in this part of the island. All such references to ‘slavery’ provide little or no new material or discussion on the subject of ‘slavery’ in ancient Sri Lanka. Besides these modern studies on social history of Sri Lanka, there are some early modern works on the general history of the island by various Englishmen, who either reported what they experienced in the island (such as Knox and D’Oyly) or archived such data including many unpublished reports (such as of A. C. Lawrie and C. Pridham).1 Obviously, these works cover the history of Sri Lanka during the Kandyan times and during the subsequent British period. Also these works are not entirely devoted to study or archive information on ‘slavery’, which is only a small theme within much broader subjects. Furthermore, among the literary sources, NitiNiganduwa provides substantial information on slavery, again during the Kandyan times, comparable to the quantity of data obtainable from any other literary source of ancient Sri Lanka.2 Yet, evidence on ‘slavery’ for times prior to Kandyan times is obtainable from epigraphic and literary sources, which are again a handful.3 Thus, as is obvious from above detail, since ‘slavery’ in ancient Sri Lanka during the monarchical period has not received proper attention among the wealth of studies on the history of the island, more original work is needed just to understand the subject unlike for that in ancient Greek poleis. This necessity explains the particular structure chosen for this study i.e. independent studies on ancient Greek and ancient Sri Lankan slavery, on each chosen aspect for discussion, followed by a comparison of the ‘two systems’. The same reason requires more discussion on the Sri Lankan system of servitude for each chosen theme not only to comprehend the subject but also to perceive the comparison with slavery in ancient Greek poleis. Moreover, the discussion is limited to a few aspects based on the available literary and epigraphic evidence for the Sri Lankan systems of servitude. Thus inevitably, this study on Greek servitude is driven by exiguous Sri Lankan sources. Furthermore, the need for a detailed work on Sri Lankan servitude has drawn the study on Sri Lankan ‘slavery’ closer to primary sources than that on ancient Greece. Since Greek servitude is widely studied, the present work in this concern may inevitably appear a reiteration, yet that data is necessary to balance the structure of this

study on cross-cultural comparison and more importantly to help those not aware of the Greek system of servitude to follow the comparison. The geographical and chronological frames of this study are considerably broad: the study focuses on ancient Greece as a whole from 600 BC to the first century BC and for Sri Lanka from the third century BC to 1815 AD4 (the monarchical period). Since the political system could vary geographically and chronologically it is vital to pay some attention to understand the political systems in ancient Greece and Sri Lanka over the chosen time and geographical span in order to justify their choice. The political system of ancient Sri Lanka was monarchy and was mostly under one monarch though in certain intervals certain provincial chieftains disregarded the authority of the king and attempted to govern their regions independently as in the case of Ruhuna (in the South) or Jaffna (in the North). Such rebellious rulers were never called legitimate rulers by Sinhalese kings ruling from Anurādhapura, Pollonnaruwa, Dambadeniya, Kōtte or Kandy, and they (rebel rulers) were attacked and these regions were brought under the main power when possible.5 Such political divisions based on power do not seem to have affected social distinctions presumably with the exception of the northern province (Jaffna) which was occupied by a considerable number of Tamils especially after the 11th century AD as a result of South Indian invasions. But, the information on the institution of ‘slavery’ of this region (northern province) is very thin. The history of the island is generally referred to by cultural periods named after the locations from where the Sinhalese monarchs reigned. For instance, the period in which the Sinhalese monarchs chose to reside and rule from Anurādhapura is called the Anurādhapura period, which runs from the third century BC to late tenth century AD6 i.e. until the island was troubled by several South Indian invasions. The country was freed from Chōla dominations by the king Vijayabahu I in 1045 AD, but himself and his successors chose to rule from Pollonnaruwa and that period lasted from about mid tenth century to early 13th century AD. With increasing South Indian invasions the Sinhalese kings moved their capitals southwards to more secure locations such as Dambadeniya, Yāpahuwa, Kurunëgala, Gampola, Kōtte, Sitāwaka from the 13th century to 1529 and their respective periods were called after the location. Finally, the capital moved to Kandy in 1529 and remained thus 4

1815 marks the year the island came under British rule and monarchy was abolished in the island.

5 1

Cf. App. 3: 117-118 for detail on their work.

2 App. 3 presents the scope of the literary sources that provided information on ‘slavery’ in the island. 3

Cf. App. 4 for a general picture on epigraphic sources in the island.

S. Ranwella, ‘Tamil kingdoms of Jaffna’ in

(accessed: 2004. 01.02).

6

The last king to rule from Anuradhapura was Mahinda V (971-1007 AD) He fled to Ruhuna during the early part of his reign due to Chōla invasions and reigned from there until 1007 AD).

xvii

until monarchy was ousted by the English with the help of Sinhalese aristocrats, who disliked their king, in 1815.1 Ancient Greece, on the other hand, was comprised of many communities, mainly city-states (poleis)2 with different political systems, with Athens (democracy) and Sparta (oligarchy) in polar ends. From the eighth century BC, the ‘Greek world’ expanded beyond mainland Greece and the Peloponnese when Greek poleis established colonial settlements around the coast of the Mediterranean, the Black sea, and especially in Sicily and southern Italy.3 When Alexander conquered the Persian Empire which included Egypt and western Asia Minor in 334 BC4 the pre-existing Greek poleis were integrated into the monarch’s territories, while rural areas where peasants lived and worked either in temple estates or private estates were brought under Greek control.5 Further, in the course of time, the increasing Hellenization presumably influenced in changing any indigenous feature tolerated in the religious and perhaps also in the social spheres in Greek poleis in Asia Minor. It may appear counterproductive to choose a wide time span and a wide geographical area, but it is a matter of necessity since evidence for ‘slavery’ is widely scattered in both ancient Greece and Sri Lanka while some periods and places are entirely or partly void of evidence. Although the focus is on all ancient Greek poleis, evidence on slavery or other types of servitude is concentrated in only a few, of which most is from Athens or filters through Athenian sources. But Athens does not provide any inscription registering manumission of slaves. Moreover, though slavery existed in other Greek cities such as Chios, Megara, Thebes and Corinth, they provide little or no detail. Spartan helotage is the next most studied type of servitude in ancient Greece, and is seen as comparable to systems of servitude in Thessaly, Argos, Crete and Sicyon, by ancient authorities. Besides, Crete also provides information of serfs and bondsmen. These 1

Cf. Map. 1.

2

Sometimes ancient authorities used poleis to mean other types of political communities. For a discussion cf. Hansen (1997): 9-15 & idem (1998). Idem (2002): 17-47 Hansen argues that polis was a society with a state. 3

Cf. Shipley (2002): 2.

4

Alexander’s empire was short lived. After he died in 323 BC his kingdom was divided among his generals diadochi. Cf. Shipley (2002) for more on Alexander and his successors.

5

Rural inhabitants living and working in the private estates were apparently attached to the land as they were moved along with the land suggesting that these inhabitants could have been some kind of serfs. For instance Austin (1981) nos. 180 & 184 shows that the royal land granted to a ‘friend’ and sold to the divorced queen Laodice respectively included basilikoi laoi (royal peasants). On temple estates e.g. Austin (1981) no. 181 shows that an estate which belonged to Artemis of Sardis also owned villages and slaves.

different types of servitude existing in different Greek poleis oblige us to focus on ancient Greece as a whole to achieve a comprehensible comparison with the different types of servitude observable in ancient Sri Lanka. As noted above, in the case of chronology too it is clear that evidence is scattered over a wide time scale, making it difficult to limit the study to a particular period due to the risk of receiving an unsatisfactory amount of evidence. Although much evidence on Athenian chattel slavery and the Spartan helot system comes from the Classical period, the upper limit of this study is extended to 600 BC mainly to include Solonic reforms that led to abolish enslavement for debt in Athens. The lower limit of the study is lowered to the first century BC mainly to incorporate at least part of the Delphic manumission records, datable from 201 BC onwards,6 which also enabled us to include slavery in the temples in Greek poleis in western Anatolia. This work omits data from the Roman period though Greece came under Roman supervision through Macedonian governors when Corinth was destroyed by the Romans in 146 BC and the first Roman province, Achaia, was created in 46 BC. Thus evidence on temple slavery in Roman Anatolia and Macedonia7 is omitted despite the value of its information on Hierodouloi, to respect the time frame of this study. Also the restriction to Greek poleis leads to omit the information on autonomous temple estates in which slaves settled and worked in non-Greek areas.8 Nonetheless, by pursuing the available material from each city meticulously avoiding harmful generalisations the possible drawbacks that may occur in arriving at conclusions and in the course of comparison are alleviated. As signalled above, a wide time span is necessary to pursue ancient Sri Lankan servitude as well. Although all manumission records are from the period between the fourth and eighth century AD, both epigraphic and literary evidence, though patchy, reveal that ‘slavery’ and bondage existed in the island beyond this period.9 Niti-Niganduwa, the only code of law referring to ‘slavery’ in the pre-colonial period, falls into the last cultural period - Kandyan period. Notably, despite the 6

According to Hopkins’ data the Delphic records were datable from 201 BC-100AD.

7

Though Macedonian evidence offers many cases of dedications of individuals to deities including infants, raised specifically for the purpose, by hierodouloi such detail is omitted, as noted above, as they are beyond the chronological frame chosen for this study. Those interested in such evidence may refer to Tataki (1998), Petsas & Hatzopoulos (2000). 8

More precisely, temples in Central and Eastern Anatolia, for which Strabo provides evidence: 12. 2, 3/c535; 12. 2, 6/c536; 12. 3. 31/c556. Also cf. Chap. 4: 64 note 07.

9

Although slavery existed well after 1815 until it was abolished in 1844 our study focuses only on the monarchical period.

xviii

wide chronological frame used the evidence available is unsatisfactory because either it is scant or limited to one or two particular periods. Nonetheless, the disadvantages that may emerge in attempting to arrive at general conclusions over a long span of time are mitigated by the fact that there do not seem to have been radical changes in social conditions within our historical period, with the exception perhaps of the Kandyan times, which stood under more Indian and some European influence. The situation in the northern provinces may also have been different from that in the rest of the island at least from the 11th century AD (from when the Tamil rebel rulers came into power), but as noted above, we know very little about the institution of ‘slavery’ in this part of the island after the first century BC.1

appendix intends to provide a brief note on the religious concepts and social structure of the island in antiquity. The final point that requires emphasis is that a major part of this thesis is committed to produce the first systematic study on ancient Sri Lankan systems of servitude, while the study as a whole is the first comparative work between ancient Sri Lankan and Greek systems of servitude. Further, the particular aspects chosen for the study are driven by reasons of practicality to provide a comprehensive study in both ventures, although they also largely depended upon the evidence obtainable for the systems of servitude for ancient Sri Lanka. The idea, which runs throughout the study, is that most contrasts were governed by different social and cultural patterns observed in the social set up in ancient Greek poleis and Sri Lanka.

The present study is grouped in five themes, namely, modes of enslavement, ownership of slaves, conditions of slaves, temple slavery and helotage, and manumission of slaves, which are crucial to understand the systems of servitude in a community. The first discusses how one could be reduced to servitude and how slaves were acquired while the second deals with who owned slaves and of any qualification required to be a slave owner. The next chapter focuses on the condition of slaves under the following aspects, namely, the impact of duties of ‘slaves’ and that of the treatment by the master on their condition, the reaction of the society on conditions of slaves and finally any influences that led to improve the condition of slaves. The fourth chapter is devoted to temple slavery and examines the number of slaves owned and worked in temples in ancient Greek poleis and Sri Lanka. As evident from the chapter title, this also contains a special section, Spartan helotage, although helots were not temple slaves, because conditions of helots provide interesting patterns of comparisons to temple slaves in ancient Sri Lanka. The final chapter, manumission of slaves, focuses on the various chances available to slaves to obtain freedom, the attitudes of slave owners towards freeing their slaves, different procedures followed in freeing slaves, detail on manumission records, and on the status of ex-slaves. Five appendices accompany these chapters intending to make the study on Sri Lankan ‘slavery’ comprehensible in the framework of the island’s history. The first Appendix discusses the various indigenous terms that appear in literary and epigraphic sources, taken to mean ‘slave’ or ‘slavery.’ The second Appendix lists almost all epigraphic records that refer to ‘slavery’ chronologically including manumission records, which is the first such list produced. The third briefly introduces the reader to the island’s literary sources from which the current study has drawn information, while the fourth provides a concise overview to the island’s epigraphic sources in an effort to identify the position of manumission records in the sphere of island’s epigraphic culture. The final 1

Story of Nāga reported from Nāgadeepa, (modern Jaffna peninsula) traces back to first century BC. This account shows that Jaffna was under the dominion of the king Saddātissa who reigned from Anurādhapura.

xix

xx

different conquerors from c. 545/4-127/6 BC in the Greek world as reported by ancient writers.7

Chapter: 1

Another mode of enslavement that risked the lives of the free in Greece as a whole in all times was capture by pirates or brigands. There is much detailed research by modern scholars on piracy.8 Athens controlled piracy in the Aegean when she established a strong navy9 but the control waned with the destruction of Athenian naval power and due to her engagement in prolonged wars.10 Aetolians renowned for piracy in Greece continued their custom even when they were leading the Aetolian League in early Hellenistic period.11

Modes of enslavement in ancient Greek poleis and ancient Sri Lanka The current chapter focuses on how people became slaves and the sources of slave supply in ancient Greek poleis and Sri Lanka.

The role of piracy, as ‘slave-creator,’ as well as redistributor of existing slaves, is testified through numerous cases that show general insecurity for freemen in Greek waters. For instance, it is alleged that Diogenes the Cynic was once seized by pirates and was taken to Crete for sale and was taken to Corinth by his procurer.12 Strict penalties were imposed on kidnappers not only in Athens13 but also in other Greek cities such as Corinth14 and Teos.15 The reliable link between

1. Modes of enslavement in ancient Greek poleis Although modern studies on ancient Greek slavery1 have fully or partly treated this subject the present brief quasi-reiteration is vital for a comprehensible crosscultural comparison with modes of enslavement in ancient Sri Lanka.

1.I. Capture:

7 Cf. infra 06:- War was the creator of Spartan helots and other parallel unfree groups. Cf. also Chap. 4: 68.

According to modern studies2 enslavement of captives of war was an established tradition in Classical Greek poleis. Women and children were most vulnerable though even adult males did not totally escape servitude.3 Legitimised4 but savage decisions of the conquerors reduced not only the foreigners who bordered the Greek world but also the Greeks unable to protect their poleis into slavery despite a certain fourth century notion that condemned Greeks enslaving Greeks.5 Pritchett6 catalogues 163 cases of enslavement of both Greek and non-Greek captives-of-war by

8

Ormerod (1924). But the main focus of his study is not piracy as a mode of enslavement. Also de Souza in his PhD thesis (1993) & his book (1999) studies piracy in detail though not as a form of enslavement. Cf. also Ducrey (1968): 174-188, Pritchett (1991) 5: 312-362, Klees (1998): 50-51. Cf. also Thompson (2003): 17-18 & 26-29, the focus is more on piracy as a mode of enslavement. 9

Cf. de Souza (1999) 26-30.

10 Peloponnesian War (431-404 BC), Social War (357-355 BC), and the war between Athens and Macedonia (340s-346 BC). Cf. also Ormerod (1924) 110-117 & de Souza (1999) 3136.

1

E.g. Finley (1980, 1981, 1985), Garlan (1988), Fisher (1995), Klees (1998) & Schumacher (2001).

11 Polyb. 18. 5, 1-4. Cf. Garlan (1975) 35. But Grainger (1999) 3-25 esp. 25, argues that Aetolia only produced pirates as any other Greek state. Cf. also Scholten (2000) for Aetolians and their koinon in 279-217 BC. A review of these books in JHS (2002) 122: 184-185.

2

Ducrey (1968): 74-92. Pritchett (1991) 5: 223-245. Klees (1998): 19-49. Thompson (2003): 13-16.

3

Enslavement was just one way of disposing of war captives and some were killed. E.g. Thuc. 2. 5, 7, 90 (in 431, 430 & 429 BC respectively); Diod. Sic. 12. 82 (in 416 BC); Xen. Hell. 2. 1, 28-32 (in 405 BC). For a list of cases of massacre of prisoners-of-war in ancient Greece cf. Pritchett (1991) 5: 218219. Ransom, an alternative way of disposing of captives, is discussed later.

12 Diog. Laert. 6. 74. But the fate of Lycon of Heraclea dated to 389 BC was different. He was caught by pirates in the Argolic gulf soon after leaving Athens and was robbed and murdered (Dem. 52. 5), proving that all captives of pirates were not enslaved, though killing of captives may have occurred in rare cases. Examples for enslavement of captives of pirates: Dem. 53. 6, Ter. Eun. 107-121 & also 147-150. Cf. Pritchett (1991) 5: 324-361, for more on raids and pirates.

4

Xen. (born c. 430 BC) Cyr. 3. 3, 45; 4. 2, 26; 7. 5, 73, Arist. (384-322 BC) Pol. 1. 6, 5-7/ 1255a21, Polyb. (200-118 BC) 2. 58, 9-10 on Mantineans enslaved by the Achaeans in 223 BC which confirms that enslaving captives of war was a recognised Greek custom.

13

Pl. Resp. 469b. For criticisms on Greeks enslaving Greeks cf. Klees (1998): 39- 41.

Athens imposed death penalty on slave-snatchers: Xen. Ap. 25. Also cf. Isoc. 15. 90 & Lys. 10. 10 for kidnapping was illegal in Athens and could be brought to trial. This is also the implication in Lys. 13. 67. Also cf. & “ a)ndrapodisth/j” s.v. RE 1, 2134.

6

14

Lys. 13. 67.

15

Teos extended the death penalty even for harbouring pirates

5

Pritchett (1991) 5: 226-234. Thompson (2003): 14-16 & 2026 too gives a list of such cases from Graeco-Roman world.

1

piracy and enslavement in Hellenistic times is shown in contemporary epigraphy, which refers to capture of free people whose fate may have been slavery if not ransomed.1 It is however hard to estimate or rather to ‘guesstimate’ the proportion of newly recruited slaves in the process since both free and slaves became victims of pirates. As briefly noted above, the positive alternative that awaited captives of war or by pirates was ransom.2 The studies of Bielman, Ducrey and Pritchett3 provide ample evidence on ransoming captives of war and captives of pirates, and also show how ransoming such individuals was valued all over Greece.

barbarian world.’7 Yet he speculates that ‘it is they who must have been principally responsible for providing regular supplies for the large slave markets we guess to have existed.’8 Probably, the large numbers of foreign slaves brought to Greek markets may have included captives of war enslaved in their localities, and children sold to slavery by parents as it was reported to have occurred in Thrace9 and Phrygia.10 Thus the constant supply of slaves from the barbarian world to the Greek slave market will have been augmented by the input from Greece itself through various modes of enslavement, especially, capture at war and by pirates.11

Captives of war and of pirates as the major source of slave supply to the ancient Greek slave market other than the import of barbarians4 spurs a discussion on slave-trade as a necessary mode to dispose of these captives and to acquire slaves from elsewhere for Greece. For instance, Strabo reports that Sicilian and Cretan pirates in the second half of the second century BC provided the market of Delos with ‘tens of thousands’ of slaves.5 As Coarelli suggests, these figures must not be taken too literally nor be underestimated too much.6

However, the importance of capture at war and particularly capture by pirates as modes of enslavement diminished gradually with changing political atmosphere after the first century BC.12

1. II. Raising foundlings and sale of infants: Despite the absence of concrete evidence, ancient authorities refer to raising foundlings as potential slaves as a common custom in ancient Greek poleis. The widespread nature of this practice in Athens is depicted by Attic dramatists, Aristophanes and Euripides.13 Even Plato refers to raising foundlings as slaves in households.14 Furthermore, raising foundlings

Besides, the high proportion of foreign/ barbarian, such as Syrian, Carian, Lydian, Thracian, Cappadocian and Phrygian slaves in Athens, at least during the Classical times, reveals that there was a constant flow of foreign slaves to Greek slave markets. However, Garlan mentions that ‘virtually nothing is known of the activities of the merchants who trafficked with the

7

Garlan (1988): 54. Cf. also Thompson (2003): 12-13, 18-19, 30-33.

8

According to Garlan (1988): 54, large slave markets were alleged to have located at Tanais at the mouth of Don, Byzantium, Ephesus, Pagasae in Thessaly, on the main trade routes at Chios, Delos, Corinth, Aegina, Rhodes, and also in Athens where a slave market was held monthly at the new moon, in the ‘circles’ of the Agora. Besides, there were also slave markets, which lasted only the duration of a festival in shrines such as that of Apollo at Actium (Blawatsky (1974): 497-500) or Zeus Baetocace in northern Syria during the Hellenistic times. Finley (1968): 173 also mentions a slave market in Tithora (central Greece) which operated twice a year on semi-annual festival in honour of Isis.

after c. 479 BC: SIG³ 1 nos. 37-38, (ll.21-22). Hdt. (6. 16) reports that Chian refugees, who happened to reach Ephesian territory at night, were mistaken by Ephesians for pirates who came to abduct their women and were killed. 1 IG XII 3 no. 328. Similar cases are reported for Amorgos (SIG³ no. 521(=IG XII 7. 386)), and for Naxos (SIG³ no. 520). Cf. Gabbert (1986): 156-163 for piracy in the early Hellenistic period and how the character of pirates was changed into mercenaries of Hellenistic monarchs. Cf. also MacDonald (1984): 77-84 on the reading of lēsteia and lēizomai in Thucydides & in IG I³ 41, 67 and 75.

9

Hdt. 5. 6: Thracians customarily sold their offspring to slavery.

2

In most cases only adult males were apparently ransomed (e.g. Thuc. 5. 3.4). But ransoming of female captives is not totally absent in Greek sources (e.g. Plut. Mor. 849e; Isoc. 15. 288 [in 354 BC]). For more such cases cf. Pritchett (1991) 5: 257-283.

10 Finley (1968): 165, points out that the Phrygian custom of selling their children to slavery continued even after Phrygia was annexed into Roman Empire, but is silent about his source. 11

3

Bielman (1994) provides a collection of epigraphic material about ransoming captives of war and of pirates. Cf. also Ducrey (1968): 238-254; Pritchett (1991) 5: 223-245 & Whitehead (1997): 139-145.

Cf. also Klees (1998): 52-57.

12

Ormerod (1924): 95, 96. Cf. Ar. Plut. (ll.509-526) for the importance of pirates as slave suppliers.

de Ste. Croix (1981): 230, maintains that destruction of piracy by Pompey in the Eastern Mediterranean in 67 BC ended kidnapping and slave-raiding organized by pirates, and in 63 BC inclusion of vast new areas within the Roman Empire may have terminated piracy as a source of slavery in this region.

5

13

4

Strabo 14. 5, 2/ C 669.

Ar. Nub. 530-532; Eur. Ion 524, mentions that the foundling Ion was raised as a slave in the temple of Apollo in Delphi. Cf. also Chap. 4: 67.

6

Coarelli (1982): 119-39. Garlan (1987): 10 agrees with Coarelli.

14

2

Pl. Tht. 160e.

Motomura7 argues that death was just one fate of exposed infants, as some such infants were found and became the property of whoever chose to rear them. Moreover, Rousselle rightly maintains that foundlings were raised though not always as potential slaves.8

as slaves is depicted as a common occurrence in Menander.1 Although comedians invented plots with a euphoric ending allowing the foundlings raised/to be raised as slaves to discover their free parents2 and recover freedom, it is unlikely that such was the case in real Athenian society. Instead, the finder might conceal the identity of the foundling destroying tokens (if any were found with the orphan) to protect his/her property and what he/she spent on raising it.

Although exposure of infants was a practice legally accepted in certain Greek poleis such as Athens,9 in some other Greek poleis it was forbidden by the local law. For instance, in Ephesus a father was allowed to expose his child only if his feet were swollen through hunger.10 According to Aelian (third century AD) even the Theban law banned exposure of children11 but a Theban father was legally allowed to sell his child (irrespective of gender) to slavery on proof of his extreme destitution, and the procedure did not allow a financial profit for the seller.12 Further possibilities of the practice can be detected from Megara and Chios. For example, Aristophanes’ Acharnians13 may reflect the harsh reality of sale of children to slavery exercised in Megara through a dialogue between a Megarian ‘bumpkin’ and his two daughters, who preferred to be sold as slaves than being starved to death. Moreover, the ‘attractive young boys,’ bought by the unscrupulous Panionius from Chios for his eunuch trade14 are likely to have been children sold by destitute relatives out of dire necessity. Furthermore, the Athenian orator Demosthenes also hints that this custom, which perhaps occurred occasionally and informally, was at least familiar to Athenians.15

Menander’s Periceiromene depicts an incident from Corinth where foundlings were adopted as one’s offspring,3 which could have been a rare incident. But, although drama is not always closer to reality, the prevalence of the practice of raising foundlings as in this case may suggest the possibility that some were raised as potential slaves even in Corinth. Moreover, the armed paratrophoi ordered to send for the Corinthian war in 146 BC from the member states of the Achaean League by Diaeus may also have included foundlings raised as slaves.4 Arguments of modern scholars mainly hover around exposure of infants as a mode of infanticide in ancient Greece rather than a source of slavery. Many scholars5 accept that exposure of infants, mainly girls, was an entrenched custom in ancient Greece into the Hellenistic period as mirrored in ancient sources.6 But

1 E.g. Men. Epit. 468-470. Even the comedies of Plautus and Terence, which revolve around Attic scenes, use exposure of children and raising foundlings as a stock stage-device. E.g. Plaut. Cist. 150-200; Ter. Haut. 630-645. 2

E.g. Men. Epit. 468, 865-870.

3

Men. Pk. 121-122.

4

Polyb. 38. 15, 3-4. Cf. infra 05.

7

Motomura (1988): 410-415 esp. 411 discussing the issue of infant exposure and its effects on the developments of slavery in the ancient world mentions that the concepts of Engels, Harris and of Golden are comparable once the terms ‘infanticide’ and ‘child exposure’ are distinguished. He concludes that child exposure was practised on a large scale in ancient Greece and Rome and many exposed children were raised as slaves and there was no great infanticide (but he mainly uses Roman evidence regarding raising foundlings as potential slaves).

5

E.g. de Ste. Croix (1981): 103. Engels (1980): 112-120 with modern demographic studies states that exposure of children was of negligible importance in Greek and Roman history and denies a high rate of female infanticide (112-114). But Golden (1981): 316-330, and Harris (1982): 114-116 reject Engels’ argument pointing to ancient evidence that suggest the contrary. Engels answers his critics (1984): 386-393 in order to re-establish his argument, but yet Golden (1992): 309-331 was unconvinced as many others. Pomeroy (1993): 207-222, also maintains that the circumstances in Hellenistic period in Greece reveals that infants especially girls were exposed. Rousselle (2001): 303-324, referring to textual, epigraphic and archaeological evidence states that infant exposure occurred in ancient Greece in all phases. But Ingalls (2002): 246-254 argues that female infanticide was not common in Athens.

8

Rousselle (2001): 311-312.

9

Glotz (1906): 187-197 also cf. ibid. 197-227.

10

Arist. discusses (Pr. 1. 5/ 859b) that the swollen feet is due to famine. 11 Aelian, VH 2, 7: ‘There is particularly just and humane law at Thebes that no Theban may expose his child or condemn it to death by abandoning it in a deserted place...’ 12

Alien VH 2. 7. Modern historians react to the information of Aelian differently. While some doubt the authenticity of the report (e.g. Lacey (1968): 331, note 78), some (Garland (1990a): 93; Sallares (1991): 444 note 141; and Gallant (1991): 132-133) do not.

6

E.g. Polyb. 36. 17, 7 shows that contemporary Greeks refused to raise more than a few of their children. Plut., Mor. 497e states, perhaps exaggerated, that the poor do not bring up children. Pl. Tht. (149a-151c, 160e-161a) shows that healthy new-born babies ostensibly born within marriage could be exposed. Cf. Feen (1983): 285-289 for legitimacy of exposure of infants in ancient Greece. Also cf. Germain (1969): 177-197 for concepts on the exposure of children in ancient Greece.

13 Ar. Ach. 729-735. Cf. de Ste. Croix (1981): 163 and Gallant (1991): 132. 14

Hdt. 8. 105.

15 Dem. 21. 149. Selling free Athenians, except lecherous female Athenians, to slavery was banned in Athens at least

3

around Solonic legislation in Athens.7 Although scholars8 believed both enslavement for debt and debtbondage were abolished by Solonic reforms Harris cogently argues that Solon abolished only the loans on the security of the body of a person that finally led to enslavement, but, not debt bondage which is ‘working off one’s debt.’9 He also points out that the fifth and fourth century evidence10 that testifies against the enslavement of free, whether Athenians or not, reflects this Solonic reform.11 Lysias’ (445-380 BC) speech against Eratosthenes further confirms that enslavement for debt did not exist in Athens at least in formal terms even in his time, though elsewhere in Greece children would have been sold for petty debts.12 But Menander (Hieros ll.21-38 esp. 36) reveals that voluntary bondage for debt continued in Athens and such individuals were not regarded as true slaves (ibid. l.20)13 as their plight was temporary.

Finally, though exposure of infants, mainly females, was common at least in Athens, the percentage of raising foundlings as potential slaves and the ratio of their gender is unknown. We can hypothetically apply Motomura’s argument, that more exposed children were found and raised as slaves than so far assumed in Rome, to Greece as this might have been a cheap manner of acquiring a slave. Also, as in the above-cited case from Thebes and the possible case of Megara, poor Greeks may have sold their children into slavery formally or informally, being unable to feed them.

1.III. Punishment: The only evidence for imposing slavery as a form of punishment is from Athens. Studying origin of status in Classical Athens, Harrison points out that slavery might have been imposed on metics (foreigners and exslaves), not on citizens, for certain offences.1 As Todd points out the Solonic reforms made it impossible for citizens ever to descend into slavery.2 The only attested exception is reported by Demosthenes when one fails to reimburse his ransom fee to the contributor.3 Accordingly, slavery could have been imposed on a metic convicted in a graphe xenias of masquerading as a citizen; a metic convicted in a graphe of entering a permanent union (sunoikein) with an Athenian man or woman; an ex-slave convicted in a graphe apostasiou for failing to obtain a prostates and a metic who failed to pay the metoikion.4 Among free Athenians, this punishment was only applicable to their lecherous females as a punishment for disgraceful conduct,5 though there are no recorded cases. Finally, enslavement as punishment could have been rare in Athens even among metics as none would have attempted to risk their freed status.

The Gortyn Code (c. 460 BC) clearly records the existence of two groups of debt-bondsmen in Crete: katakeimenos (a free man who pledged his own person as security for debt), and the nenikamenos (a free man condemned by court for debt and handed over in bondage to his creditor).14 The Code distinctly shows their special temporary condition, separate from that of free citizens and also that of chattel slaves.15 Though they were liable to be seized by the creditors,16 they were responsible for their offences, and were allowed to defend themselves at law. Yet, their masters had to press an action on their behalf. Moreover, of any payment to be received by these bondsmen as a course of action they received the full sum a free person would receive but their masters would take half of it.17 It is evident, therefore, that they were not true slaves but Garlan (1988), Mactoux (1988), Fisher (1995), Schumacher (2001), Harris (2002).

1. IV Debt:

7 Arist. Ath.Pol. 2.2,12.4 and Plut. Sol. 13.2 provide information on his debt reforms.

Debtors became victims either of enslavement or bondage for their unpaid debt even in ancient Greek poleis in given situations. However, most modern studies6 that treat this subject, fully or partly, revolve

8

E.g. de Ste Croix (1981): 282 with note 27 & cf. also 137 with note 2; Finley (1981): 166, cf. also 157; Garlan (1988): 90-91; Fisher (1995): 16.

9

after Solonic reforms: 594/3 BC (Plut. Sol. 23), which is implied in Dem. 25. 55. But we do not have specific evidence in support of this. Men. Epit. 468-470 and Ter. Haut. 600ff cite cases similar to sales of children but they are either exposed children or were bonded for debt.

Harris (2002): 420.

10

Arist. Ath. Pol.52. 1, Dem. 25.55, Din. 1.23.

11

Harris (2002): 420.

12

Lys. 12. 98.

1

Harrison (1968): 165.

13

2

Todd (1995): 181.

3

Dem. 53. 11.

4

Examples of each mentioned case in Harrison (1968): 165.

15

Gortyn code 14.

5

Plut. Sol. 23.

16

ibid.

17

IC IV 41, 5-6.

de Ste. Croix (1981): 136 & Schumacher (2001): 26-28 for instance argue that debt-bondage never created true slavery. 14 Gortyn code Col. I (ll.55-56) to Col. II (ll. 1-2) 39-40. 14. Cf. also Bile (1981): 11-45.

6

de Ste. Croix (1981), Finley (1980 &1981) [In the latter Finley does not confine discussion to pre-Solonic times],

4

were subordinate to another in varying degrees until repayment of debt. But, it is not known if enslavement for debt as opposed to bondage also occurred in Gortyn or in any other Cretan polis.

Moreover, little or no information is available regarding the proportion of home-born slaves vis-á-vis other modes of enslavement in a particular geographical or a chronological period. The only available figures are from Delphic manumission inscriptions datable from 201 BC onwards; these figures, obviously, do not represent all home-born slaves in Delphi, let alone in all Greek poleis, in the given time, but only those the owners chose to manumit in the shrine of Apollo in Delphi. While some of these manumittors were from Delphi, some others came from other Greek cities to manumit their slaves. However, profiting from Hopkins’s analysis7 the first four chronological groups of inscriptions (201-153 BC, 153100 BC, 100-53 BC, 53-1 BC) and the proportion of home-born slaves calculated for these periods (11%, 44%, 46%, 36% respectively) are taken to attention in this study for the obvious reason of limiting the study to the first century BC. This data on the number of home-born slaves from Delphi, despite the geographical and chronological limitation, is valuable as none other is available. This data suggests that the proportion of home-born slaves has notably increased after 153 BC although a slight decrease takes place after 53 BC.

However, as briefly noted above, sale of individuals (mainly children) to slavery to compensate creditors of parents occurred in other Greek poleis. Isocrates (436338 BC) informs us that in Platea children were often put in servitude for parents’ debt in Classical and postclassical times.1 Furthermore, a scene in Terence’s (190-158 BC), Hautontimeroumenos which shows that an old woman from Corinth has borrowed 1000 drachmae from the courtesan Bacchis and has left her daughter as security for the loan may also reflect a social practice.2 Though evidence is insufficient to assess how widespread and lasting was enslavement or bondage for debt in Greece as a whole, the above study suggests that debt bondage or enslavement did occur in most Greek poleis, at least at irregular intervals subject to individual circumstances of their citizens.

1.V. Birth/inheritance:3

De Ste. Croix believes that the ‘westward movement of the marketed slaves’ between the mid second and the mid first centuries BC, which brought slaves into the Roman rather than the Greek area may have spurred an increase in home-bred slaves in mainland Greece during this period.8 Polybius’9 detail that the members of the Achaean League were ordered by Diaeus, the general of the League, to send to Corinth c.12, 000 of their youthful home-born (oikogenes) and homebrought-up (paratrophoi) slaves armed for the coming Corinthian war in 146 BC favours this conception. Further, Diaeus, having assessed the number of homeborn slaves in each member state, orders that those cities with an insufficient number of oikogeneis would furnish oiketai to fill the gap. The number 12,000 is a notable figure revealing the increasing rate of homeborn slaves in the Greek world in the third and the second centuries BC, which probably continued.

An offspring inherited slave status from its servile parents.4 Yet, no evidence suggests that Greek slave owners encouraged slave breeding either to gain commercial profit or to increase their slave numbers, perhaps due to costs and risks involved in raising an infant to workable age.5 Instead, at least Classical Athenian masters strictly controlled slave reproduction and used it to reward loyal and efficient slaves and to boost similar features in other slaves.6

1

Isoc. 14. 48. (...our children, instead of being educated as we had hoped when we begat them, often because of petty debts reduced to slavery, others working for hire....) This extract is from the speech made by a Platean before the Athenian Ecclesia, requesting help to restore their city destroyed by Thebans in the 373 BC.

Although it was capture at war that created Spartan helots (and also the other parallel unfree groups in Sicyon, Thessely, Argos and Crete10) the circumstances

2

Ter. Haut. 600-603. Abolition of debts in Sparta in 243 BC by Agis IV and by Cleomenes III in 229 BC shows economic hardships of Spartans but we do not know whether the economic situation in Sparta led to enslavement of debtors (Fuks (1984): 47).

7

Hopkins (1978): 140. de Ste. Croix (1981): 229 reproduces the analysis of Westermann (1955): 31-33 in this concern. There is a little difference in the figures produced by Hopkins and Westermann, but Hopkins’ work includes more manumission inscriptions from Delphi until 100 AD. The proportion of home-born slaves in the years from AD1-47 is 47% and that for AD 48-100 it is 18%. Also cf. Wallon (1988): 179 note 4.

3

A complete work on home-born slaves does not yet exist, although scholars [for instance Westermann (1955), Finley (1981), Garlan (1988), Wallon (1988) and Fisher (1995)] who referred to sources of ancient Greek slavery discuss this issue.

4

Harrison (1968): 164 and cf. also note 2 for more detail.

5

Cf. also Wallon (1988): 179 who suggests that a master may be able to buy an industrious adult slave for less than the price he would have to spend to raise an infant slave to the same status.

6

8

de Ste. Croix (1981): 230. Cf. Westermann (1955): 34 on ‘westward movement of the marketed slaves.’

9

Xen. Oic. 9. 5.

Polyb. 38. 15, 3-4.

10

5

Van Wees (2003), points out in his study that the

such as the absence of a continuous supply of helots to Sparta and that they were the locals reduced to servitude by Spartiate invaders1 suggest that, the continuation of helots depended upon inheritance or self-reproduction. Although, how Cretan ‘un-free,’ penestai of Thessaly, katōnakē-wearers of Sicyon and gumnētēs of Argos were allowed to reproduce is uncertain, the association of these unfree groups to Spartan helots,2 who were considered slaves by some ancient3 and modern4 scholars, gives some idea in this regard. It is likely that the Spartan had some way of controlling the reproduction of helots, which would have been vital in controlling the helot population, either by entrusting set amount of work on each helot family and by setting a maximum limit to their provisions.

2. Modes of enslavement in ancient Sri Lanka This section provides a parallel study on modes of enslavement in ancient Sri Lanka. Information is derived from literary and epigraphic sources and also from eyewitness records of Westerners such as from Knox and D’Oyly.5 Literary sources Samantapāsadikā6 (fifth century AD), Sumangalavilāsini7 (fifth century AD) and Niti-Niganduwa8 (18th century AD) refer to four types of ‘slaves’ (dāsa): home-born (antō-jāta), war captives (karamarānita), purchased slaves (dhanakkīta) and voluntary slaves (sāmam dāsabyamupagatānam in Samantapāsadikā & Sumangalavilāsini or sāmam dāsaviyōpagatō in NitiNiganduwa). Interestingly, Niti-Niganduwa also includes in the last category those reduced to slavery for punishment for their offences such as harming another’s property and for unpaid debt. Moreover, NitiNiganduwa includes among karamarānita those kidnapped from foreign countries and women demoted to property of the king following expulsion from their families.9 Accordingly, one inherits slavery from his/her servile mother or may become a slave when captured in war, by sale, as penalty, through debt, or by entering servitude voluntarily either to earn merit or subsistence due to poverty.

Analysis: Summing up, the value of various modes of enslavement in ancient Greek poleis varied through time. For instance, although enslavement of war captives and captives of pirates were the dominating feature during the Classical period being the main source of slave supply to Greek slave markets, besides the import of non-Greeks through slave trade, its value diminished with changing political and economic circumstances in the Greek world. Clearly, enslaving foundlings, sale of children to slavery, enslavement for unpaid debt and enslavement for punishment (though limited to metics in Athens) may have occurred rarely in small numbers in contrast to that of captives, while the importance of inheritance as a source of servitude came into prominence in given circumstances.

2.I. Capture in war and by pirates: This is one of the modes through which a free individual might fall into servitude. Despite the reference to karamarānita10 as one type of slaves in literary sources of fifth century AD and 18th century AD, the only specific evidence in this concern is from 619 AD: King Silamēghavanna defeated a Tamil invader and ‘…captured those who remained over from slaughter, subjected them to all kinds of humiliation and distributed them here and there as dāsa (‘slaves’) to the vihāras (temples).’11 This incident supports Tambiah’s generalisation which apparently refers to the entire history of the island that ‘on capture, prisoners of war became slaves and they remained so at the king’s

communities in Northern Greece (Thessaly, Locris, Phocis), in Peloponnese (Sicyon, Argos, Corinth, Epidaurus, Messenia, Sparta) and also in Crete succeeded conquering and reducing their Greek or barbarian neighbours to the status of serfs/slaves or ‘helots.’ 1

Cf. Chap. 4: 68 notes 02 & 03.

2

Cf. Chap. 2: 17 note 12.

5

Cf. App. 3: 117-118 for an introduction on these individuals as sources of information.

3

Pl. (Alc.I. 122d) distinguishes helots from other slaves but includes them among andrapodōn, the common term used in Classical times to call purchased slaves. But Plutarch (Lyc. & Num. 2. 4), makes them distinct from slaves in general, while Strabo (8, 5. 4/c 365) classified them among common or state slaves, and Poll. 3. 83 calls their status ‘between free and slave.’ Cf. Ducat (1990): 40 for a list of such conceptions.

6

Smp. 747.

7

Svini. 168.

8

NN. 7-12.

9

NN. 7.

10 This Pāli term Kara-mara-ānita could be interpreted as ‘a person captured by one who could kill him with his hands’ (Chanana (1960): 53).

4

Oliva (1971): 41-42; Finley (1981): 116-132; Cartlegde (1985): 40; Ducat (1990): 49. Cf. Talbert (1989): 27 for opposite view.

11

6

Mv. 44. 73.

pleasure.’1 But he does not specify whether his statement refers to both ethnic groups (i.e. Sinhalese and Indian) or to a precise one. Hayley vaguely remarks, possibly at second hand, that ‘in actual practice only persons of low caste were so enslaved.2’ This seems to suggest that, of Sinhalese captives of war only those of low castes were enslaved and those of high castes were either killed or ransomed.

Of the Tamil prisoners of war brought to Kōtte after the two battles against the Indian usurper Ārya Chacravarthi in Jaffna (North of Sri Lanka) by prince Sapumal7 at least some may have been ‘enslaved’ though the account does not say so. Also, the fate of the 12,000 Indian captives, brought by Gajabāhu (114-136 AD) from South India as retaliation for the forcible removal of Sinhalese men from the island by a Chōla king in the preceding reign,8 may also have been similar though not explicitly reported.9

References to this mode of enslavement in literary sources representing almost the two extreme ends in the island’s history (the fifth century AD and the 18th century AD) other than the precise case in 619 AD hints that at least sporadically in Sri Lankan history until about the 18th century AD prisoners of war were enslaved, perhaps under favourable circumstances. The political ambience of the island in its history which contains ample military actions between Sinhalese rulers and South Indian invaders (from c. 177 BC),3 and also between Sinhalese counterparts in which some obtained Indian military support,4 favours the possibility for more cases of enslavement of captured Indian soldiers.5 All such Indian (Tamil) captives at war may have been male since they were mercenaries. But when Indian invaders usurped power, their supporters may have settled with their families in the conquered territory and, when these Indians were ousted from power, these pro-Indian settlers may have been captured and reduced to slavery with their families. Similarly, Indian rulers may have enslaved Sinhalese families. Such cases may not have been recorded as they may have failed to appeal to the interest of ancient writers, perhaps because they show little or no religious significance.6

1

Tambiah (1968): 91.

2

Hayley (1923): 138 Cf. also Tambiah (1968): 91.

Of the three groups of ‘slaves’ called k/cōviar, nalluva and pallava in Tamil speaking Northern Provinces,10 at least some of the k/cōviar, nalluva and pallava could have been enslaved war captives. Banks refers to an aetiological myth, that ‘explains’ the contemporary ritual equality between the high caste vellalas and the people of the k/cōviar group, which states that ‘kōviars are the descendants of captured Sinhalese govigamas who were enslaved by the vellalas.’11 According to this myth the term k/cōviar seem to be the corrupted Tamil word for govia. But a contrary view is recorded in the Yālpānavaipavamālaya or the Yāpāpatuna vamsakatāva and according to which these are not Sinhalese captives but Tamils known as koilar who initially were servants of Hindu temples (kōvil), and the cause of their slavery was poverty.12 It is however not impossible that the group k/cōviar contained both the captives of war and those became slaves due to poverty. Pallava were South Indians (chōlas) named after the South Indian king who reigned in the last quarter of the sixth century AD and according to Yālpānavaipavamālaya most of them have come to the island in looking for jobs.13 Nalluva were other south Indians who came to the island in previous occasions and probably settled in Nallur (the capital of ancient Jaffna kingdom). It is possible that at least some of the 7

Cf. no. 174 (accessed: 2003.7.20). The prince Sapumal was the elder son of Parakramabāhu VI (c.1410-1462AD) who ruled from Kōtte.

3

Sēna and Guttaka succeeded in overpowering Sinhalese kings and ruled from 177-155 BC, Elāra ruled in Anurādhapura from 145-101 BC, five Tamils ruled one after the other from 439466 AD, another six Tamil usurpers ruled from 491-516 AD, Māgha from 1213-1234 AD. And finally Ārya Cakravarthi conquered the kingdom in Jaffna c.1286AD and his power was curtailed by Vīra Alekēśwara, the minister of the King Buvanekabāhu V (c. 1360-1391 AD). Then, c. mid 15th century AD prince Sapumal invaded the Jaffna kingdom and killed Ārya Cakravarthi (EZ 3: 4-46).

8

Rjv.40-41. According to this version Gajabāhu received from the Indian king 12,000 Sinhalese prisoners taken to India and 12,000 Indians to compensate that deed. But according to NN (5) version the king brought 24,000 maidens from India. However the crucial point is that the captives were probably enslaved regardless of their gender.

4

9

For instance, Vīra Alekēśwara in c. 1397 AD came with a large South Indian army and ousted Vīra Bāhu II from the throne.

Heyly (1923): 133-134 states that the Indians brought by Gajabāhu were just settled in the island and were not reduced to servitude. But this assumption is not convincing as the captives were brought to retaliate a previous act of an Indian king and, above all, why would this king bring these foreigners to his kingdom just to make them happy at his cost?

5

Sinhalese do not seem to have enslaved high dignitary Sinhalese officers captured at war though Indian conquerors may have done so, perhaps because they preferred to kill them to prevent potential risks to their power.

6

The only recorded case available shows religious inclination: the ruler offered the captives reduced to slavery to Buddhist temples. Moreover, the contributors to Mv. were monks and may have shown interest in actions that favoured Buddhism and Buddhist monasteries.

7

10

Yālpāna: 90-91. But Pridham (1849): 224.

11

Banks (1960): 66. Also cf. App. 5: 124.

12

Yālpāna: 91. Cf. infra 09 for detail.

13

Yālpāna: 90. Cf. infra 12 for detail.

pallavas and nalluvas were descendants of South Indian war captives enslaved by the Sinhalese kings.

the monarch must abide by Buddhist precepts also made some impact in discouraging such affairs.6

Moreover, Gilbert states that the origin of ‘slave’ groups was largely through war with Tamils and that one of the groups called demalagattaru or Tamil captives were found chiefly in western and southern provinces though he does not support his statement with evidence.1

2.II. Sale of adult, children and raising foundlings: Most evidence in this regard is from the Kändyan period. Though there is no actual case showing that a person could become a ‘slave’ by selling him/herself to ‘slavery’ Sawer reports that it occurred7 perhaps due to financial difficulties. But there are cases testifying that some parents sold their children or relatives into ‘slavery’ in similar situations.8 One explicit case of selling children into ‘slavery’, dated to 1694 AD, is reported by Lawrie who archived social information from various historical periods,9 in which a person failed to settle his debt even after selling his four children into ‘slavery’.10 Furthermore, evidence suggests that the Kändyan law recognised selling of children into ‘slavery’ by their parents.11

Furthermore, in 1613 a Sinhalese fleet captured several Portuguese vessels off Negambo, Mannar and Chilaw, all Portuguese male captives were thrown into the sea while their women were sent to the capital as ‘slaves’, presumably, for the Sinhalese monarch.2 The available evidence, therefore, suggests that the only ethnic or racial group enslaved through capture at war were the Indian (Tamil) soldiers at least until the arrival of Portugese. However, there is no specific evidence, literary or epigraphic, showing that free people were captured and enslaved by pirates or land brigands in the island in antiquity. But the inclusion of those kidnapped from foreign countries among karamarānita by NitiNiganduwa suggests that piracy and land brigandage provided ‘slaves’, at least rarely and in negligible numbers at some intervals in the island’s history.

There was a certain procedure to follow in selling children into ‘slavery’ to validate their subjection and thus to secure the property of the purchaser. In this concern Sawer reports that ‘a written deed or ketta Saki was necessary’ from the time of Kirthisri Rājasinghe (c. 1747-1780) which gave the master the full authority over the property.12 This implies that in times prior to this a verbal agreement sufficed in parallel cases. Moreover, such people given or sold as ‘slaves’ could not redeem themselves unless this possibility is stated in the original deed.13

This brings us to the question of slave trade. But, there is no evidence that refers to a slave trade or market operated by Sinhalese or that supplied them with slaves during the monarchical period. However, Wijesekara reports that a slave trade existed between south India and Tamil speaking northern provinces of Sri Lanka when Portuguese arrived on the island, but he does not provide evidence.3 The Dutch imported Indian slaves from 1659-1660 to the island to use in their lands.4 Besides this information Pfaffanberger also reports of the ‘near-monstrous growth of slave-based export economy’ operated by the Dutch in Jaffna peninsula.5 But there is no report of a trade of slaves between Dutch or Portuguese and Sinhalese monarchs. The absence of slave trade practised in ancient Sri Lanka by the Sinhalese monarchs could be due to the undeveloped commercial or money economy on the island and it is also likely that the Buddhist conception which condemned trade in humans and the belief that

The power to sell free-born children was limited to their parents and required the consent of both parents (if alive)14 and also that of the child him/herself to be sold, otherwise the transaction was considered void.15 Yet, it is not known to what extent an unwilling child 6

Deerananda (2004): 385-428.

7

Sawer 28 in Lawrie Mss. 3: 290.

8

Sawer 28 in Lawrie Mss. 3: 291. Cf. also D’Oyly (1928): 188.

9

Cf. App. 3: 118.

10

Gazetteer 649 in Lawrie Mss. 3: 294.

11

Jud. Com. 12. 5. 1824. In Lawrie Mss. 3: 294.

12

Sawer 28 in Lawrie Mss. 3: 291. Cf. D’ Oyly (1928): 188189.

1

Gilbert (1953): 330 refers to Pridham (1849) 1: 141 as his source but this information does not appear in Pridham.

2

Pieris (1913/14) I: 422.

3

Wijesekara (1974): 18.

13

14 If a mother was dead, the mother’s relatives had to be consulted regarding sale of a child NN 8.

4

15 A child could legally dismiss claims to be sold into ‘slavery’ by departing from the parents’ abode in freedom and by living elsewhere even as a beggar. In such situations, it was regarded as illegal to seize such a child either to sell into ‘slavery’ (even by parents), or to keep it as a ‘slave’ pretending to have it purchased from its parents NN 8.

Arsarathnam (1958): 131. Wijesekara (1974): 18, also mentions that Portuguese imported African slaves to the island to use in their lands, and again does not provide his source.

5

Sawer 28 in Lawrie Mss. 3: 291.

Pfaffanberger (1982): 42. Also cf. infra 09.

8

was protected from being sold into ‘slavery’ by the parents, and how many such children were aware of their rights.

Evidence for raising foundlings as ‘slaves’ is even scarcer. The only available evidence for exposure of children is a remark of the English captive Knox referring to it as a common practice in Kändyan times, which was strictly banned on different occasions by monarchs.8 But raising such discarded children as potential ‘slaves’ is not explicit in the account, although raising such children was not believed to transfer the misfortune to the raiser. But Armour’s information on this issue is preserved by Lawrie that, even if an exposed child was saved and raised by someone that child was not ‘bound to serve that person as a slave.’9 This suggests that some foundlings were possibly raised to be ‘slaves’ certainly before and even after this regulation was imposed, as it may have been hard to eliminate such cases altogether. Cases of raising foundlings as potential ‘slaves’ in times prior to the Kändyan period are unknown, though possible.

The above evidence is limited to the Kändyan period, and possibly such cases of selling children to ‘slavery’ in difficult times might have occurred even in preceding eras. Whilst some parents pledged their children to bondage as security for the money they borrowed in times of hardships in the first century BC1 and perhaps even later, some parents may have gone to the extent of selling their children into ‘slavery’ perhaps needing more money for the survival of the rest of the family. Notably, the purchased ‘slave’ groups cited in literary sources may have included both free individuals sold into ‘slavery’ and those who were already in servitude. But exiguous historical sources are of little help in distinguishing the two types. There are only three references to ‘slave’ purchases from the entire history of the island, of which two are from epigraphic sources datable to the 13th and 14th century AD,2 and the third is from Lawrie’s archive dated to 1828 but certainly referring to an earlier date.3

Thus, although selling adults and children into ‘slavery’ and rearing exposed foundlings occurred in ancient Sri Lanka such cases may have been rare and may not have supplied new ‘slaves’ in considerable numbers at least by the Sinhalese rulers.

2.III. Punishment and debt:

The Yālpānavaipavamālaya states that coilar, servants of Hindu temples (kōvil),4 were sold into slavery by the authorities of these temples as their service became redundant when the European invaders destroyed these temples.5 The account further mentions that sometime later, a group of people, poor but of high birth, were brought from Vada dēsha6 (probably Northern India) and were also sold as slaves probably by the Dutch. These were known as vadasireyik cōviyan7 probably due to their high status.

A free individual could be enslaved or reduced to bondage as punishment for unpaid debt, or for theft, for damaging another’s property if unable to pay the damage, and also for adultery.10 Two forms of enslavement/ bondage can be observed in this concern: enforced ‘slavery’/ bondage as penalty for offences, and pledging oneself or another to ‘slavery’/ bondage as security for a loan. Regarding enforced ‘slavery’ for theft, Lawrie, for instance, reports that ‘a thief who cannot make sevenfold restitution becomes a slave’11 and supports his statement with two precise cases.12 He also cites a case where a high caste woman sold her son to ‘slavery’ as a punishment for theft, who was again sold by the owner for his refractory conduct with an iron ring fastened to his ankle as a restraint on him.13 This case shows that the status of this particular person was not bondage but ‘slavery’, though in many other cases the inability to pay the penalty restitution might have

1

Although these accounts refer to the reign of Saddhātiśa (first century BC) the literary source (Sihalavatthū) containing these stories was compiled around sixth and seventh centuries AD. Cases of pledging children to ‘slavery’ as security for the loans parents borrowed are discussed in the section on debt as a mode of enslavement. But note that certain scholars (e.g. Wijēsēkara (1974)) mistakenly refer to such cases as sales of these children. 2

Ref. EZ 4: no. 25 (Galapātha record) & Gunesēkara (1887): 83-95=Vellupillai (1972) 2: 68-81 (Lankātilaka record) respectively.

8 Knox 94. Also cf. D’ Oyly (1928): 41. Children believed to have born under an evil star were exposed, drowned or given away to people of same status by their parents.

3

Lawrie Mss 3: 309. In this reported judicial case the plaintiff claims the defendant as her ‘slave’ because the plaintiff’s mother had purchased the defendant’s mother from a blacksmith.

4

9

According to this source the term k/cōviar has derived from

10

NN 7, 9. NN includes the women demoted to slaves of the king following expulsion from their families among Karamarānitha.

the term coilar: Yālpāna: 91. 5

Armour 8 in Lawrie Mss. 3: 286.

Yālpāna: 91.

11

Philalethes 241 in Lawrie Mss. 3: 299.

The Tamil source the Yālpāna vaipavamalai reads: vaţatesattilirundu.

12

JCD. 22. 7. 1823 & 2. 9. 1823 in Lawrie Mss. 3: 290.

7

13

Lawrie Mss. 3: 295.

6

Yālpāna: 91.

9

created bondage. In reference to enforced ‘slavery’ for damaging another’s property Sawer reports an interesting account1 related by the disāvē (the chief) of Nuwarakalāviya, that a man discharged the claim of plundering the property of the disāvē during the confusions after the first English war (1818) by taking his dīga married2 sister and her child from her husband to give her into ‘slavery’ in the disāvē’s household.3 However, the brevity of this account, as in many other cases, does not tell us whether the real status of this woman and her child was bondage or ‘slavery.’ Further, ‘slavery’/ bondage was enforced mostly upon children and wives for their parents’ or husbands’ unpaid debt.4 Lawrie furnishes two examples of enforced ‘slavery’/ bondage for debt. In one case the creditor wanted to take a debtor’s children into ‘slavery’/ bondage and in the other the creditor seized the debtor’s mother, wife and children into ‘slavery’/ bondage.5

sources often do not clarify the lender i.e., private individuals or monasteries, or the condition of these children given to servitude. But an account from Sīhalavatthūpakarana9 clearly mentions that the girl was bound to work for a lay household as security for the money her parents borrowed. Moreover, several inscriptions10 datable to the sixth century AD reveal that some individuals gave themselves to servitude in monasteries and later obtained freedom by paying off due debts to respective monasteries. Some of these records mention that certain people ended their self-imposed ‘slavery’/ bondage.11 But some records omit that detail and simply state that those concerned ended ‘slavery’/ bondage by paying due debts to respective monasteries12 suggesting either these individuals were enforced into ‘slavery’/ bondage for another’s (perhaps a relative’s) debt, or it was just a skip of detail by the scribe. Nonetheless, the implication is that there were debt ‘slaves’/ bondsmen not only in private households but also in monasteries. Some of the children freed in Murutāwa13 and in Vesśagiriya14 (sixth century AD) records could be those originally sold to ‘slavery’/ or given to bondage by parents as security for their debts or loans. The lower social status of the individuals who redeemed their children and a wife in the case of the Veśsagiriya record favours this conception.

Cases referring to the second type i.e. pledging oneself or one’s children to bondage as a form of paying a debt or as the security for the loans one borrowed during hard times, are reported from earlier periods in the island’s history. Rasavāhini (circa 14th century to early 15th century AD),6 for instance, mentions a case where a married couple worked in a rich man’s house as bondsmen to pay a debt of 60 kahapana7 though the account is silent regarding how long they worked to pay off their debt. Literary sources also depict that destitute parents pledged their children to bondage as the security for the money they borrowed during difficult circumstances such as famine.8 Literary

Interestingly, the Niti-Niganduwa, the law code of the late Kandyan period, cites some restrictions on enslaving debtors and offenders, especially by private individuals. According to this account, a debtor/offender could not, in theory, become a valid ‘slave’ of a creditor/ the injured party, even willingly, if the latter is inferior to the former in caste.15 The inappropriate caste difference between the debtor/ offender and the creditor/ injured party could annul the ‘slave’ status of the former, setting him/ her at liberty without paying the debt or liability and also the offspring of such a female debtor/ offender could go free when they grew up.16 Besides the proper caste distinction between the two parties, it was required to record the agreement (i.e. paying the debt or

1

Little later than the lower limit of this study, but it may reflect incidents that happened during the Kandyan times.

2

In ‘dīga marriage’ wife goes to live with the family of the husband. Whether this particular incident happened with or without the consent of her husband it displays the vulnerability of women and children in cases of enslavement/bondage.

3

D’Oyly (1928): 189.

4

D’Oyly (1928): 184. Lawrie 3:299 in reference to Philalethes notes that debts double in two years. Cf. Chap. 5: 84-85 on how they freed themselves.

5 6

9

Sīhalavatthū 62. For a slightly different version of this account cf. Sdlkya 484. Also cf. Chap.5: 88.

JCD 29. 5. 1819 & 20. 4. 1825 in Lawrie Mss. 3: 293.

10

Rsv 2: 32.

Paranavitāna (1962): 1-11.

11 Galkätiyāgama record nos. 2, 4, in Paranavitana (1962): 6 & 7. Cf. App. 2, no: 19.ii & iv.

7

Kahapana were copper coins weighing 9.40 grams. But there were also gold coins called suvanna and Silver coins called rajatha and another coin with a higher value than suvanna called nikka. Suvanna and even perhaps rajathas were of the same weight as kahapana. One nikka = five suvanna. [Geiger (1960): 84]. Cf. also EZ 6.1, no. 9 for a discussion on coins of ancient Sri Lanka.

12

Periyankadu- vihāra record; Galkätiyāgama record nos.1, 3, 5; Ambagasvävā records nos. 1 & 2 ibid. 1-11.

Rsv. (c. 14th /15th century AD) 2: 32 &143; Sīhalavatthū. 33, 45, 56 & Sdlkya 564-567 also cite slightly different versions of the same accounts. Although these sources were compiled in different dates these incidents could be traced back as far as first century BC since some of them refer to the king Saddhātissa.

13

EZ 5: 132-133. For the record cf. App. 2 no. 11.

14

EZ 4: 128-136. For the record cf. App. 2 no. 12.

15

NN 9. Cf. also Chap. 2: 24.

8

16

NN 9. Cf. App. 5: 122-125 for a brief discussion on caste system in historic Sri Lanka.

10

discharging the liability by ‘slavery’) as a formal deed (as in the case of selling children to ‘slavery’) because a mere verbal accord did not reduce a person to ‘slavery’. Referring to this point, the source states that if a person gives his child to ‘slavery’ without a formal deed the child could go free on attaining maturity and was not liable to compensate either for his past maintenance or for his/ her parents’ debt or liability.1

Of slaves of the Kändyan kingdom D’Oyly reports that: ‘… some are descendants of Native Kändyans who from circumstances become slaves, and others are supposed to be the Descendants of Slaves brought from the Continent of India by the first Settlers.’ 7 This reference to descendants of Indian/Tamil ‘slaves’ suggests that there was a permanent group of such ‘slaves’, who inherited their status at birth, despite doubts regarding the date their ancestors first arrived on the island. The ‘first settlers’ being Vijaya and his retinue, this case refers to Indian ‘slaves’ who accompanied Indian brides brought for them (Vijaya etc), which Niti-Niganduwa cites as the first appearance of ‘slavery’ on the island.8 D’Oyly may have learned this historical detail from Niti-Niganduwa, but how did he know precisely that the Tamil ‘slaves’ in the Kändyan Kingdom were descendants of the slaves associated with the first settlers?9 However, the kernel of the account is that Tamil ‘slaves’ brought from India on various occasions in antiquity continued to remain in servitude for generations, though it is uncertain whether all Tamil ‘slaves’ in the Kändyan Kingdom were descendants of ‘slaves’ who accompanied Indian brides of the first settlers. Knox’s data10 that the masters gave a wife to their ‘slaves’ and encouraged their family lives suggests that home-born ‘slaves’ were a normal and perhaps an important source of ‘slaves’ in Kändyan times.11

Moreover, individuals reduced to ‘slavery’ for adultery were high-caste women convicted of liaisons with lowcaste men. They were evicted from the caste and family, and were sent as a ‘slave’ of the king to a gabadāgama (village used as the king’s store) with some provisions, as an alternative to killing them, in order to purify the dignity of the caste and the family.2 For instance, Lawrie reports that a high caste woman of Cōnigoda stated that she was banished to Gampola as a king’s ‘slave’ because she eloped with a painter in Sabaragamuwa.3 But, such cases were presumably rare.4

2. IV. Birth/inheritance: The literal translation of the term antō-jāta is ‘inside– born.’ These were the ‘slaves’ born and brought up in servitude. Offspring of female ‘slaves,’ regardless of the status of the begetter, inherited ‘slavery’ and became the property of their mother’s owner as shown in Niti-Niganduwa.5 D’Oyly, the English governor of Kandy after the island’s monarchy came to an end in the 1815, presents an actual case dated to 1829, which supports the above information, in which a noble woman claimed five children of a slave woman by a free man as her slaves, and the right to separate them from the free husband.6 Though this account is a little beyond our time frame this illustrates the inheritance of slave status from a servile mother noted not only in Niti-Niganduwa but also in the sources dated to the fifth century AD.

The term dāsiputta [son of a female ‘slave’]12 found in the Sumangalavilāsini, (fifth century AD) shows the existence of home-born ‘slaves’ on the island around this time. Moreover, the existence of ‘slave’ communities,13 families14 and also the fact that they 7

D’Oyly (1928): 119.

8

NN. 7.

9

Apart from this case many Indian slaves may have arrived in the island accompanying Indian brides of Sinhalese kings in various intervals in antiquity.

10

1

Knox 70. Cf. Chap. 3: 42 for the quotation and discussion on this issue.

NN. 9.

2

11 Cf. also Pridham (1849): 225, that at each child birth ‘slave’ women received five fanam and a piece of cloth (six cubits long) though the slave parents otherwise supported their children independent of their masters. But Pridham neither specifies whether this allowance was available to all ‘slaves’ or only to some, nor when it emerged.

Kulasēkara (1984-85): 212 states in reference to Sawers 40-1. Also cf. Ragavan (1953): 205 in reference to D’Oyly (1928): 40. Gazetteer 297 & also in Lawrie Mss. 3: 290.

3

Gazetteer 297 also in Lawrie Mss. 3: 290.

4

Knox 93.

12

5

Svini. 257.

NN. 10. Also cf. D’Oyly (1928): 190. Sawer and Philalethes quoted by Lawrie too support this notion. (Sawer 28, Philalethes 24 in Lawrie Mss. 3: 286). Cf. also Lawrie Mss. 3: 287-288 for further evidence.

13 Grants of lands and even villages with ‘slaves’ to temples by monarchs and their officers implies that the ‘slaves’ lived in communities. Cf. Chap. 4: 49-50.

6

14

Galapātha inscription (12th /13th century AD) EZ 4, no. 25. Cf. also Chap. 4: 60.

D’Oyly (1928): 26. Lawrie Mss. 3: 308 (the case of the Amunugama Pallē Walawwē Tikiri Banda vs. Dodanwela Udawalawwē B. N. Kiri Banda).

11

were granted land1 for subsistence support the idea that there was a self-perpetuating body of ‘slaves’ attached to certain monasteries and also arguably to noble households.

over such individuals, who regained freedom when they ceased to receive subsistence from the master,6 but, sadly, there is no hard evidence for such cases in our sources.

Also we learn from our sources that some masters controlled the emergence of their home-born ‘slaves’, as masters had the authority to arrange marriages for ‘slaves’ and also to divorce them.2 A severe measure3 (undated) to curb home-born domestic ‘slaves’ is reported from Kändy: eight children of a female ‘slave’ were buried soon after birth under the master’s order, as she was busy caring for the master’s young children. But when the master’s children grew up the ‘slave’ was allowed to raise four children she bore and they were divided among the master’s relatives.

As to the slavery in Jaffna, Yālpānavaipavamālaya informs us that some of the coilar,7 servants of Hindu temples (kōvil), gave into slavery due to dire poverty.8 The account also mentions that most of the pallava, the South Indians, named after their Chōla king who reigned in the last quarter of the sixth century AD, came to the island looking for jobs. Those failed to find jobs went back to India and those who stayed back chose ‘climbing trees’, working as domestics, making oil and fishing as their profession. Nalluva were other south Indians who have come to the island in previous occasions and were also engaged in same professions. But when these professions were insufficient to provide for the increasing numbers of nalluva and pallva they had no alternative other than becoming slaves of vellala and of other high caste groups.9

Though masters could and sometimes did control home-born domestic ‘slaves’, allowing ‘slaves’ to live in families and communities4 and the absence of trades and markets of ‘slaves’ suggest that the inheritance was the main source of ‘slave’ supply which led to its continuation on the island, once it was established either through capture or through other modes. However, there is no sign of commercial breeding of ‘slaves’ in ancient Sri Lanka and unfortunately the proportion of home-born ‘slaves’ in any given time in its history is unknown.

(b) In quest of merit: In this method of enslavement, apparently unique to ancient Sri Lanka, persons of high social ranks offered themselves as ‘slaves’ to monasteries and to Sangha (Buddhist monks in general) merely to gain the merit attached to such acts. Offering ‘slaves’ to a monastery or to monks was believed to bring great merit to the donor,10 which seemingly extended to offering one’s own self and family as ‘slaves’ as reported to have been practised from the first century AD to the 14th century AD. But the absence of such reported cases after the 14th century AD is puzzling.

2. V. Voluntary ‘slavery’/self-enslavement: As noted above, Samam dāsabyamupagathānam was the name given by Samantapāsadikā, Sumangalavilāsini and Niti-Niganduwa to those entering ‘slavery’ voluntarily. But, in ancient Sri Lanka, poverty was not the only driving force that compelled one to yield to ‘slavery’ ‘voluntarily’ but also the desire to earn the merit attached to offering oneself as a ‘slave.’

Accordingly, a son of a Lambakanna11 offered himself and his family to sangha.12 The king Mahādathika 6

The Indian source Nārad Smriti 5, 26-28 also includes people who sought protection during hard times by working as ‘slaves’ among the 15 groups of ‘slaves’. According to Nārad Smriti 5. 3, 34 & 36, such ‘slaves’ went free when convenience no longer exists (Misra (1961): 53, 57, 58).

(a) In quest of subsistence: Though poverty was the author of many forms of servitude, attention here is on those who give themselves voluntarily to ‘slavery’ in quest of subsistence. Niti-Niganduwa differentiates such voluntary servitude prompted by poverty from forced/ imposed ‘slavery’: ‘the mere fact of their having served for generations in order to earn a living will not make them slaves.’5 Perhaps, masters had limited authority E.g. Lāhugala inscription (11th and 12th century AD) EZ 6, no. 27 (ll.15-17): 130-131. Cf. App. 2 no. 43. Hayley (1923): 141.

3

Lawrie 3: 306; cf. Chap. 3: 45 for the quotation and comment.

4

Cf. Chap. 3: 43.

5

NN 8.

Cf. supra: 09 note 04. Yālpāna: 91.

8

Ibid. 91.

9

Yālpāna: 90-91.

10 According to Suraveera (1971): 15, the belief of the time was that offering a ‘slave’ to a monastery earned the donor a great merit sufficed even to become a future Buddha. Obviously, the belief attached to offering one’s own-self as a ‘slave’ could be far extensive.

1

2

7

11 In 65 AD the Vijaya dynasty fell to the rule of Lambakannas (aristocratic dynasty) who ruled the country for the next four years. Cf: (accessed: 2003.07.19). 12

12

Sīhalavatthū 71.

Mahānāga (first century AD) made a parallel offering of himself and his family to sangha.1 While the king Aġgabōdhi VIII (804-815 AD) made his mother offer his own person as a gift to sangha,2 the king Nissankamalla (1187-1196 AD) offered his son and daughter to the tooth and bowl relics.3 The implication is that in all these cases the monarchs offered themselves and the relatives to sangha to be their ‘slaves,’ because these individuals (monarchs etc) either bought their freedom themselves, or their relatives paid for their freedom in form of rich offerings to respective temples. Though not mentioned, the same end could be assumed for Lambakannas judging from parallel cases. As Rāhula rightly suggests, political conditions in the island in antiquity4 might have compelled these monarchs to redeem themselves immediately limiting their servitude to a symbolic venture. The act may have had a value not as a source of ‘slave’ labour but as a financial income to the respective temples as these affairs fetched costly offerings in exchange for emancipation.

AD could be partly due to rising political tensions due to civil wars and European invasions, and partly due to varying interests of compilers of history. However, it is also notable that even in other Buddhist societies such as in the pre-colonial Burma, where we see servile populations working for Buddhist temples, voluntary servitude (kyunship) both for merit and due to poverty was in practise.8

Analysis: Enslaving the Indian captives of war, who either came as invaders or settled in captured areas, could have been one of the important, perhaps the first, source of ‘slavery,’ as the island’s political history favours more possibilities besides the single precise recorded case. A body of ‘slaves’ thus acquired survived through inheritance, providing a continuous supply of ‘slaves’ to the owners. Enslavement through sale of adults/ infants, raising foundlings, punishment for adultery, through seizure for unpaid debt may have occurred rarely in small numbers. Also in most cases, unpaid debt and liability may have led to temporary bondage, which ended after serving a sufficient time to pay the debt or penalty restitution,9 though it had a potentiality to create ‘slavery’.10 Even voluntary enslavement to gain subsistence may have been less popular resulting in no true slavery, and that in search of merit may have provided very little or no ‘slave’ labour. Based on the supply and continuation of servile groups in ancient Sri Lanka which based on inheritance while commercial transactions of ‘slaves’ show a low performance, at least among the Sinhalese, we may suggest that the island experienced a ‘closed’ pattern of servitude after Reid’s observation.11 But, at least during the Dutch dominion, in Jaffna, when the necessary additional slaves to work in the fields was acquired through purchase of foreign slaves (especially from south India) and the slaves based export economy came into action, this may, at least, have begun to give way to the ‘open’

The voluntary offering of a sitana (generally a wealthy merchant) family to a temple by the father of that family, reported in Saddharmaratnāvaliya (14th century AD), is slightly different because the family was redeemed by people (perhaps of their locality) paying the value to the temple.5 This suggests the possibility that even average Buddhists6 may have set upon the deed in quest of merit regardless of their ability to buy quick freedom and possibly people may have pooled money to free such individuals who offered themselves as slaves to share the merit of freeing a ‘slave’.7 The absence of reported cases of voluntary offerings by high dignitaries in search of merit after the 14th century 1

Mv. 34, 86-89.

2

Mv, 49, 63.

3

EZ 2, no. 17 (l. 24): 107 & 121. Another inscription [EZ 2, no. 14: 86-87 & 90] of the same monarch in Hätadāgē portico also repeats this donation. (ll.17-19). Cf. App. 2, nos. 44 & 54 respectively. Niśsanka Latāmandapaya and Niśsanka Daladāgeya are buildings erected for temples. But Basnāyake (1986): 17 referring to this record states that the king also offered his brother (though the record does not mention this detail) together with his son and daughter to the tooth and bowl relic of Buddhā.

8

Aung-Twin (1984): 227, 229-230. Cf. also Lehman (1984): 236 for traditional Burmese and Thai temple slavery.

4

There were risks of foreign invasions during the reigns of weak rulers or during internal political disputes. 5

9

Sdrvya (Kakutamittha story) 572.

10

6

But we do not know whether the people had to pay the redemption fee on behalf of the merchant family because they have lost their wealth or whether it was a request of the people to share the merit attached to freeing ‘slaves.’ However, this account shows that pooling money to pay for redemption fee of ‘slaves’ at least of this kind occurred in historic Sri Lanka.

7

NN 9. Cf. e.g. supra 9-10.

11 Reid (1983): 156. According to Reid a ‘closed’ pattern occurs ‘typically in relatively static and self-contained communities practising labour-intensive wet-rice agriculture, where commercial exchange and the money economy have made little impact.’ But he defines the system as ‘one oriented primarily towards retaining the labour of slaves by reinforcing their distinctiveness from the dominant population.

Cf. Chap. 5: 90 & note 02 for merit of freeing a ‘slave.’

13

system of slavery1 though this may have lasted only until their downfall in 1795.2

‘slave’ communities in ancient Sri Lanka could be linked with the practice of allocating plots of lands to ‘slaves’ for lodging and to derive their subsistence from them, by large-scale land and ‘slave’ owners such as monarchs, their entourage and some temples. Moreover, war does not have the same place at least in the historical sources of Sri Lanka as a “‘slave’creator” as in ancient Greece.

Finally, the limited sources do not provide numbers for any mode of enslavement and do not permit us to examine their geographical and chronological diffusion. Restrictions on caste may have been essential in these cases especially when it was operating rigidly in the Kandyan society, and the need of a written deed to validate bondage/ ‘slavery’ could be a later addition.

Enslavement for offences such as damaging another’s property, unpaid debt and poverty seems parallel to the position of Cretan nenikamenos and katakeimenos to the extent of temporary nature of their bondage, rendering their condition somewhat superior to that of the chattel slaves. However, enslavement for punishments little, if not never, affected Athenian citizens,5 at least after the Solonic reforms, whereas Sri Lankans of all social levels were liable for such punishments, though people of high social ranks may have rarely become victims of this procedure. Furthermore, the absence of evidence from other Greek cities for or against the prevalence of imposing slavery upon a citizen as a penalty prevents us from deriving a positive or a negative conclusion in this regard. Adultery may have brought permanent servitude for high caste women but such cases were apparently rare. Also, some Sinhalese, mainly children and women, may have lost their freedom permanently due to the debt of their relatives just as in Platea or in Corinth. Similarly, sale and raised foundlings as ‘slaves’ may have enforced permanent ‘slavery’ on the persons concerned though these cases were probably rare in both countries. Also voluntary enslavement in temples in quest of merit appears to be another mode unique to Sri Lanka though it furnished little or no ‘slave’ labour to the temples concerned but brought an immense amount of wealth.

3. Comparison Embarking upon the vital point of the discussion, i.e. comparing modes of enslavement in ancient Greek poleis and ancient Sri Lanka, it is observable that, at large, both share inheritance, enslaving war captives, sale, and debt as modes of enslavement, though significant anomalies occur in the way some of these modes operated. In both ancient Greek poleis and ancient Sri Lanka children inherited servile status from their ‘slave’ mother. Just as in the case of Athenian chattel slaves, Sri Lankan masters were also empowered to control the number of their home-born ‘slaves’ to suit their needs, though not necessarily in the same manner. In ancient Sri Lanka, ‘slaves’ who lived and worked the lands of temples and perhaps also in those of aristocrats seem to be self-perpetuating, making inheritance the main stream of ‘slave’ supply throughout history, as in the Spartan helot system. Even in Athens and in other Greek poleis the importance of home-born slaves was highlighted when the value of capture as the chief mode of slave supply faded with political changes. However, commercial breeding of slaves/serfs is absent in both ancient Greek poleis and ancient Sri Lanka.

Another interesting issue is the obvious disparity on slave trade and slave markets in ancient Greek poleis and ancient Sri Lanka. As is observed above, there were many large and small slave markets spread around Greece, fed with local and mostly foreign slaves. But in contrast, there is no evidence that refers to the existence of a slave market or a large-scale slave trade in ancient Sri Lanka when and where Sinhalese Kings were in control.6 This difference could be due to different systems of slave ownership and the different forms of slavery that existed in the ‘two countries’ besides the disparity in cultural and religious conceptions and the levels of commercial development.7 In Sri Lanka, ‘slave’

But, the ‘slave’ communities in ancient Sri Lankan temples and in the lands of nobles do not share the same origin the Spartan helots experienced, as the political system in ancient Sri Lanka does not provide space for identical cases (i.e. enslaving a local population).3 Moreover, apart from Heyley’s vague remark4 there are no precise cases that show or suggest Sinhalese enslaved Sinhalese war prisoners as Greeks enslaved Greeks. On the other hand, the origin of 1

In the ‘open’ system, as noted by Reid, (1983): ibid., the labour was acquired through capture or purchase of slaves and gradually assimilating them to the dominant group.

2

5

Dutch governance in Jaffna was limited to 1658-1795AD:Navarathnam (1958): 291-300.

Although Solon allowed the sale of adulterated daughters no actual case can be found to support the existence of this practice. Plut. Sol. 23.

3

For most of the time the island was under the supremacy of a single ruler other than in cases of usurpation by Tamil invaders. Even when there were three kingdoms by about early 16th century AD, the monarchs were concerned about gaining power over one another rather than enslaving the people of a captured kingdom. 4

6

Though Wijesekara (1974): 18 states that a trade of slaves existed between Tamil speaking northern province (Jaffna) and South India, he provides no evidence or reference to support this. Dutch, for instance, were importing Indian slaves from 1659-1660 to Ceylon to use in the land under their control: Arsarathnam (1958): 131.

Cf. supra 07.

7

14

Cf. Chap. 2 for more detail on slave ownership.

ownership was mainly focused on the monarch who distributed ‘slaves’ to temples and to his officers, who eventually became main ‘slave’ owners. On the other hand, ‘slavery’ in ancient Sri Lanka seems to have less emphasis on the chattel form of slavery partly because they were rarely sold according to sources.1 Furthermore, the limited amount of ‘slave’ owners suggests that the transactions happened directly between the buyer and the seller without a trader. Also there is no sign of export of Sinhalese ‘slaves’ out of the island2 or commercial import of foreign slaves into the island in large or smallscale by Sinhalese owners.3 Thus, slave markets or slave trade were not required for the distribution of ‘slaves’ on the island. Conversely, in Athens, slaves were owned by a fair number of the population in small numbers requiring a wide distribution and consequently calling for slave traders and markets to meet the demands. In conclusion, the value of a certain mode of enslavement as a slave creator and as a source of slave supply in ancient Greek poleis and ancient Sri Lanka inevitably was based on their social, cultural and political settings along with the pattern of slave holding and the types of servitude that prevailed.

1

D’Oyly (1928): 120. Cf. Chap. 3: 41.

2

The only case of selling Sinhalese enslaved for debt out of the island is reported to have done by deceitful Portugese who engaged in Cinamon trade in the island during Buvanekabāhu’s reign in Kōtte: de Silva (1977): 13.

3

Though slaves accompanied South Indian brides of Sinahalese kings, they once again became the direct property of the royal household.

15

Chapter 2:

The number of these public slaves may not have been large. The Scythian Police, the largest group of public slaves employed in Athens, was established in the sixth or early fifth century,5 and discontinued sometime in the fourth century.6 Although late authorities maintained that they numbered 1000, modern scholars argue that the figure should be lowered to 3007 due to high maintenance costs8 to the state especially after the economic depression after the Peloponnesian war, which eventually led to the abolition of the Scythian police.9 Vos argues that the slave status of the archers in the sixth or early fifth century is evident as they were purchased by the Athenian state, but suggests that the Scythians fighting in the army after this date were not slaves since they served under their own officers.10 Sargent estimates the number of the public slaves who assisted Athenian magistrates to be 700, thus suggesting the total population of Athenian demosioi to be 1000.11

Ownership of slaves in ancient Greek poleis and Sri Lanka The pattern of slave ownership is vital in determining the types of slavery (i.e. chattel, temple, public) that existed in a particular society, which is in turn crucial to study their conditions and how they obtained freedom.

1. Ownership of slaves in ancient Greek poleis Slave owners in ancient Greek poleis can be grouped into three categories, namely temples, the state and private individuals. Characteristically, the evidence is limited to a few Greek poleis.

Moreover, the type of ownership of the Spartan helots (i.e. state or private property) is a point of debate among scholars. Garlan (1988), for instance, perceived them as community slaves while de Ste. Croix (1983), MacDowell (1986) and Cartledge (1988) maintained that they were ‘state-serfs’.12 These notions were based on ancient writers such as Ephorus (fourth century historian),13 Myron of Priene (third century BC),1

1.I. Temples as slave owners: Although Greek temples owned some slaves, those in mainland Greece were not mass slave-holding institutions with the exception of the temple of Aphrodite in Corinth. Besides, the temple of Olympian Zeus in Epizephyrian Locris and some temples in Anatolia (i.e. of Venessian Zeus in Venassa, of Mên of Pharnaces in Cibyra1 and of Mâ in Cappadocian Comana, for instance) owned large numbers of slaves. This brief note on this issue is sufficient as temple slavery is treated in detail in chapter four in this study.

5

Vos (1963): 61 observing the representation of Scythian archers in Attic vases argues that they arrived in Athens in c. 530 BC and left Athens between 500 and 490 BC. But scholars argue for much later dates: Jacob (1928): 53 agrees with Plassart (1913): 152-154 on late arrival of these archers in 476 BC, and not in 449 BC.

6

1.II. State as slave owners:

Sargent (1925): 120.

7

E.g. Suidas s.v. toco/tai states that they numbered 1000. For a full discussion on views of modern historians on this issue cf. Jacob (1928): 64-73.

2

Though several Greek states including that of Classical Athens owned a number of slaves (dēmosioi), some detailed evidence is available only of Athenian dēmosioi who were employed to perform such public duties as policing, care of roads, and assisting public officers.3 The Athenian state recruited these male slaves from captives of war, purchased slaves, and slaves confiscated from individuals condemned by the Areopagus or the Assembly.4 1

8 They received a daily wage (trophē) of three obols. IG II (1): 1672 (ll.4-5). 9

Andreades (1933): 215. Plato and Xenophon are the last writers to mention them.

10 Vos (1963): 68-69. See the same pages for her argument on number of Scythian slave archers. Cf. ibid. 70-79 for Scythians in the Athenian army.

About 50 kms northwards from Oenoanda.

11

Sargent (1925): 120-121 believes that the number of Scythian police force was 300.

2

Delos in the fourth century BC (Bruneau (1970): 228), Ephesus in the AD 44 (IEphesos Ia no. 18c), Labraunda in the second centuryAD (Crampa ILabraunda 3, no. 59) are the other Greek cities that appear to have owned dēmosioi. Also cf. Debord (1982): 88 for dēmosioi working in western Anatolian temples.

12 Garlan (1988): 93-98; de Ste. Croix (1981): 149-150; MacDowell (1986): 35; Cartledge (1988): 39. 13 Ephorus’ data that the holder of helots was not allowed to manumit them or to sell them ‘out of the boundary’ is preserved in Strabo (born 64 BC) who himself wrote Spartan Helots were ‘in a way public slaves’ (8, 5.4/ c365). Thuc. 5, 34. 1& Xen .Hell. 6, 5. 28-29 too reveals that groups of helots were owned by the state, and were fighting for Sparta first under

3

Duties of public slaves are brought forward in the next chapter.

4

Jacob (1928): 9-10.

16

Plutarch2 and Pausanias (fl. c. AD 150),3 who maintained that helots were communal property.

course with uncertainty, that they were also the property of private individuals as they are constantly compared with the Spartan helots.12 Regarding the penestai of Thessaly we do have limited evidence that confirms this suggestion. Euripides (referring to the numbers of penestai owned by Menon of Pharsalus) and Theocritus hint that private individuals held large numbers of penestai as their own property.13 According to Demosthenes, the same Menon of Pharsalus owned 200 or 300 penestai of his own.14

But, in contrast, Ducat (1978, 1990) and Hodkinson (2000, 2003)4 have argued convincingly that the helots were private property of Spartiates, although they were subject to various interventions from the polis.5 Ducat argues that Strabo and Pausanias, writing after the 227 BC revolution, were influenced by its reforms i.e. redistribution of lands in Sparta respecting the egalitarian concept of Lycurgus6 which eventually gave helots working on the kleroi an appearance of public property.7 Accepting this notion, Hodkinson points out that the evidence of Strabo and Pausanias is incompatible with Classical sources: Xenophon (born in 430 BC),8 when stating that a Spartiate should let other citizens use his helots,9 classes them among the private property of Spartans and not as communal property. Hodkinson also argues that when Athens manumitted chattel slaves on a large scale (in c. 406/5 BC) the Athenian slave owners were not apparently compensated, thus the absence of compensation for Spartans when the state manumitted helots should not suggest the state ownership of helots. Besides, he notes that there was internal sale of helots and the restriction only applied to the national boundary of Sparta.10

Thus, the only detailed evidence available from Classical Athens concerning state owned slaves shows that the numbers were small, and also it is convincing that the Spartan helots were not State property but private property of Spartiates.

1.III. Private individuals as slave owners: The most well-known Greek slave owners were private individuals. There was no social distinction in ancient Greece leading to disqualify a person from acquiring a slave if he/she had enough means to afford it. In practice, even certain slaves possessed slaves working for them,15 although slaves were not legally entitled to own any property. Slaves were used throughout Greek history as domestic helpers, and some were used as labourers in agriculture and also as assistants in workshops. But, for certain rich Greeks slave holding was a commercial enterprise as they leased large numbers of slaves to work in mines such as in silver mines at Laurion. The two main questions that claim our attention here are, how many slaves were owned by private Greeks, and did all Greeks own slaves? But the Athenian evidence is superior in this concern than that from other Greek poleis, compelling us to focus on the Athenian slave ownership.

Although the evidence is scant regarding the penestai of Thessaly, the katōnakē wearers of Sicyon, gumnētes of Argos and the serfs in Crete11 one may suggest, of Brasidas and then in 370 BC during Theban invasion. 1 Myron of Priene ap. Athen. 657d, notes that Spartiates were not allowed to over or under feed helots which was also taken to support the notion that they were state property. 2

He was born before 50 AD and died after 120AD. Plut. Lyc. 28 mentions about the annual killing of helots (Krypteia) which is interpreted by some to denote helots were state property.

3

chattel slaves, and debt bondsmen. Cf. Willetts (1977): 185. Among these the debt bondsmen and slaves may certainly have been private property, either of the creditor or the master who bought the chattel slave.

Paus. 3. 20, 6 calls helots ‘slaves of the community.’

4

Ducat (1978): 13-17 & (1990): 19-29. Hodkinson (2000): 114-115 & (2003): 256-259.

5

Hodkinson (2000): 114-115.

6

Cf. Fuks (1984): 250-255.

7

Ducat (1990): 19-29.

8

Xen. Lac. Pol. 6.3. Cf. also Arist. Pol. 2. 5, 3/ 1263a30.

12

Thessalian penestai compared to helots: Theopomp. fgt. 122b=Schol. in Theoc. 16, 35= no.33 in Ducat (1994); Harpoc. & Suda s.v. penestai. Also cf. Ducat (1994): 75-86. The katōnakē- wearers of Sicyon to Helots: Theopomp. FGrH 115 F 171 & 176. Regarding gumnētes of Argos: Arist. Pol. 5, 3. 7/ 1302b33, and the local historian Socrates FGrH 310 F 6 refer to these people as perioikoi who were made citizens. Arist. Pol. 7, 10. 13-14/ 1330a14-25 mentions that the term perioikoi was used to mean serfs/slaves and Isoc. 4, 131 mentions it as a synonym for ‘helots.’ On Cretan ‘unfree’: Strabo 12, 3. 4/ c542.

9

The term used is oiketai. Ducat (1990): 21 notes 9 & 46 cogently argues that oiketai here stands for helots and if there were also chattel slaves in Sparta oiketai includes both helots and slaves. Hodkinson (2000): 114-115 note 5, accepts this notion.

13

Eur. Phrixus F 630 ap. Ath. 6. 264b; Theoc. Id. 1. 34-35.

14

Dem. 13. 23; 23. 199; cf. Ducat (1994): 24-29 & 71-72.

10

Hodkinson (2000): 114-118. Cf. also Luraghi (2002): 229 & Hodkinson (2003): 258. But MacDowell (1986): 35 argues that ‘out of the boundary’ (e)/cw tw=n o(/rwn) refers to boundaries of individual klēroi of Spartans.

15

Slaves Ambracis, Thale, and Simon of Aristotle who were freed through his will already had slave assistants (pais/paidiske) [Diog. Laert. 5. 14-15] who in theory belonged to Aristotle himself.

11

The unfree population in Crete can be categorised as serfs,

17

Of the number of slaves owned by private Athenians, the largest numbers reported to have owned by Athenian are 1,000 allegedly owned by Nicias (c.470413 BC), 600 by Hipponicus and 300 by Philomenides, all leased for silver mines at Laurion.1 Though the accuracy of these figures is doubtful, the account suggests that rich men profited by renting out large numbers of slaves for mining.

The number of slaves owned by some of those convicted of mutilating the statues of Hermes and profaning the Mysteries in 414/13BC,11 traced from Attic stelai12 match the small numbers of slaves in the testaments of philosophers suggesting the plausibility of these traced figures: 16 slaves of Kephisodorus, the metic, nine slaves of Adeimantus, seven or eight of Axiochus,13 four and six slaves of an unknown owner, one slave of Polystratus and of another anonymous owner.14 A late document datable precisely to 410-390 BC15 also shows that the number of slaves owned by the listed sailors was just a few: of ninety-five slave owners, the highest number of slaves owned by one individual was three which was limited certainly to four and possibly to three more sailors. Besides, certainly ten (and probably two more) sailors owned two slaves each.16

Apart from these doubtful figures, Athenians generally do not appear to have owned hundreds of slaves, excluding the rare exception that records 120 slaves owned by Lysias’ family in 403 BC.2 Besides this, two further pieces of evidence produce ownership of more than 50 slaves: the annual income of Pasion’s shield factory (one Talent) implies that it employed between 60 and 70 slaves3 and Demosthenes (384-322 BC) counts a total of 52 or 53 slaves owned by his father in his workshops.4 Besides these, Demosthenes states that Pantaenetus had a workshop with 30 slaves5 and that Timarchus allegedly owned 10 or 11 slaves.6 Plato’s (429-347 BC) passing note in the Republic (‘suppose a very rich man with fifty or more slaves...’)7 should be noted here although the reference is from a different context (in a domestic setting) as his slave number tallies with the small slave numbers of Attic orators. Also, the slaves owned by wealthy landowners such as Ischomachus8 may have been within an average range deducible from above figures.

Having noted that the slaves owned by a single Athenian were not normally numbered in hundreds, there remains to examine whether all Athenians had slaves. Lysias mentioned in his speech against Callias that many other Athenians, just like Callias and other prosecutors, were slave owners.17 Demosthenes expected (or at least pretended to expect) that the dikasts owned slaves.18 Even if Lysias and Demosthenes imply that any Athenian over 30, especially those with free time to appear in courts, could reasonably be expected to have a slave, these remarks are insufficient to assume that every Athenian over 30 possessed slaves.

Moreover, the slaves possessed by the philosophers, Aristotle (384-322 BC), Theophrastus (c. 370-286 BC), Straton (head of school c. 286-c. 268 BC), and Lycon (299-225 BC) as stated in their testaments do not exceed twenty in any single case. Aristotle, the richest man in the list, had twenty or fewer in his household.9 Theophrastus had nine slaves and Straton six whereas Lycon had twelve in his service.10

Also, certain non-wealthy Athenian citizens and metics owned a few slaves. For instance, the jurors who earned just a few obols might still own a steward and few other slaves.19 However, there is no implication that all free persons in Athens, let alone every free 11

1

Xen., Vect. 4, 14-15.

2

Lys. 12, 7 & 19.

3

Lys. 36, 11 with Davies (1971) no. 11672 VII-VIII.

4

Dem. 27, 9.

5

Dem. 37, 4.

6

Aeschin. 1, 97.

7

Pl. Resp. 578d-579a.

8

Xen. Oec. 9, 11-13.

12 IG I³ 421-430. They record the sale of slaves and other property of these individuals. Excerpts with commentary are to be found in Meiggs & Lewis (1988) no. 79: 240-247, with translations in Fornara (1983) no.147: 171-175. Full discussion is to be found in Pritchett (1953): 240-249 & (1956): 276-281. 13

On Axiochus cf. Davies (1971) no. 600 VI (B).

14

IG I³ 421-430 also cf. Osborne (1995): 29.

15

IG I³ 1032.

16

Cf. also infra 19.

17

Lys. 5, 5.

18

Dem. 45, 86.

9

Three maids owned by his slaves, Ambracis, Thale, and Simon, prior to their release and one maid each given to the last two after manumission; two slaves of Herpylles (wife) and three more given to her; four other slaves freed and the attendants of Aristotle (perhaps five or six) whose number is not given (Diog. Laert. 5, 13-15) form this number.

10

Lewis (1966): 182.

19

Ar. Vesp. (422 BC) 606-615. Further Ar. Nub. (423 BC) 5 is another example that shows less wealthy Athenians owned slaves. Cf. also Ehrenberg (1951): 167-168 for parallels from comedy.

Diog. Laert. 5. 54-55, 62-63, 72-73.

18

person in entire Greece, possessed slaves. For instance, Praxagora the feminist in Ecclesiazusae (392 BC) articulates the imbalance in Athenian society as she expresses her desire to end the situation, that one had many slaves while another did not possess even a single attendant.1 Xenophon, referring to the Athenian working classes, stresses that ‘those who can buy slaves do so that they may have fellow workmen.’2 Moreover, Lysias on behalf of the disabled citizen workman informs us that the cripple could not afford to keep a slave to assist him in his trade.3 But, the absence of slaves in oratorical references to the property of wealthy deceased Athenians, such as that inherited by Diodotus4 and that by Stratocles should not be taken to suggest, as rightly pointed out by de Ste. Croix,5 that some rich Athenians had no slaves.

However, it is hard to estimate the proportion of people below hoplite status in Athens, who owned few or no slaves from the available evidence. We also hear about the Cretan slave owners although it is hard to find the proportion of slaves and serfs owned by each Cretan. Although there are no precise individual cases,10 the next best evidence that bear witness to ownership of slaves by private individuals in Greek poleis besides Athens is manumission records discovered in the Greek mainland, Aegean islands and Macedonia.11 The dates of these manumission inscriptions vary from the early fifth century BC to circa third century AD. Besides these recorded cases, new manumission records continue to be found. Such manumission records found in different cities suggest that the Greeks who could afford a slave in these cities possessed at least one though this does not help us to comprehend the proportion of individuals who owned slaves in these cities and in what numbers. Furthermore, the information deducible from such manumission records are limited to that of domestic slaves or slave craftsmen/ women since we do not have records that register manumissions of agricultural or mining slaves.

Even the information from epigraphic sources supports the notion that while some Athenians possessed slaves some did not. The most valuable source in this concern is the above-cited late fifth century list of sailors.6 This fragmentary list distinguishes the ship’s officers, marines, citizen rowers, archers and slave rowers. In this record, the citizens are registered with the first name and Deme, while the slaves are registered with their name followed by that of the owner and about ninety-five different slave-owners can be traced in the list.7 A further fragmentary portion of the late fifth century list of sailors shows that a distinction of slave holding can be perceived between hoplite marines and ordinary marines: six hoplite marines out of ten owned slaves (ll.83-93) whereas none of the 23 ordinary marines seem to own slaves.8 This shows that the proportion of Athenian hoplites owning slaves was higher than that of ordinary marines, perhaps due to their varying financial status. Osborne also suggests that the Athenians of the hoplite class and above would have been regular owners of considerable numbers of slaves since they could spare some to use in triremes.9 1

Ar. Eccl. (l. 593).

2

Xen. Mem. 2, 3.3.

3

Lys. 24, 6.

1. IV. Slave numbers: The 400,000 slaves attributed to Athens by Demetrius of Phalerum (c. 350-297 BC) according to the census taken perhaps in 311 BC, the 460,000 slaves, and the 470,000 slaves attributed to Corinth and Aegina respectively12 are dismissed as exaggerations by scholars such as Wallon.13 However, Thucydides’14 detail that after the Spartan occupation of Deceleia over 20,000 slaves fled Attica creating a substantial blow to Attic slave-ownership shows Thucydides’ belief that there were above 20,000 slaves in Attica at the time.15 Although it is hard to conclude from the available 10 We hear from Pindar fr. 107 (ed. Bowra) that a certain Corinthian dedicated 100 female slaves to Aphrodite at Corinth. But we do not know whether these slaves belonged to his household prior to the dedication or whether he simply bought these slaves to be dedicated.

4

The value of the property is seven Talents, forty minas and 2000 drachmas (Lys. 32, 5).

11

Darmezin (1999), and Reilly (1978). Darmezin limits his study to manumissions by consecration in Boeotia and in Hellenistic Greek world. And Reilly catalogues briefly the details of manumission records from Greek mainland and the Aegian islands from the fifth century BC to the third century AD with the objective of studying slave names in these records.

5

Stratocles’ property is listed as consisting of real estate: 60 sheep, 100 goats, and other equipment (Isae. 11, 40-41). Cf. de Ste. Croix (1957): 56. Also Ehrenberg (1951): 167 & note. 4. Westermann (1955): 8, note 52, on the contrary, argues that if there were slaves they would surely be listed, and he further denies the possibility that the slave holding was concealed by the speaker. 6

IG I³ 1032.

7

IG I³ 1032, also cf. Osborne (1995): 29.

12

Ath. 272b, c & d.

13

Wallon (1988): 216-251.

14

Thuc. 7, 27. 5.

8

IG II² 1951. Cf. the discussion in Garlan (1988): 166. Osborne (1995): 29. 9

15

Over 20,000 slave escapees should be his guesstimate. Cf. Hanson (1992): 210-228.

Osborne (1995): 29.

19

evidence, it may not be wrong to state that in the 420s the slave numbers in Athens may have varied between 60,000 and 80,000 irrespective of gender or age.1

1. ‘Slave’ ownership in ancient Sri Lanka

Regarding slave numbers of other states, modern scholars doubt Thucydides’2 remark that Chios had the largest slave population in Greece excluding Sparta. However, Andreades argues based on the quantity of grain consumed and the development of industry that Chios could not feed more than 100,000.3 It is even more difficult to come to a reasonable conclusion on the size of slave populations in Aegina or Corinth other than refusing the numbers cited in Athenaeus as an exaggeration. The military and naval strength along with the leadership of Athens before the Peloponnesian War suggests that Athens might have owned the largest slave population, at least during her peak times of glory, when many Athenians had at least one slave.4 Further, the range of slave owning was relatively limited among individuals, since even the rich did not possess extravagant numbers of slaves. But, sadly, the exact number of slaves even in ancient Athens is yet a point of dispute, let alone that in other Greek poleis.

This section examines who owned ‘slaves’ in ancient Sri Lanka and social prejudices on this issue. The owners of ‘slaves’ in ancient Sri Lanka fall into three distinct groups, namely, Buddhist monasteries, the monarchs and their entourage5 and private individuals. The present study primarily deals with the ownership of ‘slaves’ by private individuals and also examines whether there was a group of state owned ‘slaves’ at all.

2.I. Buddhist monasteries as ‘slave’ owners: Literary and epigraphic sources inform us that Buddhist monasteries owned hundreds of ‘slaves’ who were mostly used to work the lands granted to these establishments.6 In the majority of cases the grant of ‘slaves’ or land was made to the entire community of monks residing in a particular monastery, though some evidence supports ownership of ‘slaves’ by individual monks.7 This theme is treated fully in the chapter on temple ‘slavery’.

Analysis: The ownership of slaves in Greece, more accurately in Athens, depended upon a person’s financial position, which naturally left some Athenians without slaves. Slave ownership in Athenian society was not a monopoly of one social group and many Athenian citizens and metics had at least one slave. Even the wealthy did not own extravagant numbers of slaves and the number of temple slaves, and dēmosioi in Attica was also small. These features examined for Athens may not have been far different from those in other Greek poleis.

2.II. State as a ‘slave’ owner? The social and political organisation of the island in antiquity does not suggest that there was a necessity to use a permanent set of slaves to perform public duties. All free citizens were required to offer a set amount of free labour to the king,8 which was largely used for public construction projects such as building reservoirs and temples. On the other hand, the society was classed according to professions, which later developed into castes, and according to this division, candālas, people of the lowest social rank, were assigned menial duties such as scavenging and cleaning. For instance, the king Pandukābhaya (377-307 BC) assigned to candālas and not to ‘slaves’ the duty of cleaning the newly restored city of Anurādhapura. Accordingly, the monarch appointed 150 candālas to

1

5 The immediate family and also the high dignitary officers of a monarch are included in the entourage.

Westermann (1955): 9, and de Ste. Croix (1957): 56, accepts the notion assuming the figures are on the low side. The table of Beloch (1886): 418 reproduced by Andreades (1933): 287 also provides the same figures for this period.

6

E.g. Mv. 82. 63, Mv. 46. 19-21 & EZ 4, no. 25 (ll. 12-23). Lawrie Mss. 3: 300, reports a grant of 200 slaves to the Lankātilaka vihāra without referring to the granter of the deed.

2

Thuc. 8, 40.2. For a discussion of the problem of slave numbers in Athens cf. Westermann (1947): 451-470.

7

Andreades (1933): 289 note 7. Sargent (1925): 13-41 also has maintained that Chios might not have held such a large number of slaves. However, Boardman (1967): 253 suggests that 100,000 citizens in Chios may have needed a considerable number of slaves.

E.g. Smp 1001 ‘Or of a Bhikkhu there is his own slave, such a slave should be admitted to the order only after having manumitted him.’ Tr. by Paranavitana in EZ 5: 61, referring to Kurundi an early Sinhalese source which mentions that even slaves owned by monks should be manumitted prior to ordaining them as monks.

4

8

3

Sinclair (1998): 199.

20

Ragavan (1953): 202.

bear the dead and many other candālas to watch the cemetery, and also appointed 500 candālas to clean the streets of the town, 200 to clean the sewers.1 The use of candālas with scavenging as their obligation makes the service of ‘slaves’ redundant. Though certain kings disposed some of their ‘slaves’ to serve the public as Parakramabahu I (1153-1186 AD) did by assigning two ‘slaves’ (dāsa dāsi) for each patient, to care for him/her, in the hospital he (the king) built,2 the ‘slaves’ of the royalty were usually considered private property. Thus, there was no precise group of ‘slaves’ identified as public slaves in ancient Sri Lanka as there was no necessity.

considerable number of ‘slaves’ were in the king’s possession. Both epigraphic and literary evidence testifies that the high-ranking royal officers were also ‘slave’ owners. The Lankātilaka inscription, for instance, registers the grant of 200 hereditary and purchased ‘slaves’ (magul vahalin8 hā ranvahalin) to the Lankātilaka temple (AD 1344) by Sēna-Lankā adikāra (a chief officer of a Sinhalese king).9 In this and other similar donations the donors themselves owned multitudes of ‘slaves’ and presumably had more in addition to those donated, in order to carry out tasks for the donor. Moreover, in the latter part of the 12th century AD the king Niśsankamaĺla appointed officials and ministers and provided them with ‘slaves’ (vahal) and other riches such as land, cattle, gold and silver urns (ll.18-19).10 Another epigraphic record of the same king states that the guardians of his treasury were admonished not to use ‘slaves’ (vahal), land and other items of wealth from the treasury, presumably for personal needs, without obtaining permission from the relevant authorities (B ll.14-25).11

2.III. The king and his entourage as ‘slave’ owners: The chief owners of ‘slaves’ seem to be the monarch, his close relatives, and his high-ranking aristocratic (high caste) officers. In most cases, the evidence for ownership of ‘slaves’ by monarchs or rich nobles comes from records of donation of ‘slaves’ to a monastery or to various individuals. A grant of ‘slaves’ to another naturally discloses two owners: the giver and the receiver.

Of literary sources, Saddharmālankāraya, for instance, reports that a son of a minister who himself was a minister lived a luxurious life with male and female ‘slaves’ (däsi das) in his possession.12 The Mahāvamsa reports in reference to mid sixth/ early seventh century AD that, Mahānāgha, a descendant of a noble family, who chose to live as a robber (but later became a king) was given a ‘slave’ (dāsi) by his own sister.13 The sister, who apparently led a normal aristocratic life, had ‘slaves’ and could spare one to serve her brother. Furthermore, a community leader gave male and female ‘slaves’ (däsi das) and other riches to an ordinary man, being surprised at the miraculous deed the latter had done.14 Regarding the Kändyan period, Knox informs that even himself and the other English captives were promised (in 1664 AD) land, money and ‘slaves’ if they entered royal service, and refers to

Sīhalavattūpakarana, for instance, records several reports that the king Saddā Tiśsa (77-59 BC) donated hundreds of male and female ‘slaves’ together with lands and other riches to various people to reward their pious deeds.3 More specifically, two records mention that the same king granted a hundred female and a hundred male ‘slaves’ (dāsa dāsī) to two women to raise their positions to that of his daughter, the royal princess.4 These two accounts hint that the members of the royal family possessed many ‘slaves’ of both genders, although we do not know to what extent we can rely on the actual numbers. Apart from this, both epigraphic and literary sources5 show that hundreds of ‘slaves’ (dāsa dāsī/ vahal) were granted to monasteries by monarchs6 again suggesting that the royal members possessed multitudes of them. The presence of a ‘slave’ superintendent of the Pandi king7 implies that a

8

The term used in the Galapāta record (12th /13th centuries AD) to denote hereditary slaves is anvāyagātha vahal. EZ 4, ins. no. 25 (ll.12-23).

1

Mv. 10. 91-93.

9

2

Mv. 73. 34-37.

10

EZ 2, no. 17.

3

Sīhalavattū. 45.

11

EZ 3, no. 11.

4

Ibid. 33 & 35.

12 Sdlkya 649. The precise date of the incident is difficult to trace because, though the source was compiled in the 13th /14th century AD, some of its accounts refer to the first century BC. Similar incidents of borrowing money refer to a famine in Anurādhapura in the first century BC, and perhaps this case also refers to the same famine. For more examples on donors of slaves to temples see Chap. 4: 49-51.

5

There are such cases reported from the seventh, 12th /13th, and 14th centuries AD.

6

E.g. Mv. 80. 35-36; 82. 64; EZ 4, no. 12 (l.20): 101 & 104.

7 Paranavitāna (1956) 652nd couplet. This could be one of the Pāndyan kings reigned between the sixth and eighth centuries AD, the dating given for Sīgiri Graffiti. This cannot be Parākramabāhu II called Pandi as he reigned in the 13th centuries AD.

Evers (1972): 109 (Appendix).

13 14

Mv. 41. 74.

Sdlkya. Rihal vastuva 598. It is difficult to trace the date of this account.

21

Dutch captives (in 1680 AD) living well with ‘slaves’ and servants having entered royal service, but the English captive Knox does not mention the type of service expected from them.1 Further, D’Oyly reports that a wife of a ‘first Adigār’ (= the modern post of Prime Minister) was accompanied by 20 ‘slaves.’2 Though the exact number of dāsa/ vahal owned by any particular monarch, his family and relatives is not known the likelihood is that they owned a considerable amount, which included ‘slaves’ who cultivated their land, and some bondsmen. The same appears to be true for his officers and their families, though the numbers in their possession may have been less than that of the royals and may have varied according to their rank.

Information from the Kändyan period too reveals ordinary or less well-to-do people owning ‘slaves’ in small numbers. Lawrie reports a grant to an anonymous individual of nine ‘slaves’ (‘two lads and seven lassies’) from the children of Vanni, a ‘slave,’ inherited by the anonymous granter from his/her grandmother.8 He further states that: ‘Kadakutti Appuhāmi had 3½ amunas of land and 6 slaves.’9 This information hints that these six were all the ‘slaves’ this person had. Evidently some people, perhaps less well-to-do, had a few ‘slaves’ in their possession. Lawrie informs us of two further cases in which one ‘slave’ each was given to two men as part of a dowry or as a bribe.10 Interestingly, a person of high caste reduced to ‘slavery’ for theft, but later raised to a better position, is reported to have owned sixty ‘slaves’ at the time of his death.11 All these details show that ‘slaves’ were used as any other material item of transaction and most middle-class families, presumably, owned at least one ‘slave’ who might be bondsmen paying debt or penalty restitution.

Ibn Battūta’s information that Ārya Cakravarthi3 gave him a palanquin and he was carried by the king’s ‘slaves’ to visit Adam’s peak4 suggests that the rulers in Jaffna (Tamil-speaking Northern provinces) also possessed ‘slaves.’ Here, the Tamil king is honouring his visitor by providing him the service of his own slaves. Moreover, it is also likely that he may also have rewarded at least few of his loyal officers by granting them slaves.

According to D’Oyly, low caste people (hina), who were the minority, were not allowed to possess ‘slaves’ although no caste was exempted from being reduced to ‘slavery’ except rodiyas (= candālas) “whose vileness would render them useless as slaves”.12 D’Oyly further notes that “the only people of inferior cast [sic] who possess slaves are goldsmiths” because ‘slaves’ were “presented to some of the petty chiefs and, but [sic] workmen by the late king- but these slaves though not of a superior Cast [sic] to the Goldsmiths, are very impatient of their thraldom to them-”13 But Hayley refers to a note of Sawers, to the effect that the batgam paduwās (one of the lowest subdivisions of lower castes) of Seven Kōrale had people of the palhoru paduwā caste as ‘slaves’.14 Moreover, Lawrie refers in

2.IV. General public as ‘slave’ owners: Furthermore, evidence also shows that in certain cases ordinary people became owners of large ‘slave’ numbers, but in all these cases their status was raised by giving them land and other necessities such as vehicles. For instance, several stories noted-above from Sīhalavatthūpakarana mention that the king Saddā Tiśsa (first century BC) bestowed one hundred dāsa dāsī on at least two ordinary individuals in two reported cases commending their pious deeds.5 Moreover, the king Niśsankamaĺla (1187-1196 AD) repeatedly mentions in his epigraphic records grants of vahal together with land and cattle to common people.6 Moreover, two epigraphic records of the same monarch express the monarch’s wish that the people of Ruhuna live possessing wealth, grain, and dāsi dāsayan.7

king Niśsankamaĺla have almost identical content. Cf. App. 2 no. 50. Also note that the status of the recipients of these donations is left obscure. 8

Gazetteer 665 in Lawrie Mss. 3: 300. Also cf. Gazetteer 769, 781, 191, 212 cited in Lawrie Mss 3: 300.

1

Knox 137 & 182 respectively.

2

D’Oyly Diary for 1810: 15.

9

Gazetteer 385 in ibid. Mss. 3: 301. According to Clough one amuna = 2 to 2½ acres. Áriyapāla too believes the measurements to be two acres ((1956): 154-155). However, Paranavitāna reports that Codrington estimated it as one acre in Úva province. (EZ 3: 190 note 2).

3

Ārya Cakravarthis (people of this dynasty) first came to Sri Lanka as generals of the army of the Pāndyan who invaded Sri Lanka and about the beginning of the 14th century AD established themselves as kings in the Up-country. They grew in power in the 14th century AD despite attempts of Sinhalese rulers to remove them. Finally, Ārya Cakravarthi was defeated and taken prisoner during the reign of Parakramabāhu VI (1410-1462). 4

Ibn Battūta 255.

5

Sīhalavattū 35 & 45.

10

Dowry & bribe: Gazetteer 396 & 610 respectively, & also in Lawrie Mss. 3: 300. Lawrie Mss. 3: 295.

12

Sawer’s Digest 29 in D’Oyly (1928): 189.

13 D’Oyly (1928): 189-190 mentions this referring to Sawer 29. Hayley (1923): Appendix 31 note 1 and Lawrie Mss. 3: 297 too refer to this account of Sawer.

6

EZ 1, no. 9 (l. 5); EZ 2, nos. 19, 21, 22, 24, 29; EZ 5, no. 43 & 44. Cf. App. 2 nos. 45-48 & 51-53.

7

11

14

Hayley (1923): 135 and note (k). Palhoru Paduwās could be a further subdivision among the Paduwā caste and perhaps inferior to Batgam Paduwās.

Dias (1991): 21-22, EZ 3, no. 35. Both records set by the

22

passing to a purchase of a ‘slave’ from a blacksmith.1 Thus, it is hard to say that, of inferior castes, only goldsmiths possessed ‘slaves’. Possibly, anyone irrespective of caste could own ‘slaves’ provided the ‘slaves’ were inferior to the owner in caste. The ruling that the ‘slaves’ should be inferior to the owner in caste may have been introduced, with the rising rigidity of the caste system, to prevent the loss of dignity of high caste people who became debt ‘slaves’/bondsmen of those of low castes. Niti-Niganduwa itself hints at the possibility of self-imposed ‘slavery’ of high caste women to low caste persons for unpaid debt or liability when referring to the fate of their offspring.2 However, the above noted implementations with regard to caste may have been essential in a society where the caste of a ‘slave’ affected the owner and to whom the ‘slave’ was given in marriage.3 Roberts, studying caste among Sinhalese from 1500-1931, mentions that Govigama caste (high caste) was the largest single caste, containing more or less half of the Sinhalese population.4 This suggests that the majority of ‘slaves’ in Sinhalese society were owned by the higher castes, since the lower castes were a minority and could not (at least in theory) own ‘slaves’ superior to them in caste. Temples, however, may not have faced such limitations in owning ‘slaves’, as they were regarded with equal eminence with the royal palace.5 Thus, such restrictions affecting ownership of ‘slaves’ were apparently engineered to protect the dignity of the castes, at least when the caste distinction was sharp.6

‘slavery’) when arranging their marriages. Also since all high caste people were not wealthy, the owners of large numbers of slaves may have been the few belonging to the upper divisions of the high caste. Even in the Tamil speaking Northern Provinces the caste distinction operated rigidly. The three categories of ‘slaves’ in these areas, known as k/cōviar, nalluva and pallava, were also considered inferior in caste to their masters, vellalas, who formed the majority of the population,7 and brahmans, who were a minority.8 Moreover, since the caste remained with the individuals even in servitude any vellala or brahman reduced to servitude (for instance due to poverty) may not have been compelled to work for any low caste person since the caste distinction seemed to have operated more rigidly in Jaffna than in the southern part of the island. Also it is likely that the ‘slaves’ of the k/cōviar caste may not have been lodged or compelled to work along with the ‘slaves’ of the nalluva and pallava castes who were regarded as ‘untouchables.’9 Summing up, in contrast to any other ‘slave’ holding society, the owners of ‘slaves’ had to obey the caste rulings, at least in the Kändyan kingdom (c.1522 – 1815). But there is no precise evidence to show how the caste demarcations that prevailed in Jaffna affected the ownership of ‘slaves’ prior to or/ and after the Dutch dominion.

2. V. Slave numbers:

Furthermore, it is likely that, the limitation in possessing ‘slaves’ and variant other regulations concerning ‘slavery’ and caste might have emerged as the society became very sensitive to caste distinction. As noted above, the prime concern of these limitations regarding caste seems to be to secure the dignity of the poor high caste people reduced to ‘slavery’ rather than affecting the ownership of ‘slaves’ by a handful of capable low caste persons. Obviously, people of high castes, being the majority, were not affected by this ruling on caste demarcation concerning the ownership of ‘slaves’ but had to respect the caste of the female ‘slaves’ (especially the poor high castes reduced to

The number of ‘slaves’ on the island in any given period of its history is not known and is also hard to estimate. The ‘slave’ numbers mentioned in parallel stories, datable to the first century BC, appear in the Sīhalavatthūpakarana,10 impart an identical moral i.e. offering meals to monks despite one’s poverty is meritorious enough to receive great wealth including multitudes of ‘slaves’ in one’s lifetime. These accounts mention that 100 or 200 ‘slaves’ and other wealth were gifted to ordinary individuals to commend their pious deeds by Saddhā Tiśsa. Their parallel nature and the round figures of slaves appear in them suggest that these stories provide stock numbers of ‘slaves’, possibly exaggerated, in an attempt to encourage such deeds. This raises doubt regarding the number of ‘slaves’ donated to temples mentioned in the Mahāvamsa, a compilation by Buddhist monks whose objective was apparently to eulogize the political and religious deeds of monarchs. But it cannot be totally dismissed that there were thousands of ‘slaves’ on the island. For instance, the Galapāta inscription registers 88 vahal in the preserved portion of the fragmentary

1 Lawrie Mss. 3: 309. Blacksmiths were lower in social rank to Goldsmiths. 2

NN 9.

3

NN 10.

4

Roberts (1982): 46. Cf. also Karunatilaka (1988): 14, who observes that the gahapathis (= govikula) continued to be the majority of the population. Cf. also App. 5: 123 note 07.

5

E.g. Knox 131 mentions that other than the Royal palace only the Buddhist temples were allowed to be white-washed. Monks being the followers of Buddha were considered superior to all even today.

6

Cf. App. 5: 122-124, a brief discussion on the caste system in historic Sri Lanka, to apprehend the nexus between caste and ‘slavery.’

7

Pfaffenberger (1982): 36 & 38; Banks (1960): 64.

8

Cf. App. 5: 125 table.

9

Cf. App. 5: 125 table.

10

23

Sihalavatthu. 45, 33.

record as the number of ‘slaves’ owned by the monastery concerned. On the other hand, the record of Mahinda IV in Mihintale registers 24 female ‘slaves’ (vatmindi) working in the monastery concerned.1 These figures may have some degree of accuracy, as they are obviously not round numbers. Although one may assume that the evidence in epigraphic records is more reliable than that in literary sources, unfortunately, it is impossible to check the numbers of ‘slaves’ living in any given period in the island’s history against any other information because it simply does not exist.

‘slaves’, no longer existed,8 and monasteries too might not have been major ‘slave’-holders.9 Although the ‘slave’ numbers may not have been static throughout the island’s history, the numbers may have been significantly higher, because of the ‘slaves’ of royal household and those in Buddhist temples, when Buddhism was thriving (first century BC to the 10th century AD at the least).

Lawrie quotes Davy 1816-1820 (a date outside our time frame) about the ‘slave’ population in Kändy: “what the total number of slaves may be in the Kändyan country, no register having been kept, it is impossible to estimate with any precision: an intelligent chief “…guessed that they amount to about 3000.”2 The result of the census of ‘slave’ population in 1818 mentioned by D’Oyly provides us an idea of the number of ‘slaves’ in the seven Kändyan provinces3 in the post-monarchical period. The census4 gives a total of 1,067 male and 1,046 female ‘slaves.’ Interestingly, there is no big discrepancy between the estimated figure and the 1818 census of the population of ‘slaves’ in the same region. Although it is doubtful whether this census included every ‘slave’ of the time, large numbers of ‘slaves’ probably did not escape notice.

The financial situation of an individual may have been the core issue that affected a person in possessing ‘slaves,’ prior to the time when the caste system evolved into rigidity in ancient Sri Lanka, as in any other slave holding community. But with the growth of the caste system, ‘caste’ seems to have played an equally important role as the financial capacity of an individual in possessing ‘slaves’. But such distinctions did not cause a large imbalance in the society depriving people from owning ‘slaves’ because majority of people were of high castes while a minority were of low castes,10 and even among high castes the ownership of large numbers of ‘slaves’ was limited to the higher subdivisions.

Analysis:

The non-wealthy high caste people may have owned a handful of ‘slaves’ for multiple tasks and mainly as agricultural aids. But it is likely that poor high caste people had no ‘slaves’ and possibly very few low-caste people had a handful, mainly to assist them in their trade.

The estimated number of slaves in Jaffna peninsula and Trincomalee at the same time was 22,000 (2000 domestics + 20,000 k/cōviar, nalluva and pallava).5 But, we do not know how many out of the 20,000 were Cōviar or Nalluva or Pallava, let alone their numbers and ownership pattern in pre-colonial times.6 Also the account is silent as to who these domestics were. Even the figures of Kandyan provinces may help little to estimate the numbers of ‘slaves’ during earlier phases in the island’s history because according to D’Oyly, all slaves in this time were private property.7 The royal household, which previously owned a large body of

Finally, the interesting point about the ownership of ‘slaves’ on the island is the impact of caste system, at least in the Kändyan provinces, alongside the financial status of a person, though it affected only a few low caste people, either being the creditors or entitled to receive a higher penalty restitution from a poor high caste person. But, sadly, it is hard to trace the origin and the evolution of the impact of caste on ownership of ‘slaves’ because when exactly the caste intruded into the social system and changed from a mild to rigid form is obscure.

1

Few such cases of temple slaves and slaves in the possession of lay donors would easily amount above 1000.

2

Davy, Ceylon 184 in Lawrie Mss. 3: 284.

3

According to D’Oyly there were 12 disāvenis in the Kandyan kingdom when British conquered it in 1815: Four Kōralēs, Seven Kōralēs, Ūva, Mātale, Sabaragamuva, Three Kōralēs, Walapane, Udapalāta, Nuvarakalāviya, Vellassa, Bintänna and Tamankaduwa (D’Oyly (1928): 121). Of these the first four were main disāvas, and the rest were minor disāvas (Devaraja (1988): 217). Probably, disāvas = modern ‘provinces’. 4

8

The monarchy ended in 1815 when the last king of Kandy was taken prisoner by English.

9

The royal patronage for temples began to diminish from the latter part of the 16th century when the plot hatched by some monks to dethrone the king Rajasinghe I was unveiled. The king slew all the monks involved in the coup, destroyed temples, confiscated lands and other property bestowed by former kings for their maintenance, set books (Buddhist texts) on fire (Mpuvata vv.55-71 & 86). Many monks disrobed /fled fearing the wrath of Rajasinghe. Under such situations, by the time of D'Oyly, there were, possibly, very few or no slaves in Buddhist temples. Cf. infra 25 note 03.

D’Oyly (1928): 121.

5 Pridham (1849): 229: ‘Domestics 2000; Covia, Nalluva & Palla, 20000. Total 22000.’ 6

Cf. also App. 5: 124

7

D’Oyly (1928): 119.

10

24

Cf. supra 23 note 04.

in mainland Greece, with few exceptions, were not big slaveholders.4

2. Comparison

Furthermore, the social structure of Sri Lanka in antiquity that obliged people of each professionally based caste to provide some free service to the king, precisely to the state, reduced the need for a stateowned group of slaves for public work5 unlike in Classical Athens.

Three categories of slave owners are observable in ancient Greek poleis and ancient Sri Lanka, though they do not tally in all three groups. Temples and private individuals as slave owners are common to ‘both countries,’ though they again vary in certain aspects, such as the number of slaves owned, due to their individual cultural and social differences. The exact number of slaves in any given place or time in ‘both societies’ is not known, though the numbers may obviously have fluctuated in ‘both societies’ over time. The situation is much better for Greece since there is relatively more information for Greek poleis than that for Sri Lanka because ‘slave’ numbers in ancient Sri Lanka remain hard to estimate due to scant evidence.

The private slave owners in the two communities, the main group discussed in this chapter, also show some comparisons but more contrasts. Slaves owned by slaves is an interesting issue that allows partial comparison, because, evidence in this concern for Sri Lanka is limited to one case from the Kandyan times, where a ‘slave’ apparently owned ‘slaves.’ However, in ‘both societies,’ slaves owning slaves would have been marginal. In Athens and possibly also in other Greek poleis, there was no social limitation to own slaves. Financial ability was the only qualification a citizen or a metic needed to own a slave in Athens and perhaps also in the other Greek poleis. A resemblance to Greek ownership of slaves was seemingly limited to the early eras in Sri Lankan history before the society was affected by the caste system (until the fifth century AD or perhaps the end of the tenth century AD). As Sri Lankan society underwent changes with the insertion of caste system, which gradually grew rigid, caste became as important as wealth when owning a ‘slave.’ But, ancient Greece produced no parallels for the development of such social restrictions on the ownership of slaves even affecting only a minority of the population as it did in ancient Sri Lanka. Moreover, at least during the Kandyan times, the caste identity of Sinhalese was not entirely lost even when they fell into slavery, (for instance due to poverty) though it affected only in matters of ownership and marriages of slaves6 and even in Tamil Jaffna the ‘slaves’ had a caste, in contrast to ancient Greece, where slaves lost all their previous social identity.

In ancient Sri Lanka, the ownership of ‘slaves’ was focused on the monarch who was the prime owner and source of ‘slaves’ to the other main owners in the island: his entourage and Buddhist temples,1 though these bodies increased their ‘slave’ numbers subsequently through other modes such as inheritance. The political system based on monarchy favoured such a pattern of ‘slave’ holding. Besides the royal family and officers, at least the main Buddhist temples owned a considerable number of ‘slaves’ working their lands when sponsored by monarchs and royal officers, but this declined in certain intervals in the island’s history such as during Tamil occupations2 and in certain phases after 1581 AD.3 But ancient Greek poleis do not produce a comparable force to Sri Lankan monarchs and their entourage even after the emergence of Hellenistic monarchy and Greek slave ownership is predominantly dispersed among private individuals. Even the Greek temples especially

Finally, in both ancient Greek poleis and Sri Lanka there was an imbalance in the distribution of slaves.7 Naturally, while wealthy individuals were equipped with large numbers of ‘slaves’, non-wealthy had a few or no ‘slaves’. But unlike in ancient Sri Lanka, where large slave holdings flocked into the highest social strata and to temples that were patronised by this social group, in ancient Athens, the most informative Greek polis in this concern, slaves were not grouped in large

1

As noted above even some ordinary people received slaves from certain kings as a commendation for their pious deeds. Cf. supra 21 & 22.

2

E.g. that of Māgha in 1213-1234 AD.

3

From 1581 king Rajasinha I was heavily fighting Portugese, (Ilangasinghe (1983): 175) and the exposure of some monks involved in plots to assassinate the king earned royal wrath towards Buddhism curtailing royal patronage for temples. Cf. supra note 111. By the time of Narēndrasingha (1707-1739) only a few monks were left in the island. Though Buddhism was restored in 1753 with an embassy of Siamese monks, (Ilangasinhe (1983): 176), it probably did not receive proper patronage after Narēndrasingha, who died without offspring to be his proper heir as the Sinhalese throne passed to Nāyakkāŕs (Hindus). Nāyakkāŕs converted to Buddhism to justify their claim to the throne but were not true Buddhists (Deverājah (1988): 163-164).

4

Cf. Chap. 4 for more.

5

Cf. supra 21.

6

Cf. supra 23.

7

Regarding the Kändyan period I am considering those who were allowed to have slaves.

25

holdings but scattered in the society, though not all Athenians were slave owners. Though Athens cannot be taken as a model to represent the other Greek poleis it is still safe to suggest that all Greeks were not slave owners. Likewise, not all Sri Lankans, even of high castes, were slave owners.

26

housekeepers and doorkeepers on the one hand and account-keepers and bankers on the other may have been rather specialised and was required for only a few households and may not have been as physically demanding as the work in the kitchen or at the loom. But, since the number of slaves in most Greek households was few, the available slaves were likely to have performed multiple tasks (sometimes even including fieldwork), with some help from the mistress/master.

Chapter 3:

Conditions of slaves in ancient Greek poleis and ancient Sri Lanka 1. Conditions of slaves in ancient Greek poleis

These features observed in relation to Athenian domestics may have been little different from those of the domestic slaves in many other Greek poleis.

This section not only deals with normal chattel slavery (especially that in Athens), but also with more special kinds of slavery such as Spartan helots and other parallel un-free types.

In certain cases some domestic slaves were brought up with the master or mistress or were their faithful nurses. Such long-term relations may result in mutual affection between the master and slave, resulting in loyal service of the slave and kind treatment from the master6 who may tolerate the slave’s familial relations and peculium (savings). Such ties with the master/mistress may lead to prospective freedom for the slave either during the lifetime or through the testament of the master.7 Also, slaves working with the mistress/master may enjoy good treatment as they had the chance to impress their mistress/master with loyal service. But some slaves might also suffer from frequent contacts with a lustful or cruel master/mistress. Further, domestic slaves per se did not receive fine treatment from their masters/mistresses in all times though they had a better chance to achieve such conditions.

1. I. Based on their duties: Slaves were employed by both private individuals and public bodies to obtain various services, mainly menial. For some areas, (e.g. Samos and Cos1) evidence is insufficient to assess their condition or to compare them with those in Athens. Regarding Crete, the code of Gortyn suggests that there were domestic slaves (dolos) while the serfs (oikeis) were presumably used for agriculture,2 but says little on their treatment. Of the Spartan helots it is probable that the nature of helots’ duties or rapport with their master/mistress had some effect on their condition since the state interfered in the management of helots although they were the private property of Spartiates.3 Further, though the penestai of Thessaly, katōnakē-wearers4 of Sicyon and gymnētes of Argos were compared to Spartan helots, this furnishes little detail of their individual conditions. In such circumstances the present section mainly focuses on Athenian slavery to observe how the nature of slaves’ duties affected their condition.

(b) Agricultural slaves: Though the literary sources show that slaves were used for agricultural work in ancient Greece, the extent of slave labour for agricultural work in ancient Greece, specifically in Attica, is a point of dispute among modern scholars. Prior to discussing the impact of the duties on the condition of these field slaves, it is necessary to establish the use of slaves in agriculture in

(a) Domestic slaves: All duties assigned to domestic slaves were menial, and they could also be physically exacting either due to the nature of their tasks or when prolonged service was required or due to both as in most cases.5 The work of 1

e.g. Antiph. 2, 1. 9; Xen, Oec. 11. 15; Mem. 2, 1.9 & 13; Ar. Ran. 2. 1-40. Wool working is not represented as a menial or strenuous task since even free wealthy women engaged in such activities (eg: Xen. Oec. 7. 6, Hom. Od. 2, 95-99; 7, 231-235. Cf. also Lewis (2002): 62-65: wool working not necessarily a slave work), but when assigned to slaves the nature of the job probably changed demanding more out put and prolonged working hours. Also, running errands, nursing and attending children, being personal attendants and accompanying mistress to festival (examples for each of these slave duties cf. Sargent (1925): 44-45) could also be onerous when demanded prolonged service.

Samos: Hdt. 3. 42, 148. Cos: Hdt. 6. 137, 9. 76 & 82.

2

The serfs and slaves are clearly distinguished in the Gortyn Code e.g. by different fines imposed for rape cases: col. II 216, 21-27. Dolos: col. VII (ll. 10-15). Willetts (1977): 173 rendered oikeis as ‘serf’. Cf. also Lévy (1997): 25-41.

3

Cf. Chap. 2: 16-17 for more on ownership of helots.

4

6 Plaut., Capt. Also Dem. 47. 55, 56, 58, 67 describes how the manumitted old nurse of the speaker was admitted to the house and was treated as a member of the household when she came to the house as a widow. This hints that she was well treated during her servitude in the house.

Some texts call the serfs of Sicyon, korynēphoroi: Poll. 3. 83; Stephanus of Byzantium s.v. ‘Chios’.

5

Kitchen work such as fetching water, threshing and grinding corn, and cleaning jobs such as doing laundry may have demanded continuous service around the year. Of these fetching water could be the hardest due to its necessity in large amounts round the clock and year, sometimes even at night. Carrying burdens for the master may also have been strenuous:

7

Most slaves freed in the wills of Athenian philosophers (Diog. Laert 5) were domestics.

27

Attica. Fisher examines the two extreme notions on the use of slaves in agriculture in Attica under the tags ‘minimalist’ and ‘maximalist’ versions.1 In former the scholars such as Jones argue that very little slave labour was used even in large farms.2 As to the other ‘maximalist’ view, scholars such as Jameson, Garlan and de Ste Croix3 argue that many more ordinary farmers made some use of slave labour not to mention the wealthy. However it would be reasonable to accept, as noted by Wood, Sallares, Sinclair and Hansen, that the rich farmers exploited many slaves as they needed while the ordinary farmers also used slaves according to their financial capacity besides using hired labour and the assistance of their family and friends.4 But, when only a couple of slaves are available their prime task may have been agriculture.

slaves. Further, in cases of rich absentee farm owners, slaves may have worked under a bailiff, authorised by the owner to punish the offensive and lazy slaves while rewarding loyal and industrious slaves.8 In such cases the lack of direct contact with the master may deter a proper master-slave bond, preventing possible chance for these slaves to receive manumission gratis from the master. But the situation may have differed when the master was working along with the slaves, which gave slaves constant direct access to the master.

(c) Slave craftsmen: Slaves were also employed in various forms of ergasterion (workshops) that worked, for instance, metals (such as iron or bronze), wood, leather, stone (marble), clay (vases etc.,), textile and also in perfumeries.9 Moreover, citizen or metic craftsmen hired themselves along with their slave assistants for public building projects.10 The observation of Osborne that most skilled artisans were freemen11 implies that slaves were mainly used as assistants to perform menial and more strenuous tasks. Slave overseers may have been used to manage the workshops that employed large slave numbers.12 Evidence also shows that responsible positions were entrusted to some slaves, who were managers of factories, or directors of banks.13 But such occupations may surely have been limited to a handful of loyal slaves. Further, there was a group of slaves, known as chōris oikountes, living and working away from the master while paying him, apparently, a fixed amount from their income.14

Accordingly, one may safely suggest that the employment of slave labour depended upon the necessity and the ability of a person to maintain them. Although Aristophanes does not present many slaves working in the field in his scenes, this does not imply a less use of slaves in agriculture as such cases may have been affected by other external factors.5 Moreover, domestic slaves especially of poor Athenians may certainly have worked in the field when necessary and we clearly see the aspiration of farmers reflected in Strepsiades, to send slaves to the field.6 Moreover, the picture produced by the Oeconomicus (the early fourth century BC), that a prosperous and diligent land-owner had many farms worked chiefly by slave labour, cannot be totally ignored.7 Both wealthy as well as poor farmers probably hired the extra labour needed for peak times (e.g. harvesting time).

The nature of the duties of most slave craftsmen may have been hardly less arduous and menial, although

But how did these duties shape the condition of these slaves? Obviously, the nature of their work was Herculean, and work in a rural scenario may not have given chattel slaves much chance to amass peculium (savings), though masters may nonetheless have tolerated the savings and ‘familial relations’ of loyal

8 Xen. Oec. 21. 10 mentions that the slave manager in the field or in industry, must have the authority to reward good slaves and to punish bad ones. 9

Examples in Sargent (1925): 94 note 39.

10

1

Fisher (1995): 41-43.

2

Jones (1957): 3-20.

IG I³ 476. 183 ff. (in 408/7 BC). Cf. also Randall (1953): 199-210 for a discussion on the issue. 11

3

12

Jameson (1978): 122-145 (Also cf. Jameson (1992): 135146), Garlan (1988): 60-64, and de Ste. Croix (1981): 505-506.

The shield factory of Lysias and his brother employed 120 slave workers (Lys. 12. 9 & 19). In 360 BC Demosthenes’ father had 32/3 and 20 slaves working in his sward and knife factory and couch factory respectively (Dem. 27. 9). The amount of slave craftsmen assumed to have worked in the shield factory of Pasion was ‘not many more than 60’ (Dem. 36. 5 & 11. Cf. Sargent (1925): 98). Besides, Timarchus in 345 BC owned 9 or 10 shoemakers (Aeschin. 1. 97). The number of slave coppersmiths owned by Leocrates is estimated as less than 15 (Lycurg. Leoc. 58. Cf. also Sargent (1925): 100 & note 69).

4

On the moderate version of the Minimalist view cf. Wood (1988) esp. chap. 2, the same view was held by Osborne (1985): 142-146, Sallares (1991) 55 and Fisher (1995): 41. Gallant (1991): 30-33, carefully analyses both Jameson’s (1978) and Wood’s (1983): 31, (1988) works and further develops the argument of Wood. As to the moderate version of the ‘maximalist’ view cf. Sinclair (1988): esp. 198. Also cf. Hansen (1991): esp. 317-318.

5

13 Proprietor of a shop: Dem. 36. 11, 28; Aeschin, 1. 97. As foreign agent: Dem. 34. 5. As director of a bank: Dem. 36. 28, 45. 71, 72.

As Lévy (1974): 36 believes that the Peloponnesian War was partly responsible for such outcomes.

6 7

Osborne (1995): 30.

Ar. Nub. 5 & 6.

14

Examples in Aeschin. 1. 97, Isae. 8. 35. Cf. Perotti (1974): 46-56, for an opposite view.

Xen. Oec. 5. 15.

28

The limited sized galleries,10 heat, poor lighting and ventilation added to an extreme level of torment11 most probably shortening the life expectancy of these miners. The condition of those engaged in processing the ore12 might have been little better than that of those working inside the mine; their task could have been equally laborious13 and it is likely that they also had to work inside the mine at one time or the other.

they had a better chance to amass their peculium (savings) through diligence. The condition of those managed by slave overseers could have been similar to that of the agricultural slaves managed by slave bailiffs, except the chance they enjoyed in amassing their savings. The situation of chōris oikountes may have been even better as they supposedly paid a fixed rent out of their income possibly allowing them to save any extra income earned through hard work giving them a chance to collect their manumission fee relatively quicker than the other slaves. Though familial relations of chōris oikountes were likely to have been better tolerated, how such relations transpired with other slave craftsmen is obscure.1

Equally laborious could be the work in stone quarries. The construction of Greek temples and other buildings along with marble sculptures show active stone quarrying.14 Although most of the quarries were open pits, work in them may have been exhausting. The Captivi of Plautus, with scenes in Aetolia during ElisAetolia war, refers to sending slaves to quarries in heavy chains as a normal manner of punishing them for severe offences.15

(d) Slaves in mines and stone quarries: A typical kind of slavery that stood apart from other types in ancient Greece was that in mines. Archaeological and literary sources reveal that silver mines at Laurion were worked by slaves2 owned by Athenians and metics usually hired for this service, and their daily wage, one obol,3 was collected by the owner.4 Notably, the importance of Athenian silver mines varied from time to time, obviously producing different demands on slave labour: though the mines were used from the sixth century BC they became economically significant only from 483 BC which continued through the fifth century BC.5 Moreover, Xenophon’s advice to Athenians to increase mine production in 360 BC could reflect the low out-put of the time.6 Not only Athens had mines7 but also some other Greek states such as Thasos (gold), Siphnos (gold & silver),8 and Maroneia (silver),9 which presumably exploited them with slave labour. Nonetheless, it is universally agreed that work in mines especially in ancient times was physically exacting and appalling.

Archaeological evidence suggests that ‘mining slaves’ were lodged in the vicinity of mines where they worked with rough living conditions.16 Thus, the life of the slaves working in stone quarries would have been even worse as they apparently lived in the quarry they worked.17 Under these conditions it is hard to imagine that these slaves had a chance to enjoy ‘familial relations’ or to amass peculium (savings). Even the Delphic manumission records do not register manumission of any mining slave. Moreover, the appalling conditions 10 Davies (1979): 256-259. Cf. also Theoph. De Lapidibus 6364 = Humphrey, Oleson et al. (1998): 185. 11

Healy (1978): 82 & 133, & Ardaillon (1897): 49-53. Theoph. De Igne 24= Humphrey, Oleson et al. (1998): 190.

12

Conophagus (1980): 345-349 estimates that in Laurion mines 40% of skilled craftsmen may have worked on the surface of the mine processing the ore.

1

Perhaps, industrious and loyal slaves in workshops too were given a chance to reproduce as hinted in Xenophon’s slave management Oec. 21. 10.

13

For miserable nature of the work in mines cf. Agatharchides quoted in Forbes (1963): 143-144.

2

Xen. Vect. 4. 14-16, 23-25; Mem. 2, 5. 2; cf. Sallares (1991): 57-60, Fisher (1995): 47-48, Morris (2001): 195: silver mines in Laurion. Also cf. Forbes (1963): 227, Davies (1979): 239268, Conophagos (1980): 341-349, Thompson (2003): 144-148 for mining in ancient Greece.

14

Strabo (9.1. 23/ c400) informs us that the best quarries for marble (Hymettan and Pentelic) are close to Athens. Plin. (HN 36. 14) reports that all Archaic Greek sculptures of Chios used only white marble from Paros, which they called lychnites because, according to Varro, it was quarried in galleries by the light of lamps.

3

Xen, Vect. 4. 14-17.

4

Andoc. 1. 30.

15

5

Andreades (1933): 269, Sargent (1925): 88.

16

6

Xen. Vect. 4. 15-16. Also cf. Forbes (1963): 45.

7

Hdt. 7. 144 refers to Athenian silver mines.

Plaut. Capt. (l. 774).

Also see Morris (2001): 199 & 211 who illustrates the miserable life of slaves who worked in Laurion silver mines. 17 Also notable is the way the captured troops of Athenians and their allies were treated by the Syracusans by confining them into stone quarries, where they apparently lived and worked. The harsh condition is displayed when most of the captured Athenians died of disease and inadequate food, while some were sold as slaves being tattooed a horse mark on the forehead (Plut. Nic. 28-29). The condition of slaves worked in quarries was probably similar to that endured by these war captives.

8

Cf. Bent (1885): 195-198; Perdrizet (1910): 1-27. Also cf. Hdt. 6. 46.

9

Arist. Ath. pol. 22.7. Cf. Forbes (1963): 139-140 for more detail on locations of Greek mines.

29

of slaves in mines and in stone quarries may have been similar, whether they worked in Athens or elsewhere in Greece.

dēmosioi seem to have had some free time for themselves outside working hours when they were free from the surveillance of the officers. According to the case of Nicomachus,11 the state appears to have tolerated familial relations of the public slaves. Though one may argue that the state tolerated the savings of public slaves, because Pittalacus, lived in his own house, probably a rented property, and had ‘plenty of wealth’12 one needs to remember that Pittalacus’ status as a public slave is dubious.13 The material situation of public slaves could have been superior to that of the other slaves since they received a daily ration of three obols.14 They may have been in a position to collect ‘wealth’ by saving a part of their ration,15 or perhaps by doing odd jobs during off-duty times. Nonetheless, we do not know how the dēmosioi lived other than from the above-cited evidence and the inventory of the temple of Eleusis registering expenses for 17 of them.

(e) Dēmosioi (public slaves): In Athens these were slaves owned by the state (dēmosioi), at least in Classical times, to execute various duties for the state.1 Evidence for parallel groups of slaves in other Greek-cities is wanting. The Athenian dēmosioi assisted Athenian officers to carry out social, economic, and political tasks performing all required menial work: cleaning streets, mending roads,2 executing culprits,3 torturing slaves,4 arranging court rooms,5 performing police duties,6 assisting officers in charge of finance and administration7 to name a few. Besides these duties, some 17 Athenian dēmosioi were assigned to work for the temple of Eleusis.8 Though the tasks of these public slaves in the temple are not clear, the clothing (leather jackets and shoes, and felt caps) provided for them suggests that they were engaged in some outdoor activity/ies required by the temple.9 Although this is the only recorded case, possibly Athens assigned its dēmosioi to other Athenian temples as well to cover labour demands.

1.II. Condition of slaves based on the treatment they received: This section reviews the legal status of Athenian slaves, Cretan slaves/serfs and that of Spartan helots, also how the masters treated their slaves/serfs, and any factors that influenced the treatment of slaves and how the society tolerated that.

As noted above, all public slaves were entrusted to perform menial work for the city and were also liable for corporal punishment for any mishap.10 However physically exacting or menial their tasks could be,

a. Legal restrictions: Athenian slaves per se were not considered ‘persons’ but an animate property belonging to the master, who could sell, purchase,16 hire,17 transfer to new heirs or

1

Jacob (1928) provides a lengthy and more complete study on Athenian public slaves, studying their duties and conditions in detail. Sargent (1925) too discusses the number of Athenian public slaves.

11 Lys. 30.2, casually mentions that a son of a public slave could be a potential citizen who might rise to a responsible position. Although all sons of public slaves might not rise as did Nicomachus the essence of the tale is that the state tolerated their ‘families.’

2

Cf. ibid. (1928): 13-20 for examples and discussion on these two duties of dēmosioi. 3

Cf. ibid. (1928): 81 note 05.

4

Cf. ibid. (1928): 86-87 for details.

5

Examples in ibid. (1928): 90.

6

Cf. Chap. 2: 16 note 05.

12

13 Fisher (2000): 66-67 argues persuasively that Aeschines himself has made the status of Pittalacus deliberately obscure to help his own purpose. 14

7

IG II. 1 no. 403 (ll.36ff). This refers to 221/220 BC, but as noted above this could be a continuation of the practice from earlier times. Cf. also Wiedemann (1981) no. 162: 156. 8

IG II² 2/3 1672 (l. 5). Cf. Jacob (1928): 30.

15 Randall (1953): 209, referring to Glotz’s (1926): 286 estimates, mentions that a working man could eat well with one obol a day or sixty drachmae a year. Even the daily wages for Athenian jurors was two obols and it was revised in 425 BC to three obols (Arist. Ath. Pol. 27.3, 62.2) Cf. also Jones (1957): 5.

IG II² 2/3 1672.

9 IG II² 2/3 1672 (ll. 102-105). Also cf. Jacob’s (1928) table in 37. Jacob cogently argues that the epistatai mentioned in the document (e.g. ll. 5, 42) along with the dēmosioi were also dēmosioi because in cases of private exploitation of slave labour, the workers were under the authority of a steward: epistatēs or epitropos, (Epistatēs: Xen. Oec.21. 3, 9. Epitropos: ibid. 12.5; 15. 5; 21. 9) whose condition was generally servile (Jacob (1928): 26 note 4). 10

Aeschin. 1. 54-59.

16 Selling slaves: e.g. Diog. Laert. 5. 55 & Theophr. Char. 17. 16 refers to buying slaves. Cf. also Aristotle’s will in Diog. Laert. 5. 14-15. 17

E.g. Xenophon (Vect 14-16) reports that Nicias, Hipponicus and Philomedes hired hundreds of slaves to work in mines at Laurion. He further suggests that Athens should invest in slaves by hiring public slaves for the same task. (ibid. 16-25) Also cf. Theophr. Char. 30. 17.

E.g. SEG 26. 72 (ll. 13-16). Cf. infra 33 for detail.

30

offer them (slaves) as gifts.1 Also they had no right to have families or to own property.2 Also no slave could make any claim for freedom unless s/he was an Athenian citizen illegally reduced to slavery. Besides these measures that curbed Athenian slaves’ social life they also experienced certain legal disabilities. The prime motive of these rules seems to be to keep slaves under the absolute control of the master and to preserve and reinforce the disparity between slaves and free.

that there was no set punishment for killing a slave.10 Sadly, it is not known whether a parallel legal restriction existed in another Greek city. However, a routine system to punish slaves merely to remind them of their status, as is alleged to have exercised in Sparta,11 is not reported to have existed elsewhere in Greece. Despite such legal disabilities of slaves, there appears to be some legal coercion in Athens to protect slaves against brutal treatment. The Old Oligarch states that slaves cannot be struck in Athens other than by the master12 and a man could be charged for such tyrannical behaviour vis-à-vis a slave by graphē hubreōs13 under which the offenders could even be condemned to death.14 Rihll rightly argues that the Athenian hubris law was really aimed at discouraging malicious behaviour in the master-class against citizens preserving the decorum and honour of freemen, but not at protecting slaves.15 Further, a master could charge a murderer of a slave either by dikē phonou or by dikē blabēs, for damaging his property.16 Although in most cases the charges took the latter form, at least in two cases the killer of a slave was charged with normal dikē phonou.17

The slaves were excluded from citizens’ gymnasia, palaistra and ecclesia, forbidden to have homosexual relations with free boys or to solicit them and were banned from bringing a suit themselves against any offence in a court of justice without been represented by the master. Further, they were expected to answer every offence with their body (to sōma),3 and the extension of which perhaps led to basanos4: torturing a slave in a law court to validate the evidence s/he provides. This bizarre system of torturing slaves to gain evidence was apparently a well-recognized and established custom among Athenians despite the brutality involved.5 Evidence shows serious state interests in implementing this custom.6 But, among the 42 cases in the surviving law-court speeches that show agreement to obtain evidence from a slave under torture none of them finally practise basanos. In 40 of them the opponent rejects the challenge and in the other two an apparent agreement takes place objecting the procedure.7 However, non-practice of basanos could be incidental and should not lead to a negative assumption.8

To what extent such legal duress prevented masters from ill-treating their slaves is unknown. A slave was banned from litigating him/ herself and generally had no one to do this for him/her, unless an enemy of the master took the opportunity to slander him by prosecuting him. Another piece of evidence in Antiphon18 hints that purifying himself might be all a master did if he killed his slave, if no one sued him. But a master would rarely kill or maim a slave since that would cause either a dead loss or devalue his property.

Moreover, murder of slaves whether premeditated or not, was tried in the Palladion, where unpremeditated murder of citizens and all types of homicide of metics and foreigners were tried. One may assume from this change of venue that the punishment for pre-meditated killing of slaves was less severe than that imposed for premeditated killings of citizens.9 Evidence also hints 1

E.g. Diog. Laert. 5. 14; 5. 73.

2

Cf. infra 34-35 for detail.

3

Examples for these cases in Harrison (1968): 166-167.

Palladion. 10 Lycurg. Leoc. 65 states that in the past, the killer of a slave could not escape with a fine implying that in his days it was possible. Dem. 59.10: the penalty could be either exile or disenfranchisement. 11

Myron of Priene ap. Ath. 657d.

12

Xen. Ath. Pol., 1.10.

13

Dem. 21.47.

14

Dem. 21. 47-49; Aeschin 1. 15-16.

15

Rihll (1996): 109.

16

Cf. Harrison (1968): 169.

4

This is a criticized feature of Athenian law. For more detail on basanos see Gagarin (1996): 1-18 and also Mirhady (2000): 53-74.

5

E.g. Dem. 29. 25, 38, 55, 56; 30. 35; Aeschin. 2. 126.

6

Magistrates investigating a crime, or the Council, could force a master to surrender his slaves to obtain evidence presumably through basanos as evident in Andoc. 1. 64 & 12.

7

Isoc. 17. 12-16; Dem. 37. 40-42.

8

Cf. also Finley (1980): 93-94.

17 Two cases are reported in which the killers were charged with murder: Isoc. 18. 52-53; Dem. 59. 9-10. In both of these cases the charges were not apparently brought by the master. cf. also MacDowell (1963) index s.v. Slave; Morrow (1937): 210-227.

9

Arist. Ath. Pol. 57. 3; Isoc. 18. 52. Dem. 47. 70; Aeschin. 2. 87 with Schol. Isoc. & Dem. mention cases where dikē phonou was brought against a third party, and the cases were brought in

18

31

Antiph. 6. 4. Cf. also Harrison (1968): 172.

Slaves could seek asylum either at the altar of the Eumenides on the Areopagus or at the Theseion1 against cruelty of their master, though it did not end servitude but only brought a change of master (in adverse cases) or a return to the same master.

the Spartan mechanism of removing aggressive and provocative helots.9 Plutarch also tells us of stigmatisation, humiliation and intoxication to which helots were subjected by their masters.10 Like chattel slaves in other states, helots could seek asylum at the shrine of Poseidon at Perioikic Tainaron, but this was not always respected by their masters.11 The legal statuses of serfs elsewhere in Greece besides the detail that the Thesselian penestai were not sold out of their country are unknown.12

It is also interesting to inquire the legal restraints of Athenian public slaves. Jacob points out that in a strict sense it was the state that paid compensation for damage caused by a public slave, implying that he/she was still not considered a full individual responsible for him/herself.2 Jacob further points out that, in legal cases the public slaves had to be represented by the officer who obtained their service for the city.3 This suggests that the Athenian public slaves may also have been legally handicapped just as chattel slaves.

Greek slaves were excluded from certain religious ceremonies and public sacrifices such as when sacrificing to Hera in her temple in Cos,13 but there were also certain religious concessions granted to slaves. They were, for instance, admitted to thiasoi or religious associations of a private character, which foreigners were allowed to establish. In Rhodes, for instance, public slaves formed this society under the patronage of Zeus Atabyrios and one of them served as the priest.14 Furthermore, there were other festivals in Greece such as the Eleusinian mysteries, which did not exclude slaves.15 Slaves also had their own festivals: the first day of anthesteria in Athens,16 a festival in Arcadia, the third day of the Hyacinthia in Sparta, the Hermaea in Crete where the slaves feasted and masters performed menial duties, and Troezenians and the Pelasgians (in Tempe) feasted slaves in the festival honouring Zeus Pelôrius.17 It is not clear whether all domestic slaves, let alone slaves working in mines and fields, were allowed to participate in these festivals. However, public slaves who apparently had fixed

Thucydides states that slaves in Chios were treated ‘particularly severely for their offence’ due to their mass numbers.4 But of Chian slaves we know next to nothing besides this detail. According to Aristotle, Cretan slaves enjoyed all rights except exercising in gymnasia and owning weapons,5 but he does not clarify whether he means both domestic slaves and serfs or only one category.6 Cretan serfs are usually compared to Spartan helots and Thesselian penestai since they shared with them the condition not to be sold out of the country.7 Further, since even chattel slaves seems to have been able to swear a valid oath, serfs, who apparently were in a better position than chattel slaves, also probably, enjoyed this privilege.

helots they were seen as common enemies (polemioi) of Sparta, legalising helot killing and freeing the killer of religious pollution (de Ste. Croix (1981): 149).

Spartan helots were also banned from all political actions. The Spartan law that obliged Ephors to declare war annually upon helots justifying the killing of helots with religious impunity8 shows a close link to krypteia,

9

Cf. Chap. 4: 69 for detail.

10 1

Etym. Magn. 451, 40; Philoch., FGrH 328. 177, with Jacoby’s notes. Cf. Lipsius (1905): 643 for the contrary view. For the altar of Eumenides or Furies in Theseion: Ar., Eq. (ll. 1311-1312). For altar at Areopagus: Thesm. (l. 224).

11 Cartledge (2002): 141. For breach of this religious protection Cf. ibid. 214. For a similar protection for slave refugees in the Temple of Heracles in Egypt cf. Bömer (1960): 18-20 and also Hdt. 2, 113. 2.

2

Jacob (1928): 158.

3

Ibid. (1928): 160-162.

4

Thuc. 8. 40. 2.

13

5

Arist. Pol. 2. 5. 19/ 1264a11.

14

12 Archemachus, History of Boeotia (FrGH 424 F1). This refers to one version of the origin of penestai. Ath. 264a & b.

Ath. 262c and 639d repeats the same detail.

Fgt. of an inscription restored by Keil (Philologus 2nd supp. 612) cited by Foucart (1873): 112.

6

Van Wees (2003): 58 mentions that the Cretan serfs were apparently exempted from domestic work based on Athenaeus’ (263e) claim that domestic-servants in Crete were called chrysonetai ‘bought with gold’ which must mean chattel slaves rather than serfs. The Gortyn code also refers to doloi ‘bought in the market’ and Willetts rightly reads doloi in the code [col. VII (ll. 9-11)] as chattel slaves; cf. also (1967): 14.

7

Plut. Lyc. 28.

15

Dem. 59.21-22.

16

Procl. Schol. Hes. Op. 368. Cf. also Ath. 437e. Also Burkert (1983): 227-228. Dem. 21. 52-53 states that the oracle had predicted a day of rest for free and for slaves during the festival of Dionysus. But the authenticity of the oracles is disputed. Cf. Hervagault & Mactoux (1974): 71 note 5.

Strabo 12. 3, 4/ c542.

17 Ath. 4. 149d (Arcadia), 139f-140a (third day of Hyacinthia in Sparta); 14. 639b (Hermaea in Crete), 639c (Troezen), 640a (Pelasgians). Cf. Wallon (1988): 259 for more.

8

Arist. fr. 538 in Plut. Lyc. 28. 7. The religious pollution was believed to have incurred by killing anyone who was not an enemy (polemios) of Sparta, but by declaring war against

32

working hours may have had some chance for such entertainment.

arrival in the household, transforming the slave into household property and re-naming him/her.7 Although such a ‘welcome’ did not guarantee fine treatment to domestic slaves it may have set some foundation to a master-slave bond. We do not know whether the slaves purchased for commercial pursuits such as for agriculture or work in mines also underwent any initiation. Furthermore, evidence does not testify the prevalence of a parallel custom in any other Greek polis.

b. Treatment and tolerance of master vis-à-vis his slave: (i). Disposing of slaves and masters’ right to punish them: Greek slaves being a piece of property of their masters’ were liable to be sold, purchased, gifted away, hired, or inherited, separating them from their relatives and reducing them to the status of strangers in the society.

(ii. a). Food: Aristophanes shows that slaves were fed on rations of barley product (of which he speaks disparagingly) and figs weighed by the master.8 This cannot be dismissed as a mere comic burlesque since other evidence confirms that masters measured daily provisions for slaves.9 Sour wine and salt fish were provided for agricultural workers at Panticapaeum in Crimea, perhaps with bread of home-grown grain.10 Moreover, a fragment from Antiphanes’ The slave who couldn’t be sold, shows that slaves were not allowed to eat even leftovers (of milk-cakes, and bits of chicken)11 but whether this refers to a particular occasion or to a normal custom is not clear. Macarius relates a similar custom in his Coan Antiquity, referring to leftovers of food prepared for the festival to Hera.12

Concerning punishing slaves, masters had legal authority to punish their slaves by subjecting them, for instance, to starvation, fetters, and to blows.1 Whipping was practised both privately and publicly for all slaves regardless of gender or the type of ownership, was the commonest form of punishment.2 In Athens, run-away slaves were branded (or rather tattooed).3 The ultimate threat to a slave as a punishment was to send him/her with heavy chains to the mill where slaves were tortured and put to heavy work.4 Slaves were even publicly tortured for heinous crimes: Aristophanes mentions the use of the wheel and whip to punish a slave deserter5 and torture of the slave pallake in Antiphon is considered a form of penalty for the slave by some scholars.6 Slaves may have died from torture, like the pallake.

The quantity and quality of food given to slaves may have depended upon the temperament of the master and the wealth of the household,13 but, as Burford suggests slave food might have been little worse than that of many citizens, who lived frugally, with little or no meat other than in times of sacrifices.14

In summation, all slaves/serfs were subject to punishments at least at the hand of their masters for unsatisfactory conduct or service.

The prime sign of tolerance of Athenian masters of their domestic slaves is shown in the friendly initiation ceremony performed by the mistress throwing sweetmeats upon the head of a purchased slave upon

Although the exiguous information does not tell us how Cretan slaves/serfs or Spartan helots or any other group of serfs was fed, their diet may possibly have been mostly frugal. We do not have precise detail regarding the diet of helots or that of the other serfs, but it is likely that it was not far different from that of free poor in their respective societies.

1

Xen. Mem. 2, 1. 15-17. Modes of punishing slaves with whipping, confining to chains and depriving food are represented in Attic comedies through their laments, fears and complaints. For examples see Hunter (1992): 285.

7

2

Slaves nick-named mastigas (whipping-post) in comedies. Regarding examples for whipping private and public slaves see Hunter (1992): 280, also cf. 286. Cf. also Harrison (1968): 281.

9

3

10

(ii). Tolerance:

Ar. Plut., 768 and Schol. on this passage, & Dem. 45.70-74. Cf. Ehrenberg (1951): 169 note 6 for more cases.

8

Theophr. Char. 30. 11 and 10. Cf. also Phoenix fr.8 Loeb in Burford (1993): 215: A ‘bit of figs and barley bread’ mentioned as slave diet.

Examples for branding and tattooing runway slaves appear in Hunter (1992): 281-282. Cf. also Jones (1987): 141-142.

Dem. 35. 32.

11

Antiphanes Frg. 89 in Kassel & Austin (1981). Ibid. Epicrates Frg. 5 gives his version of this = Ath. 262c & d.

4

For cases of sending slaves to the mill, keeping them in chains, putting them to heavy work, and torturing them see Hunter (1992): 282.

5

Ar. Peace. 1248-1249.

12

Ath. 262c.

13

Ar. Pax 451-452.

Theophr. Char. 9. 3 ridicules the shameless man who feeds his slave with meat at another man’s banquet.

6

Antiph. 1.20. Scholars such as Grace (1973): 27 & Thür (1977): 21 note 42.

14

33

Burford (1993): 215.

(ii. b). Clothing:

(ii. c). Slave ‘marriages’/unions and property:

According to Aristophanes, the dress of slave ploughmen and herdsmen consisted of a leather tunic, a felt or leather hat, rough shoes and a shaggy fleece jacket, and was not very different from that worn by a free working farmer.1 The temple of Eleusis supplied similar clothes to its 17 public slaves.2 The resentment of the Old Oligarch that slaves cannot be distinguished from average freemen from their dress further implies that there was no strict dress code in Athens for slaves, as observable in Demosthenes’ private speeches.3 However, one Aristophanic passage implies that Athenian slaves could (sometimes) be recognized by their baggy dress and short hair.4 Masters were evidently not concerned to impose a distinct dress code for their slaves.

Slaves, being the property of their owners, had no right to have a ‘family’ or to own property. But owners sometimes tolerated, for their own benefit, familial relations and savings of slaves, presumably with the intention to provoke slaves to provide an efficient and loyal service and/or to discourage slave desertion.8 But the master had authority to dispose of the offspring of his slaves and to disperse their ‘families.’ The pseudoAristotelian text Oeconomicus states that slaves may be allowed to have children in order to use them as hostages for their parents’ good conduct and as their potential replacements if they die or obtain manumission.9 The informal opportunity available for slaves to amass peculium (savings), with which some slaves could purchase freedom, is reflected in manumission records found from various parts of Greece.10 Slaves sometimes abused the trust and tolerance of gullible masters. For instance, Moschion robbed his aged master, who blindly trusted him, of 1000 drachmae and then of 70 minae which he (Moschion) secretly kept in his possession.11

Of the dress of slaves/serfs in other Greek cities we have very little evidence. Myron of Priene mentions that Spartan helots were compelled to wear a special dress, but conceals detail.5 However, certain serfs were named after their dress code, like the katōnakē-wearers of Sicyon.6 We learn from Aristophanes’ comedies that, katōnakē was a typical slave dress and Pollux describes it as a woollen garment with sheepskin stitched onto it at the bottom.7 Although the serfs in Argos were called gymnētes, whether this appellation represented their ‘dress’ or their inferior status is not clear. Nonetheless, it is evident that, a particular dress code for slaves was used, at least, in some Greek cities.

The serfs of Crete appear to have had legally recognised marriages and divorces. Marriage brought a change of masters for the female slave, who returned to the former master, or his relatives in the case of divorce.12 Even intermarriages between male serfs and free were allowed and the status of their children depended upon who lived with whom. If the male serf lived with the free woman their children were free, but the opposite made them slaves.13 The implication of legally and socially recognised marriages is that these serf families were not dispersed, though fugitive serfs were sold at least in the early fifth century BC.14 Further, the legal recognition of their offspring is also mentioned in the Gortyn Code, which also refers to measures on ownership, rearing, and exposure of

1 Ar. Vesp. 442-447. Compare this clothing noted by Aristophanes with the way Laertes was dressed: indistinguishable from a lowly labourer in ‘dirty tunic, patched and wretched and about his shins he had bound stitched greaves of ox-hides to guard against scratches, and he wore gloves upon his hands because of thorns and on his head, a goat skin hat nursing his sorrow,’ (Hom. Od. 24. 226-231). Even the winter dress of the Hesiodic farmer is equally uncouth, Hes. Op. 541-546. 2

IG II² 2/3 no. 1672.

3

8

4

9 Arist. Oec. 1344b 17-18 mentions manumission as a reward for slaves.

Xen. Ath.Pol. 1.10. Dem. 53. 16 shows the possibility of mistaking a freeborn boy for a slave boy.

Ar. Av 911-916, these words are mentioned in a proverb and applied to a free man (poet) who act as a slave. Cf. Lewis (2002): 29 slave women appear in Attic vases with short hair. 5

Myron of Priene ap. Ath. 657d.

6

Xen. Oec. 9. 5, 11, 13; 12. 19-20.

10

Cf. Reilley (1978) index for a list of places.

11

Dem. 48. 15 and Cf. Also Hervagault & Mactoux (1974): 66.

The compulsion was to prevent Sicyonian serfs coming to town. Van Wees states that it may reflect the fourth century BC notion of tyrants who tried to suppress their subjects by forcing them to intense work. He continues that, this record could refer to a genuine local tradition about the origin of these serfs, since even Pollux (7. 68) states that katōnakē became the compulsory dress ‘in Sicyon under tyrants and in Athens under the Pesistratids.’ (Van Wees (2003): 38).

12 Gortyn Code Col. III-IV. Cf. also Willetts (1977): 169. Willetts (1967): 15 remarks that dolos must mean ‘serf’ because ‘we must suppose that marriage was not allowed between chattel slaves.’

7

14

13

Ibid. Col. III. But the same may not have been recognised between freemen and female serfs. Cf. Willetts (1955): 49-51 for the evidence from the Code and other laws.

Ar. Lys. (ll.1150-1156); Eccl. (l. 724); Poll. 7. 68.

34

IC IV 41. 4. Cf. also Willetts (1963): 267.

infants of divorced serfs.1 The fact that serf marriages and intermarriages were tolerated by their masters imply that they were also allowed to possess some property, possibly with the master’s consent, because the serfs were liable to pay fines for various offences.2

no precise evidence as to whether they lived with families and of their social position. The only available evidence regarding the familial relations and property of katōnakē-wearers of Sicyon is that they are compared to epeunaktoi by ancient sources10 and at some point were allowed to marry into citizen families and were raised into the status of free citizens.11 The available evidence on gymnētes of Argos is similar. Argives were forced to manumit at least some of their serfs12 at the loss of Argive manpower in c. 500 BC, and a later attempt to disfranchise them once again led to war, which resulted in enfranchising the entire ex-serf population and registering them as members of Hyrnathioi tribe. Further, the right of intermarriage with the Argives was also a key issue of the process.13

Surviving laws show that although these serfs lived and worked the lands of their masters they had tenure of houses they lived in along with its paraphernalia, and also could possess cattle in their own right.3 Though full information about Cretan chattel slaves is not known, it is possible that in social and legal issues the Cretan serfs were better off than the chattel slaves. Property and families of Spartan helots were also tolerated by their Spartiate masters and this issue is discussed in detail in the chapter on temple slavery4 since their pattern of life provide interesting points of comparison to that of Sri Lankan temple slaves.

1.III. The Issues that influenced the treatment of slaves:

Penestai of Thessaly also cultivated the land of their masters but ancient sources vary on their status. While the Idylls of Theocritus5 present them as receiving monthly rations from their masters, some compare them with wage labourers.6 But Archemachus on the contrary mentions that the penestai paid their masters ‘contributions due’ (syntaxeis) from them and that many were richer than their masters.7 But according to Strabo, penestai of Larisa paid tributes (phoroi).8 As Van Wees correctly suggests these discrepancies in statuses may either reflect a range of unfree statuses included in the group blanketed by the term penestai or changes over time due to uprisings of penestai.9 Other than these details that suggest the property of penestai was tolerated, at least, to some extent, there is little or 1

Having reiterated how slaves were treated by their masters, we now examine possible issues that may have influenced the treatment of slaves in the Greek world. The focus is on ideologies justifying or denying slavery that may have resulted in harsh or mild treatment to slaves. The best-known argument is that of ‘natural slavery’ of Aristotle (384-322 BC), who argued that some men were slaves by nature while some were masters. He even compares slaves to animals and argues that, just as the soul governs the body, a master rules a (presumably irrational) slave.14 But Aristotle himself knew that, for some, slavery was not created by nature but by convention (nomos) and was unjust.15 10 Theopomp. FGrH 115 F 176, in his history draws the position of katōnakē-wearers of Sicyon parallel to that of epeunaktoi. This was approved by Menaechmus (FGrH 131 F 1) the local historian of Sicyon.

Gortyn Code col. III (ll.43-55) & col. IV (ll. 1-14).

2 Willets (1967): 14. Though Finley (1960): 171, objects this notion, the evidence from Dosiadas (ap. Ath. 4. 143a-b.) favours Willetts’ conception.

11

Xen. Hell. 7. 3, 8, as persuasively discussed by Cartledge (1980): 209-11. Moreover, the use of epeunaktoi as a parallel also implies that all serfs were not manumitted at once.

3

Implied in Col. IV 31-36. Cf. Willets (1967): 14. Cf. also Gernet (1955): 50-59.

4

Cf. Chap. 4: 68-69.

5

Theoc. Id. 16. 34-35. For a discussion cf. Ducat (1994) 46-48.

12 Arist. Pol. 5. 3,7/ 1302b33 and the local historian Socrates FGrH 310 F6, refer to these people as perioikoi who were made citizens. Aristotle elsewhere in the Politics (7.10, 13-14/ 1330a25) mentions the term perioikoi to mean serfs/slaves and Isocrates (4. 131) mentions the term as a synonym for helots.’ Thus, these were evidently some kind of serfs working the lands for their masters.

6

Dionysius of Halicarnasus 2. 9 (compares penestai to Roman ‘clients’). Euripides (F 630) calls these slaves ‘latris,’ in Phrixus, ap. Athen. 264b. Reference to ‘waged slaves’ in schol. in Ar.Vesp. 1274. Cf. also Ducat (1994): 17-18, 30-36.

7

13

Van Wees (2003): 42 and note 30 provides ancient evidence for the suggestion that the tribe Hyrnathioi first appears in the inscriptions c. 460-450 (FGrH 70 F15, IG IV 517 & 487-8). He further states that in 575-550 BC the tribe was apparently not created basing his argument on the point that the name of the tribe is absent in references to the Argive magistrates: IG IV 614, SEG XI 314.

Archem. FGrH 424 F1 ap. Ath. 264a.

8

Strabo 9. 5, 19/ c440 (although the term penestai is not used here it is clearly meant. Cf. also Van Wees (2003): 54 note 66 and 69.

9

Arist. Pol. 2. 5, 22/ 1264a22 assumes that penestai, helots and other serfs paid a quota of what they produced; cf. also Pl. Leg. 776c & d, 777c. The plotted revolt in 406 BC: Xen. Hell. 2. 3, 36, with Ducat (1994): 103-104. Van Wees (2003): 54.

35

14

Arist. Pol. 1. 2, 1-22/ 1252a24-1253a39.

15

Ibid. 1. 2, 3/ 1252a34.

Although Aristotle does not identify his opponents,1 what is clear, whether slavery could be justified or not, is that the Athenians seemed to consider slavery was inevitable.

Analysis: Summing up, almost all tasks assigned to slaves were menial and arduous whether executed for the city or for private individuals, and all slaves were liable to corporal punishment. The nature of work assigned to slaves certainly had some impact on their condition. For instance, the work in mines was appalling, while agricultural work was laborious but better than that in mines and quarries. The latter had little or no chance to buy their freedom. Even the tasks of domestic slaves (especially of those processing grain and supplying water), and also those of slave craftsmen may have been equally strenuous. But the conditions of slave domestics and craftsmen had a potentiality to improve under a good master, which may even lead to eventual freedom. The only distinction in Athenian public slaves, as cited above, may have been that they were not under the scrutiny of the officers outside working hours.

Besides such attempts to justify slavery, Tarn believes that the influence of Stoicism2 encouraged better treatment of slaves and that it led to increase the number of slaves freed through testaments especially among Athenian philosophic circles3 and in Delphi c. 200 BC.4 But it is hard to assess any of these concepts with available evidence. The only available manumissions recorded for Athens are in the testaments of Athenian philosophers, and this evidence alone is insufficient to examine any increase in the movement. Similarly, besides Delphi, large-scale manumissions are only reported from small towns such as Larisa and Halos5 c. 200 BC, and since the scale of manumissions occurring before 200 BC in Delphi, Larisa or Halos is unknown, it is again impossible to assess any increase merely with this evidence. Finally, any movement favouring altruistic treatment to slaves in Athens, let be in other Greek cities, is not recorded. Stoicism might have had some influence in this process but it is hard to prove with available evidence.

Further, the social lives of all Greek slaves/ serfs were controlled by their masters. However, evidence shows that the Cretan serfs and Athenian slaves had some legal defence against brutal treatment, though, in Athens at least, this protection seemingly had little value. A significant privilege enjoyed by Cretan serfs is that they were allowed to wed free women, but it is not clear whether that privilege resulted from circumstances as in Laconia, Thessaly or in Argos. However, it was a privilege even the fourth century BC Athenian metics, let be slaves, were deprived of. Also the families and arguably community lives allowed for Spartan helots was a necessity required for the management of this distant agrarian servile population.6

1.IV. How society tolerated the treatment/ condition of slaves: Greek society obviously accepted the institution of slavery and recognised the inferiority of slaves as a necessity to preserve the livelihood of Greeks. The contribution of slave labour for the Athenian economy as workers in mines and in large farms and industries was essential to maintain its political and social position. But they were careful to preserve the distinction between slaves and free by depriving the former from all political and most social affairs of citizens. Conversely, the Spartan dependence on their helots for agricultural as well as for their industrial products, to maintain their military carrier may have forced the Spartan society to accept the treatments set forth by their Government.

Last but not least, what is deducible from this study is that Athenian society, let be Greece as a whole, did little to reduce the brutal treatment to slaves based on mere sympathy for slaves themselves. Furthermore, mainly Athens and also perhaps the rest of the Greece continued to preserve the distinction between slaves and free. Further, each concession granted to slaves were initiated mostly for the benefit of the master with the object of instigating loyalty and diligence in these animate ‘properties.’

1

For discussion of Aristotle’s opponents cf. Cambiano (1987): 28-52.

2

First appearance of Stoics in Athens in 313 BC with Zeno.

3

Tarn (1952): 104. For ancient evidence cf. Diog. Laert. 3. 42 (on Plato); 5. 13-15 (Aristotle); 54-55 (Theophrastus); 62-64 (Strato); 73 (Lycon). Cf. manumissions kata dianoēsin in: IG. IX 2, 102; 109b l.19; 1301. 4

Tarn (1952): 104. One fourth century case in BCH (1921) 150 no. 3.

5

36 slaves at Larisa (IG IX, 2, 568) and over 40 in Halos (IG IX, 2, 109) were freed in one year.

6

36

Cf. Chap. 4: 68-69 for more.

Cooking2 in hot kitchens, presumably smoke-filled,3 in a tropical climate may certainly have been unhealthy and tedious. Further, when kings (and rich nobles) offered meals to hundreds/ thousands of monks on a daily basis4 the plight of the ‘slaves’ who worked in such busy kitchens could be easily imagined.

2. Conditions of ‘slaves’ in ancient Sri Lanka This discussion proceeds on similar lines as the former on Greek slaves, to comprehend the condition of ‘slaves’ in ancient Sri Lanka. Since most evidence is from the Kandyan times such evidence is treated first as appropriate, in this section.

Even in normal circumstances, other common and onerous tasks closely connected with kitchen work are fetching water,5 husking paddy (rice with husks) and collecting firewood.6 These tasks being hard in their nature may have been further exhausting when demanded prolonged service, round the year, through necessity.

2. I. Based on the duties assigned to ‘slaves’:

Cleaning in a household may largely have been the task of female ‘slaves.’ But, cleaning tasks strictly limited to male ‘slaves’ of aristocrats7 were, when occurred, removing and burying/burning the dead in the household and preparing the funeral catharsis at the grave.8

Duties assigned to ‘slaves’ in ancient Sri Lanka were equally menial and demanding whether in domestic, agricultural or in industrial settings, to those assigned to Greek slaves, but require more detail as they are little known. The exploitation of slave labour at least in the Kandyan period is summarised by D’Oyly (the first English governor of Kandy when it came under British rule) in reference to the Proceedings of the Board of Commissioners on the 25th July 1829:

A further laborious task assigned to strong male ‘slave’ attendants of the master or the mistress was carrying burdens and litter/palanquins that, at times, even put the lives of the bearers at risk when performing the service being bare-footed,9 especially in nights, on unlit, rough and snake-infested paths. Since palanquin was an important conveyance of transport used by monarchs, the ladies of the royal court, high dignitaries and even by monks,10 some ‘slaves’ of these persons may have been employed as palanquin bearers. But notably, during the Kandyan times palanquin bearing was also

...all slaves in the Kandyan Provinces are personal property and liable to perform any service the Owner may think proper to require of them- Some are retained for domestic purposes, others located on Lands and employed as Nilakarayas [tenants] (my italics) or otherwise at the pleasure of the Proprietor.- Frequently they are advanced to offices on the Estate, but these arrangements are not considered permanent.- The manner of employing Slaves being entirely at the option of the Owner.- 1

2 Ksmina refers to a slave cook in the royal household: no. 615, note 16: 237. 3

Knox 86 speaks of the houses of the nobles as commodious in contrast to the poor condition of the dwellings of the poor people among whom he was lodged, which had no chimneys. Perhaps the kitchens of the aristocracy were also without a proper, if not any, chimney. 4 Fahien 38 tr. by J. Legge in ftp://ibblio.org/pub/docs/books/gutenberg/etext00/rbddh10.txt (accessed: 2002. 4.14)

The basic condition of slaves in terms of assigning duties as noted here may have been little different in times prior to the Kandyan period.

(a) Domestic slaves: Of domestic duties kitchen work and related affairs may have been the most tedious, whereas attending upon individual members of the household could have been the least exhausting, at least with regard to the nature of the tasks.

5

Sihalavatthū. 62. For a different version of the same account cf. Sdlkya, Arannaka vaggaya 431. 6

Pridham (1849): 226.

7

Pridham (1849): 226. Even freemen buried their close relatives and it was not considered menial as they were not compelled by another. But free hired men could not be compelled to bury strangers, even their master (JCD 28. 10. 1824 in Lawrie Mss. 3: 302).

8

Female ‘slaves’ never carry or bury corpses, even that of the master (JCD 12.2. 1831 in Lawrie Mss. 3: 302).

9

Only the royalty and aristocracy had the privilege of wearing shoes or slippers (Knox 90).

1

D’Oyly (1928): 119. Cf. also Sawer 33 in Haley (1923): App. 31.

10

37

Siriweera (1987): 87.

carried out by some families belonging to two lower castes, paduwa and vahumpura.1

(b) Agricultural ‘slaves’:

Duties of female personal ‘slaves’ included attending loyally to the needs of the members of the household,2 wet-nursing master’s children,3 running errands4 and performing any other service pertaining to their sex when ordered by their masters.5

In addition to household tasks, ‘slaves’ were also used to cultivate lands. In the case of rich householders, at least in the Kandyan provinces, these were called nilakārayo (‘tenants’)9 lodging on the land of the master while cultivating his land. On the other hand, male/ female individuals sent to gabadāgam (villages used as king’s stores) as king’s ‘slaves’ were also possibly compelled to work the land. Apart from the members of the royal family and the courtiers, some Buddhist temples too were given lands and ‘slaves’ to work them.10 Besides the heavy use of ‘slave’ labour for cultivation in the estates of temples and aristocrats, some ordinary farmers too may have used the handful of ‘slaves’ they had as auxiliaries in their lands.

Importantly, it was the royalty and the aristocratic officers of the kings who had ‘slaves’ to perform various domestic chores and to attend upon these royals/ aristocrats and their family members. Though these individuals were reported to have had multitudes of personal ‘slaves’6 we do not know how many ‘slaves’ were set upon kitchen duties and cleaning. The obvious possibility could be that the numbers of ‘slaves’ assigned such tasks varied from one household to another depending upon the wealth and social rank of the dwellers. But when there were many domestics, close bonds may have been limited to few personal ‘slaves,’ which may have affected their conditions.

It is needless to speak of the tediousness of agricultural work, especially in the dry zone in the island, where early kingdoms were located, under the scorching sun. In the case of wealthy (and the temples) who had many ‘slaves’ working their lands, the ‘slaves’ may have lived with their families in communities on or near the land they cultivated for their masters. These unfree were mainly employed by the Sinhalese and the temples for labour intensive wet-rice agriculture which was popular in ancient Sri Lanka, as in many other South and Southeast Asian countries. Also notable is the dry cereal cultivation in areas where necessary irrigation facilities were not available for wet-rice agriculture.11 Also we see a donation of a land with coconut plantation to a temple.12 Most of these cultivations, when undertaken by monasteries/ temples may not have been profit focused, but were carried out for the consumption of the monastic community and to facilitate maintenance of that particular establishment. But it would be deviant to assume that the objective of the lay landed proprietors who worked their lands was not profit based. The wet-rice agriculture demanded intensive labour during the first stages and especially during the time of harvesting and storing and the excess labour in other times during the wet-rice cultivation might have been employed for dry-cereal cultivation or in other crops such as coconut plantations.

In Northern provinces the k/cōviar ‘slaves’ were mainly used for domestic chores, as these were not considered as ‘untouchables’.7 One of the tasks assigned probably to domestics seems to be bearing palanquins and Ibn Battūta provides evidence in this concern. He, for instance, informs us that Ārya Cakravarthi provided him a palanquin, carried by his ‘slaves’ on their shoulders, to visit Adam’s peak.8 Apart from this account we do not have any precise information regarding the duties performed by ‘slaves’ in domestic settings of the royals/ aristocrats in Jaffna, not to mention of the average public (vellala) who could afford to have slaves.

1 Gilbert (1953): 327-328. Gilbert (ibid.) adds that the Paduwas only carried palanquins with males while the vahumpuras only carried those with females. Cf. also Pridham (1849): 240.

2

Mv. 49. 60, informs us for instance that there were ‘slaves’ attending the needs of the mother of the king Aggabōdhi VIII (796-807 AD). Cf. also Mv. 9. 4-5, 16-17, 23, 24; 10. 1-5.

The owners may have allowed their ‘slaves’ to live with families and in communities on or near the land

3

Mv. 9: refers to a very early date accepted by tradition- fourth century BC. Lawrie Mss. 3: 506:- refers to very late date, presumably during or little after the Kandyan period.

4

9

‘Slaves’ were not the only tenants or nilakārayo of rich noble land owners but also low caste people and poor wellāla (high caste) people. JCD 28. 10. 1824 in Lawrie Mss. 3: 302.

PBC 25. 07. 1829 in Lawrie Mss. 3: 303.

5

For instance the king Saddhatissa (latter part of the first century BC) and his queen send a female ‘slave’ to the temple to invite a monk to accept the meal (alms) they themselves prepared Sihalavattū 8.

6

Sihalavattū 33, 35.

7

Pfaffenberger (1982): 57-58. Also cf. Banks (1960): 66.

8

Ibn Battūta 255. Also cf. Chap. 2: 22.

10

Cf. Chap. 4 for donations of slaves to temples and the duties they probably carried out. 11 The record from Jētavanārāma monastery of the ninth century AD (EZ 1 no. 1: 8-9) mentions land un-irrigated lands owned by the temple were given to the free workers of the temple as the service charge for dry-cereal cultivation. 12

38

Mv. 42. 15. Cf. Chap. 4: 52.

they cultivated for the master since that was a necessity to obtain a continuous generation of ‘slaves’ who would look after their needs. Living in families may have given the ‘slaves’ some chance to amass peculium (savings) through industry and may have had some time for themselves. But in the case of the ordinary farmers who had a couple of ‘slaves’ they may have lived with or closer to the dwelling of the master as their service was presumably used for multiple tasks.

(c) Slaves in mines: A typical but onerous duty assigned to slaves is work in mines. The existence of gem mines in ancient Sri Lanka leads us to conjecture whether slaves were employed in gem mining. It is alleged that gem mining in Sabaragamuwa8 first began under Parākramabāhú II who reigned at Dambadeniya (1234-1269 AD).9 But the abundance of precious stones gifted to temples and to individuals by earlier monarchs indicates the existence of this industry in antiquity.10 Moreover, the pearl district on the seacoast and the place called Ratnakāraka similar to modern Rathnapura in Malaya rata (hill-country) cited in Mahāvamsa11 also reveal that gem mining and diving for pearls was practised in ancient Sri Lanka. Geiger, writing about the culture of the island in medieval times, states that the lands of great value were separated from the rest and officers were appointed in charge of subterranean elements.12 He continues that “there can be no doubt that the whole produce of the mines was royal revenue; the work in the mines was probably done by slaves.”13 However, no evidence testifies the use of ‘slaves’ for gem mining.

The cultivation patterns of ancient Jaffna, both rice1 and tōttam (garden-land) cultivation2 in a hot climate which demanded preserving the scarcely received rainwater3 or irrigating crops with water drawn from wells4 and sedulous manuring,5 shows the demand for a diligent agricultural work force which may possibly have been tapped from the available servile groups who were perhaps not distinctly labelled as ‘slaves’.6 It was apparently the Dutch who defined the ‘untouchables’ as ‘slaves’ of vellalas and encouraged cash-crop tōttam agriculture by providing any additionally required labour by importing thousands of slaves from South India.7 Slaves belonging to nalluva and pallava castes being the majority were apparently used to labour in the fields. The nature of their work signals the tedious circumstances under which they had to survive. Moreover, the conditions of Tamil slaves imported by the profit minded Dutch might have been much harder than that of the ‘local slaves’ (nalluva, pallava) employed in the task.

(d) Craftsmen and others: The evidence shows that ‘slaves’ specialised in certain crafts. According to Samantapāsādikā14 there were dyer-‘slaves’ (rajakadāsa), or weaver-‘slaves’ (pesakāradāsa). Moreover, Dangollagama records refer to a bricklayer obtaining release from ‘slavery’/ bondage in the monastery.15 But it is not clear whether these ‘slaves’ worked in workshops owned by masters or were simply assisting lay masters in their trades.

1

Despite the unfriendly climatic conditions and rice was only marginally economic in Jaffna, the tradition demanded the vellalas to grow rice as the state demanded tax in kind, that was collected during the harvest at the threshing floor (Pfaffenberger (1982): 43 referring to Banks (1957): 426).

2

This was the most productive form of cultivation in Jaffna, where curry crops such as onions, gourds, chillies, pumpkins, pulses, ginger, and turmeric and at least after the invasion of the Europeans cash-crops such as tobacco were cultivated (Pfaffenberger (1982): 43-44).

8

One of the provinces located at the South-western edge of the hill-country/the central province.

3 Jaffna stands within the island’s dry- zone (Cf. infra map 1) and received a very light rainfall (the average ranging between 25 and 50 inches per annum). Of this, much comes from the north-eastern monsoon which lasted from November to December. The south-western monsoon that lavishly waters the wet-zone of the island brings little rain to Jaffna as it is cut-off from the central mountain range. Also there is not a single river in Jaffna: Farmer (1957): 750-758.

9

E.g. Mv. 98. 58-59; 100. 18-19 mention that gems and pearls was given to monasteries. EZ 5 nos. 43, 44 mention these precious stones among the gifts to people by the king Niśsankamalla. 11

Mv. 49. 31-35.

4

12

Geiger (1960): 141.

Most of the crops in Jaffna were irrigated from well which draw an inexhaustible supply of fresh ground water (Pfaffenberger (1982): 43).

13

Ibid. 141. Codrington (1938): 50 agrees that gem mining was a royal monopoly. Siriweera (1989): 143 too remarks that gem trade was under the royal control at least after the tenth century AD. Siriwardana (1961): 201 states that although gem mining was dominated by the king, ordinary people were allowed to mine but had to pay a fee for doing so and to give gems over a certain weight to the king.

5

As the soils of Jaffna are made of decayed limestone, the productivity of the land depended on continuous and intense fertilising. Cf. Pfaffanberger (1982): 43 for more.

6

The productivity of cultivation in Jaffna depended upon the farmer’s ability to make prodigious investment in labour:Selvanayagam (1966): 174 & Thuraisingam (1953): 271-277.

7

Codrington (1938): 50 referring to PBC 536, (8/10/1816).

10

Pfaffanberger (1982): 44.

39

14

Smp 683.

15

EZ 6: 173. Cf. App. 2, no. 8.

Interestingly, there were some ‘slaves’ trained as assistants of physicians as well: Parākramabāhu I built a hospital and gave each patient a male and a female ‘slave’ (dāsa, dāsī) to prepare day and night, according to need, medicines and food.1 Furthermore, caring for patients round the clock providing and preparing food and medicine may surely have been tedious.

further supported by Lawrie’s information: “Kahatapitiya Nilamē stated that Latti was his slave given in dowry when his sister was married.”6 According to D’Oyly, ‘slaves’ were given as gifts or were inherited, but were sold as a form of punishment for very refractory conduct.7 Masters also appear to have abandoned ‘slaves’ in miserable poverty, though it was not creditable to do thus unless the ‘slave’ had done some notorious offence.8

2. II. Conditions of slaves based on the treatment they received:

Evidence also shows that masters had the right to dispose of their ‘slaves’ already in earlier times. Most evidence, however, is about donating ‘slaves’ to monasteries, or to lay individuals.9 There is one case referring to sale of ‘slaves’: the Galapāta record (12th /13th century AD) includes the ‘slaves’ the monastery concerned purchased from its own funds, among its ‘slave’ property.10 This record implies that sale/purchase was a mode of ‘slave’ supply at the time, since the ‘slaves’ given to the monastery contained purchased ‘slaves’ of the donor’s family. Possibly, temples did not often buy ‘slaves’ as they often received the needed ‘slave’ workers through gift. Possibly, sale and purchase of ‘slaves’ by ordinary people passed unrecorded and scant evidence prevents us from observing the frequency of ‘slave’ sale in any form in ancient Sri Lanka. However, precise cases of sales/purchases of ‘slaves’ by lay masters are not recorded in historical sources of the island that focus mostly on local religious and political history.

(a) Legal restrictions: The only existing legal account referring to legal issues on ‘slaves’ in ancient Sri Lanka is the Niti-Niganduwa. The code provides some security for ‘slaves’. It mentions that a master could acquire labour from his ‘slaves’ only if he maintained them. ‘Slaves’ could claim freedom if no work was obtained from them for a long time. Niti-Niganduwa further states that if a ‘slave’ lived away from his master for a considerable period ‘like a free man’ he could claim absolute freedom,2 but does not specify the length of time required, though it reports that a short absence will not qualify a ‘slave’ to claim freedom. Thus, these measures warn masters to provide at least the basic living conditions for their ‘slaves’ and to keep them occupied, to prevent ‘slave’ homeless wanderers and beggars upsetting the society.

Nevertheless, the available sources suggest that there were more cases of donating ‘slaves’ rather than commercial transactions (selling/ purchasing ‘slaves’) and no evidence reports of selling ‘slaves’ out of or importing foreign slaves into the country by Sinhalese during the monarchical period.11

All these measures come from the Kändyan period or from times closer to it, implying that ‘slaves’ had some legal recognition, or that legal intervention became necessary regarding the management of slaves in the society in this period.

(ii) Master’s right to punish his ‘slaves’:

(b. Treatment and tolerance of master vis-à-vis his ‘slaves’:

Concerning the legal powers of the masters in the Kändyan provinces, Lawrie informs us that they punished their ‘slaves’ without judgement or sanction from a higher authority, and the ‘slaves’ were obliged to submit even when tortured for real or imputed faults, having no redress from the capricious tyranny of their

(i) Disposing of ‘slaves’: The Niti-Niganduwa3 mentions that masters could dispose of ‘slaves’, as they desired, by gift, transferring to heirs, or sale, revealing that ‘slaves’ were nothing other than an animate property of the master just as cattle and buffaloes.4 Knox states that people “give according to their ability a portion of cattle, slaves and money, with their daughters,...”5 This assumption is

6

Lawrie Mss. 3: 300 also cf. Gazetteer 366. Metthānanda (1994): 121-122 observing such evidence rightly concludes that grant of ‘slaves’ appears to be a common practice among the higher ranks in the Kändyan society.

1

Mv. 73. 34-37.

7

D’Oyly (1928): 120.

2

NN. 11.

8

Sawers 30 in Lawrie Mss. 3: 301.

3

NN 10.

9 Cf. Chap. 2: 21-22. Many such cases are reported, for instance, from the seventh, ninth, 12th & 14th century AD.

4

In most cases the grants of ‘slaves’ to temples are mentioned along with cattle and buffaloes.

10

EZ 4. no. 25. Cf. App. 2 no. 57.

5

11

Cf. Chap. 1: 09.

Knox 93.

40

masters.1 In support of this notion Sawers notes that a master had the power to rebuke his ‘slave’ severely and could even torture him/her with a ‘red-hot iron.’2 D’Oyly states supporting this detail that a master could legally punish his ‘slave’ in any way but killing or maiming him/her.3 He continues that, the usual punishments were flogging, confining to stocks or irons and, when very refractory, selling them.4 Moreover, when ‘slaves’ commit robbery the master could “effect a noxal surrender of the slave to the person who suffered the loss or alternatively make good the loss.”5

whether short hair was a common feature that distinguished ‘slaves’ from free is not known.9 Nevertheless, the above account signals that everyone irrespective of their social status or gender was subject to corporal punishment for their crimes, revealing that such punishments were not particularly designed for ‘slaves.’ Although detailed accounts of penalties a master could legally impose upon his ‘slaves’ do not survive from early historical periods, the legal power of masters visà-vis the latter in these epochs may have been little or no different from that in Kändyan times.

Regarding female ‘slaves,’ D’Oyly mentions in reference to the Kändyan period that female ‘slaves’ and low caste women were punished corporally “in the slightest manner” by Gabadā Nilamē (officer in charge of king’s villages) “if the rice for the king’s table be noticed as not properly cleaned and prepared.”6 Strikingly, therefore, not only ‘slaves’ were subject to corporal punishments, but also free low caste women. But the account is silent about the punishments inflicted upon ‘slave’ women and low caste women in cases of severe crimes. According to D’Oyly, even high caste women were corporally punished for atrocious offences that did not deserve death penalty and only the king could inflict punishments upon them.7 But such cases may have been very rare.

No evidence shows that ‘slaves’ were whipped to amplify their efficiency, or to mark their subjection, but masters were de jure equipped with full power to punish them as wished. This invites us to examine how the masters de facto exercised power over their ‘slaves.’

(iii) Tolerance: Although the masters were legally empowered to control their ‘slaves’ and bondsmen in every aspect, the popular notion was in favour of mild treatment. D’Oyly referring to the treatment of ‘slaves’ in the island states that, in his experience “in no part of the world is slavery in a milder form than here” and continues,

Likewise, ‘slaves’ and low caste women were also probably whipped, and were subject to capital punishment for certain offences. D’Oyly also refers to cutting off of hair of ‘slaves,’ as a punishment.8 But 1

JCD 28. 10. 1824 in Lawrie Mss 3: 302.

2

Sawers 30 in Lawrie Mss. 3: 301.

....cruelty to a slave is scarcely known and in general they are treated more as adopted dependants of the family than menials. Indeed, there is no object for ill using slaves- the owners are the principal Landed Proprietors of the country who confine their agricultural pursuits merely to the supply of grain for the use of their families and retainers, there is therefore no inducement for overworking or otherwise ill-treating their slaves.10

3

D’Oyly (1928); 120. Cf. also Sawers 30 in Lawrie Mss. 3: 301.Tambiah (1968): 95, presumably referring to this evidence, mentions that the power to sever limbs [of his slaves] or to impose death penalty were reserved only to the king.

4

Although the information of such westerners is questionable it is hard to believe that D’Oyly, who became the governor of Kandy, gave false information especially when that stands to commend the Sinhalese slave owners. Nonetheless, such notions stimulate to probe further into the manner the masters treated their ‘slaves.’

D’Oyly (1928): 120.

5

Sawer 34 in Hayley (1923) App. 1: 33. Cf. Lawrie Mss. 3: 301.

6

D’Oyly (1928): 90.

7

Generally, capital punishment was rarely inflicted upon women and such punishments were executed by drowning. For atrocious offences that did not deserve death, women were whipped with rods at the Mahā Gabadāwà (lit. ‘King’s store’, perhaps a village set-up as the king’s store) or through the streets of Kändy, carrying a basket of sand on the head (some such women culprits were punished by cutting their hair, a mark of disgrace). After such punishment they were sent to the granary of the royal village Gampola, and were compelled to work in confinement receiving allowances of paddy. Sometimes they were released after a time at the pleading of their relatives, but sometimes remained there for life. For minor offences their male relatives were imprisoned or fined on account of the women: D’Oyly (1928): 91.

8

(iii. a) Food & clothing: A marked difference on food and clothing between average ‘slaves’ and poor free cannot be traced due to lack of evidence. Saddharmālankāraya shows the 9

Geiger (1960): 36 referring to the term midi mentions that “in Sinhalese the word for female slave is midī which derives from Sk. P. munditā ‘shaved.’ ” He further states that this may show a former custom where female slaves had to shave their head when taken into the family.’

10

D’Oyly (1928): 120.

41

D’Oyly (1928); 120.

condition of a poor free family: a boy ‘dressed’ in a dirty rag satisfies himself with some kind of ‘soup’ (käditta) and goes to look after his cattle with a rotten yam given by his mother as lunch.1 This could be a depiction of extreme poverty to suit the theme of the story. In general, it is possible to suggest that the food and clothing of most ‘slaves’ was similar to that of the poor free. An observation on the “days of the last king of …Kandy,”2 provides information on a cereal, kurakkan (a cereal, brown in colour), consumed by ‘slaves’ and the poor free.3 High dignitaries dressed very differently from free poor, let alone ‘slaves,’ at least during the Kandyan times.4

(iii. b) Slave ‘marriages’/ unions: Knox’s experience,11 which tallies with that of D’Oyly,12 mentions that the ‘slaves’ ‘very familiarly talk and discourse with their Masters.’13 He further mentions that, ...when they do buy or other ways [sic] get a new Slave, they presently provide him a Wife, and so put him forward to keep House, and settle, that he may not think of running away.14

Epigraphic evidence reveals that ‘slaves’ were provided with a portion of land to dwell upon and to derive their subsistence from,5 but it always remained the property of the owner since ‘slaves’ had no independent or hereditary title to the land they were allowed to cultivate.6 Besides the allocated lands, some ‘slaves’ also received some allowance for clothing as recorded in the case of the 24 ‘slaves’ working in the paddy pounding hall or alms hall in the Cetiyagiri monastery.7 Masters provided the necessities to their ‘slaves’ and tolerated their property according to Knox.8 Niti-Niganduwa, by stressing upon the necessity to provide the basic care for one’s ‘slaves’ to legitimise the ownership of such ‘slaves’,9 may be hinting at the loss of such care to ‘slaves’ once customarily shown by the owners.

Knox also reports that ‘slaves’ of the aristocrats, presumably the domestics, lived with their families in the quarters provided by the master closer or attached to the master’s household.15 Knox’s reference to ‘slave’ families is interesting, but it is not clear whether he refers to a legal marriage or to cohabitation of two ‘slaves.’ Although Knox’s data shows some bias towards his nation and religion, his information on the treatment of ‘slaves’ looks acceptable since there is no reason why he should lie just to commend the Sinhalese who were his captors. Nevertheless, Niti Niganduwa hints that a female ‘slave’ could marry a free man with master’s consent. This also seems to have won legal recognition, because such a marriage was capable of switching the status of the woman from ‘slave’ to free. The same source continues that, if a ‘slave’ woman, with the approval of the master, lived outside the master’s premises with the husband who was a free man, earning a living on their own and hardly visiting or doing service for the master, the master could not sell or donate her or her offspring. But if a female ‘slave’ bore children to a free man without obtaining freedom in the above manner, while living in the master’s premises and being in his service, the children of the ‘slave’ belonged to the master.16 It is hard to know whether the above-noted privileges applied only to females in bondage or extended even to those in ‘slavery.’

The dress of the nalluva and pallava slaves in Jaffna may have been similar to that of the other ‘untouchables’ as these two groups were also considered thus whereas the clothing of the k/cōviar may have been similar to poor vellalas as these were not considered as ‘untouchables’ and were ranked very much closer, if not next, to the vellalas.10

1

Sdlkya Uttharōleya vaśtuwa 435.

2

Dolapihilla (1959): 193-194 & 196.

Nevertheless D’Oyly, referring to the same period, states that ‘slaves’ were seldom sold or families separated, but were given as dowry or transferred to heirs at the demise of the master.17 But limited

3

This may have substituted the rice used by the rich of high social ranks.

4

11

Knox, Introd: 29. Cf. also App. 3: 117-118.

12

Cf. supra 41 for the full quotation.

E.g. Galapāta record (EZ 4 no. 25) and Lāhugala record (EZ 6. no. 27).

13

Knox 64.

6

Gazetteer 305 reporting evidence of H. Wright.

14

7

EZ 1. no. 7.

8

Knox 69-70.

9

NN 11.

Cf. Knox 89-90. The caste distinction also had an impact in the dress code, ibid. 66-67.

5

10

Ibid. 70. All nouns in the quoted passage begin with higher case. 15 Knox 86: ‘Their Slaves and Servants dwell round about without in other houses with their wives and children.’ [sic].

Cf. App. 5: 124-125.

42

16

NN 10-11.

17

D’Oyly (1928): 120.

evidence does not help us to understand the precise systematic procedures in the society. A single piece of evidence cited by Lawrie mentions a case of distributing four children of a ‘slave’ by her master among his relatives and circumstances suggest that she was a domestic ‘slave’ living in or near the household of the master.1

was adopted by the ancient Nepalese society. In Nepal ‘slaves’ were fed or were provided plots of land by their masters to provide for their families, and also it was the master’s responsibility to arrange marriages for their ‘slaves’ and even to bear wedding costs.4 In precolonial India the treatment given to ‘slaves’ was comparable: masters fed their ‘slaves,’ protected them in old age and arranged their marriages.5 Further, even the ‘slaves’ of ancient Nepal and India6 retained their caste as their counter parts at least in the Kandyan period in Sri Lanka.7 It is also interesting to note that the ‘slaves’ in both pre-colonial India and Nepal were also allowed to marry free persons of the same or equivalent caste as it occurred in ancient Sri Lanka at least in the Kändyan kingdom.8

However, the only hard evidence from earlier periods of ‘slave’ families and communities comes from two epigraphic records, which refer to temple slavery and which are discussed in the chapter on temple slavery.2 Nonetheless, since it was the royalty and wealthy aristocrats who granted large numbers of slaves and land to temples, it is probable that the mass slave numbers that cultivated the lands of these lay individuals also lived with families and in communities as mirrored in the Galapāta and Vēvälketiya records.3 Evidence, however, does not guarantee that ‘slave’ families were never separated in these periods concerned. In the Galapāta record, for instance, some family members, presumably children or siblings of the adult ‘slave’ under whom the rest of the family was registered, were perhaps kept behind as the property of the seller. Further, it is possible that some members of large ‘slave’ families were relocated in other lands of the owner as a way of managing excess labour and costs. Such arguments suggest that the slaves were transferred to new owners in the course of sale or gift as family units.

What is suggestible as to the ‘slavery’ in Jaffna is that at least those belonging to cōviar, nalluva and pallava groups were allowed to marry under the consent of their masters who were mainly the vellalas.9 The last two categories being classed as untouchables seem to have lived apart from their vellala masters, generally in palmyra (palm tree) groves where they were allowed to hunt and cultivate to obtain means for their survival. But, they could be summoned for work at any time, and the master was only obliged to provide them (‘slaves’ called for service) food and clothing.10 Such living suggests the communal lifestyles of the nalluvas and pallavas. However, it is possible that the cōviars being the domestic ‘slaves’ and not being ‘untouchables’ may also have lived with their families closer to their vellala masters.11

The limited available evidence, scattered over several centuries, does not draw a complete picture of the condition of ‘slaves’ in the entire history of the island. Yet we could develop some general hypothesis based on careful examination of the available evidence.

Moreover, giving land allotments to slaves also appear in the Near East. In Neo-Babylonia some slaves seem to have possessed small plots of lands along with which they were sold.12 Furthermore, Wittfogel observes that slaves in Asiatic or ‘hydraulic societies’ were allowed to marry and also were given a share of what they produced to assure that the necessary care was given to slaves,13 to which the condition of ‘slaves’ in ancient Sri Lanka is compatible.

The issue that the ‘slaves’ were allowed to raise families seems to have provided them a certain social identity and recognition in the society. Hundreds of vahal/ dāsa etc granted to temples together with land and cattle suggests the possibility that these grants included ‘slave’ families, which continued to exist as the temple property, discouraging ‘slave’ desertion and providing a continuous supply of hereditary ‘slaves’ for the master. Yet, due to scant evidence it is hard to say that all ‘slaves’ lived in family units. Moreover, how ‘slave marriages’ operated in periods other than in Kändyan times is unclear and also how those in bondage fit into this picture is obscure. Nonetheless, the strategy of allowing ‘slaves’ to live in families was not unique to ancient Sri Lanka but also 1

Lawrie Mss. 3: 306. For the full quotation see infra 45.

4

Caplan (1980): 175.

5

Ibid. (1980): 184.

6

Ibid. (1980): 178-179, 184.

7

Cf. Chap. 2: 23.

8

Caplan (1980): 184.

9

Pfaffanberger (1982): 52.

10

Banks (1957): 443 from Pfaffanberger (1982): 41.

11

Galapāta record of 12th /13th century AD and the Vēvälketiya record of 11th century AD, respectively. Cf. Chap. 4: 60-61.

Cf. App. 5: 124.

12

Ibid. (1980): 110.

3

13

Wittfogel (1970): 322.

2

Cf. note 02 on this page.

43

Also the opportunity to own property may have enabled ‘slaves’ to buy their freedom. Interestingly, all manumission records are limited to the periods between fourth to the eighth centuries AD, which record manumission of ‘slaves’ of all genders and age groups (child and adult). Of these, all self-purchases of freedom were carried out by adult male ‘slaves.’ Since only one record is found so far registering manumission of a female ‘slave,’ whose manumission price was paid by her husband, it is hard to say whether female ‘slaves’ too were financially eligible to buy their own freedom6 or, in other words, own property.

(iii. c) Property: For whose [slaves’] maintenance, their Masters allow them Land and Cattle. Which many of them do so improve; that except in Dignity they are not far behind their Masters, only they are not permitted to have Slaves. Their Masters will not diminish or take away ought, that by their Diligence and Industry they have procured, but approve of it, as being Persons capable to repose trust in....1 Such is the remark of Knox regarding the property of ‘slaves’ in the Kändyan period.2 Although ‘slaves’ could not own ‘slaves’ according to Knox, at least those who rose to a better position were apparently allowed to own ‘slaves.’ For instance, Lawrie reports that Appurāla, a son of a high caste woman, was sold as a ‘slave’ to a high caste man by his mother to punish him for committing theft, was resold due to his refractory conduct by the first owner to another high caste family. Later he earned favour from both families to which he was sold as a ‘slave’ and married a high caste woman and was given a responsible position first by his ex-master and then by the king. At the time of his death he had lands which were inherited by his heirs and “the king inherited his valuable goods, and sixty ‘slaves’ who were his property –(such ‘slaves’ of a ‘slave,’ are designated Parakitta Waal)” as he has declared.3 This could be a very exceptional case of a lucky ‘slave’ and could not be applied to ‘slaves’ per se in the island. Nonetheless, it shows that ‘slaves’ were not totally prohibited from owning ‘slaves’ besides other items of property if their master tolerated it.

Moreover, a few pieces of evidence from earlier epochs show cases of accumulating wealth by debt ‘slaves’/bondsmen.7 Of these, the account of Nāgā from the first century BC is elaborated here as several literary sources refer to it: Nāgā being already in bondage for a debt of 60 kahapana,8 could borrow another 60 kahapana to provide meals for 60 monks, suggesting her ability to engage in monetary affairs. The comment of Nāgā’s master, ‘other dāsis reduce their debt’9 [in the course of their stay as ‘dāsis’] implies that those in debt bondage went free once they paid their debt. Nevertheless, the manner she offered meals to 60 monks while in bondage interestingly suggests that her task was approved by her community: the girl distributed the money among 60 houses, one kahapana each, and requested each household to prepare a meal for one monk. Then she asked the monks to obtain their food from those 60 houses. But it is not clear whether such monetary transactions were open to all those enslaved or bonded for unpaid debt, or whether this was an exception.

Sawer also supports the evidence of Knox in relation to the property of ‘slaves’ in the Kändyan times: ‘a slave has the entire right to the property he may acquire himself, his owner cannot deprive him of it,…’ He continues that the offspring of a ‘slave’ may inherit as those of a free man, provided they were the property of the same owner, otherwise the “slave’s” property devolves upon his master.4 Lawrie informs us that a ‘slave’ could dispose of his property by a will, and if a ‘slave’ died intestate his master becomes the legal heir to his “slave’s” property.5 Since this account does not refer to a specific group of servitors the reference here may be to ‘slaves’ and to all types of bondsmen.

1

Moreover, the caste demarcation, as untouchables, seems to have denied nalluva and pallava ‘slaves’ the purchase and possession of land. 10 Furthermore, we do not know whether k/cōvias who were not classed as ‘untouchables’ were allowed to own any land or not.

2. III. Issue(s) that influenced the treatment of slaves: The main issue that stimulated at least some masters, if not all, to treat their ‘slaves’ kindly was Buddhism, which influenced the society and the culture of the

Knox 69-70.

2

6

See Chap. 5: 83-84 for detail.

7

Rsv. 2: 32, & Sihalavatthu 62.

8

See supra 42 on why we could accept this information of Knox. Cf. also App. 3: 117-118.

Sihalavatthu 62 mentions that she was indebted for 40 kahapana borrowed by her parents. But according to Sdlkya (431) version it was 60. But all versions agree that the second borrowing was 60 kahapana.

3

Lawrie Mss. 3: 295.

4

Sawer 29-30 in Lawrie Mss. 3: 304.

9

5

PBC 25. 7. 1829 in Lawrie Mss. 3: 304.

10

44

Sihalavattu 62. Pfaffenberger (1982): 52.

island though it did not seem to have objected to ‘slavery’ as such. Instructions of fair treatment to one’s dāsa and kammakāra are mentioned in Sigalōvada sutta.1 A master must assign work to them in accordance with their strength, must supply them with food and ‘wages’ (bhatta-vēttanānuppadānēna),2 must tend them when sick, must share with them unusual delicacies, and must grant them leave at times.3 These instructions, however, have not emerged from cruel treatment to ‘slaves’ in the island, but possibly as a reaction against such actions in ancient India in the times of Lord Buddha.4

promising to prepare a meal for a monk for the value she has given each household.10

Also Saddharmālankāraya states that one of the qualities of a gentlewoman is treating her ‘slaves’ and free workers kindly without insulting or inflicting harsh punishments on them.5 Furthermore, evidence shows that devoted Buddhists treated their ‘slaves’ with kindness. For instance, Mahāvamsa relates that, once king Aġgabōdhi VIII addressed one of his ‘slaves,’ as dāsa (‘slave’) presumably out of anger, and later, to make up for it, allowed that ‘slave’ to use the same word towards himself - the monarch.6 This shows an extreme concern for the sentiments of his ‘slaves.’ The same king reportedly treated his mother’s attendants with the best food such as that meant for the king.7 It should be noted that Aġgabōdhi VIII was an extremely pious individual who even offered his own self as a ‘slave’ to a monastery.8

A slave girl at Wattēgama walawwa [a house of a noble family in Wattēgama] bore a number of children but as she had too much to do in taking care of her master’s younger children, her own, to the number of eight, were buried as soon as they were born, by order of the master but after the master’s children were grown up she had four children who she was allowed to bring up. These four children the master divided among his relations.12

Other devoted Buddhist masters too may have treated their ‘slaves’ gently. But, reports of cruelty are not totally absent. For instance, an incident reported by Lawrie, but sadly undated,11 shows the plight of a female ‘slave’ at the cruel and selfish treatment of her master. Although this case cannot be generalised to show violence to domestic ‘slaves’ in any period or location in the island, it grabs our notice as it is the only such evidence available:

This reveals that the master exercised his power over the life and death of the offspring of the female ‘slave,’ who apparently lived in or near the household of the master nursing his children, and also perhaps performing other chores in the household. But we are not informed whether the children buried were sired by the master or by her ‘slave’ husband. What is striking is that at least in this single reported case the master exercised his full power to gain uninterrupted service from the ‘slave’ girl first and then used her surviving children.

Moreover, evidence also shows that certain masters and the community helped slaves to engage in pious deeds. The above noted story of the dāsi Nāgā9 tells us that her master tolerated the disturbance to service by the dāsi and also helps her to find the required sum for the deed. Furthermore, her neighbours assist her by

Thus, although Buddhism encouraged fair treatment of ‘slaves,’ the condition of ‘slaves’ mainly depended upon the particular master-‘slave’ relationship. The strategy of Buddhism appears to be to pacify both master and ‘slave’ reminding how each one ought to dispose him/herself to the other. While instructing the masters how they should treat their ‘slaves’ while exacting service, Buddhism also instructs how ‘slaves’ should react to such treatment from the master. This

1 One of the Suttas in the Diga Nikaya: cf. the chart in the App. 3: 119. 2 ‘Wages’ may not be the precise reading of vēttanā. The implication could be necessities such as clothing besides food. 3

DN 3: 191. The same account instructs of the five fold obligations of slaves to their masters: they should rise before the master, should go to rest after the master, must be happy with what is given to them, should do their work well, should carry about his (master’s) praise and good fame.

10 Also note that the king Mahāchūli Mahātissa, having heard that alms offered by one’s hard earned money brings more merit, laboured in disguise once as a harvester and then in a sugar mill and offered alms to monks out of the wages he earned from these tasks, Mv. 34. 2-6. The king here seems to be working as a hired labourer but not as a slave because the source does not refer or hint to such a status as the source does not mention any term that denotes ‘slave’/ ‘slavery’ and he worked without a master, and redemption is not mentioned.

4

Theravada (orthodox) Buddhism introduced to Sri Lanka by Indian monks circa third century BC. Cf. Chanana (1960): 54 for examples of ill-treatment to dāsa/i by masters in India during the Buddhist epoch.

5

Sdlkya – Sirināga vaggaya 666.

6

Mv. 49. 62.

7

Ibid. 49. 57.

8

Ibid. 49. 63, also cf. 49. 51-61.

9

Cf. supra 44.

11 But, the location (Wattēgama) cited in the account suggests that this may have occurred either during the Kandyan reign that ended in 1815 or a little later during the British rule (‘slavery’ was fully abolished in Sri Lanka in 1845: Pridham (1849): 231-233). 12

45

Lawrie Mss. 3: 306.

shows that the attempt of Buddhism was to establish a ‘give-and-take’ relationship between master and ‘slave,’ which according to Patterson1 never existed. By pointing at Chanana’s reference to an account in the Majjima nikaya Patterson arrives at the assumption that slaves resent compulsion irrespective of the sacredness of the activity they were involved in.2 The reference here is to the Indian society during the Buddhist epoch and it was during this time rules and regulations were added into the Buddhist canon subsequent to certain incidents.

Thus, Buddhism appears to have made a considerable attempt to influence masters to treat their ‘slaves’ fairly, while the political system (rājakāri system) perhaps saved ‘slaves’ being abused in public projects.

2. IV. How society tolerated the treatment to ‘slaves’: When Sinhalese fell into ‘slavery’ in their own community and when their conditions were affected by the caste system (especially when it operated rigidly at least in Kändyan times), measures such as limiting the ownership to those superior to ‘slaves’ in caste,6 and preventing masters from giving a female ‘slave’ in marriage to a man who is her inferior in caste against her will7 (as she would lose her caste by such a union) were taken to preserve the caste dignity of the ‘slaves.’ But when the caste demarcation was not sharp such policies might not have existed.

By the time Buddhism arrived on Sri Lanka such precepts were already established and were respected by pious Buddhists. The strong link between the Buddhism and Politics in historic Sri Lanka induced the majority of Sinhalese monarchs to adjust their lives according to Buddhist conceptions and also to work for the upkeep of the religion while facilitating the public to listen to sermons that explained Buddhist precepts and jathaka stories which help them to lead a peaceful and harmonious social life.3 Although the pious idiosyncratic attempt of ancient Sinhalese to eliminate the silent struggle of mind and soul between masters and ‘slaves’ may not have been a complete success, the influence of Buddhism may have made a considerable effort in persuading people to treat their ‘slaves’ with kindness. This raises the question whether all masters and their ‘slaves’ were aware of these instructions of Buddha. When Buddhism was thriving in the island, at least until the end of the Anurādhapura period (circa. tenth century AD), ‘slaves’ were likely to have engaged in religious activities, such as listening to religious discourses, which may have informed both masters and ‘slaves’ of such instructions. Even amidst Hindu and later Christian influence in the island, Buddhist masters were aware of and practised Buddhist teachings.

Analysis: The effect of menial and generally tiresome tasks that led to different degrees of master-‘slave’ relations which in turn affected the conditions of ‘slaves’ was also observable in ancient Sri Lankan ‘slave’ system. Though the masters were legally empowered to control and to punish their ‘slaves’ within certain limits there was no apparent recorded legal measure to highlight the inferiority of ‘slaves.’ Furthermore, we do not see evidence that shows severe measures of controlling slaves such as krypteia in Sparta. ‘Slave’ families and property was generally tolerated and the influence of Buddhism towards a mild treatment to ‘slaves’ is clear. This feature may have contributed to the absence of slave revolts in historic Sri Lanka. Moreover, caste as a social measure also shows its effect in the institution of ‘slavery’ at least when it was in its height.

Furthermore, the political set up of the island in antiquity did not demand severe exploitation of ‘slave’ labour for huge public construction projects. Most public work such as building enormous reservoirs, roads4 within the cities, and colossal monolithic Buddha statues was possibly executed by free compulsory labour (rājakāri system -‘state service’).5 But ‘slaves’ may have assisted free workers in these projects doing menial tasks. 1

Patterson (1982): 207.

2

Ibid. 207-208 & note 151.

3. Comparison Obviously, in both ancient Greek poleis and Sri Lanka almost all duties entrusted upon ‘slaves’ were menial and laborious regardless of the setting. Further, all tasks assigned to ‘slaves’ had some impact upon their condition either through the nature of the task or through the type of master-‘slave’ bond open to the ‘slaves’ in the course of executing their duties. Naturally, a healthy master ‘slave’ bond may have led to improve the conditions of the latter yet, all duties and situations may not favour ‘slaves’ towards this end.

3

Cf. Deerananda (2004): 385-428 and especially pp. 402, 403 & note 108 for a discussion on the link between the politics and Buddhism in historic Sri Lanka and for examples.

4

Siriweera (2002): 133 & 139-140. Cf. also ibid. (1987): 27.

5

In ancient Sri Lanka almost until the fall of monarchy in 1815 free persons were obliged to provide their labour free of charge for public projects for a particular period of time per year. This was called Rājakāri system. Cf. Ragavan (1953): 202 & Peris (1956): 95-99.

46

6

Cf. Chap. 2: 22-23.

7

NN 10.

the absolute authority with some high-ranking officers assisting him. Thus the bulk of population had no say in political affairs. These circumstances diminished the need to deprive ‘slaves’ from political right, making their status almost equal to the majority of free people in the political sphere. Furthermore, since Sinhalese were liable to be reduced to ‘slavery’ due to various effects of poverty, the main interest of people was apparently not focused on preserving the distinction between ‘slave’ and free but, in the professionally based caste system at least when it was operating rigidly. This is further clear when ‘slaves’ were allowed to preserve their caste identity, which had an effect on their owners and marriages. Moreover, both ‘slaves’ and free were punished corporally, though the person who inflicted the punishment varied according to one’s caste. On the other hand, as there was no constant supply of slaves (among the available evidence) flowing into the island through slave trade it may have been necessary to tolerate the families and the property of ‘slaves’ to obtain a self-perpetuating servile population. Furthermore, such circumstances show that the chattel type of slavery was not very popular in historic Sri Lanka, and most appear to have enjoyed a status between serfdom and slavery while some were in bondage.

‘Slaves’ were used in ‘both societies’ as a piece of property of the owner which is evident from their capability to dispose of or punish their ‘slaves’ as they wished. And ‘both societies’ have recognised the importance of ‘slavery’, for the welfare of those who could afford ‘slaves’, in different degrees. Furthermore, the above studies confirm that the manner in which ‘slaves’ were treated and their conditions in respective societies are shaped by the type of servitude prevailing in a particular country and the needs and conceptions of the governing body. The main social interests in a country also contributed to a great extent in this task. A notable contrast between the condition of Athenian slaves and ‘slaves’ of ancient Sri Lanka is that in the former there was a legally recognised manner of highlighting the inferiority of slaves depriving them of all political and most social rights. Thus, slavery was social and political death to those affected. But in ancient Sri Lanka there is no legally recognised way of depriving slaves of their political or social rights and their families and property were better tolerated. Several reasons contributed to this contrast. Primarily, the type of servitude that existed in Athens was chattel slavery and almost all slaves in Athens at least after 594/3 BC were foreigners bought in the market or captured in warfare. This perhaps may have inspired Athenians and may have seen as a necessity to preserve a clear distinction between Athenians and nonAthenians. The political and legal limitations vis-à-vis slaves shows that the intention was to distinguish slaves, who were non-Athenians, from Athenian citizens, besides distancing them from free. The former intention is clear as the privilege of citizenship or mixing with Athenians in marriage was not available for slaves even after manumission. Thus political and legal privileges associated with citizenship were isolated from slaves perpetually. The free-slave distinction in the Athenian society was highlighted by the mere notion of working for another, let alone performing menial tasks. Social limitations set upon slaves making them strangers in the society depriving them of heirs and protection in old age, which Athenians loathed very much to loose, seem to have added colour to this distinction. All these measures robbed slaves of their full identity in the society, reducing them to animate tools ready to be used at their master’s desire.

Furthermore, the Cretan serf system and debt bondsmen too show some similarities to the system of servitude in historical Sri Lanka. In both communities bondsmen were allowed to free themselves once their liability was paid, though in Sri Lanka this applied not only to those fell into bondage for debt but also for unpaid penalty restitution. Moreover, Cretan male serfs could marry free women and the marriages and divorces of serfs were given some social recognition. But how their chattel slaves were treated is not clear. In Sri Lanka at least during the Kandyan times female ‘slaves’ could marry free males of the same or an equivalent caste to themselves with their master’s consent, which apparently granted freedom to the woman. The detailed reference to ‘slave’ families in the Galapāta vihāra record also implies that ‘slave’ families received some social approval and their families were not widely scattered. Notably, even some Laconian helots, the penestai of Thessaly, gymnētēs of Argos, katōnakē wearers of Sicyon also earned the opportunity to marry into free families and received citizenship thanks to very exceptional political circumstances. But, none of these unfree groups, not to mention the Athenian slaves, may have gained such a chance under normal circumstances.

On the contrary, in historic Sri Lanka there was no citizenship scheme which was closely liked with political rights, as politics focused on the monarch as

Another contrast in this concern, at least according to the available evidence, between ancient Greek poleis

47

and Sri Lanka is that there does not seem to be a significant philosophical, political, social or religious influence towards fair treatment of slaves in ancient Greece as a whole. All toleration vis-à-vis slaves by their masters or by a particular Greek polis appear to have triggered by the necessity of certain circumstance or the profit of the masters. Though Stoicism preached such treatments of slaves in Greece and may perhaps have improved the conditions of slaves, its effect is not clear. On the other hand, Buddhism being the state religion in Sri Lanka and all Sinhalese being Buddhists from circa first century BC favoured and preached kind treatment to ‘slaves’ and its influence was felt by many masters, if not all. Cruel treatments to ‘slaves’ may have been rare as noted for example by Knox and D’Oyly in the Kändyan times and certainly also in times prior to that when the influence of Buddhism was strong. However, the need to emphasis the necessity to feed and shelter ‘slaves’ by their masters in the NitiNiganduwa as noted above may suggest the gradual disappearance of providing even the basic needs to ‘slaves’ by some masters in the Kändyan period. Besides, the grant of the right to claim freedom to ‘slaves’ in the same period under certain conditions was a key legal privilege totally unavailable for the known Greek slaves. Furthermore, prohibition to attend certain festivals shows that the Greek slaves were also branded inferior by certain Greek cults. In contrast, Buddhist teachings did not ban ‘slaves’ from practising Buddhism, and the fine example that supports this issue is the above-cited Nāgā story. But, to what extent the masters allowed their ‘slaves’ to engage in religious deeds in both ancient Greece and Sri Lanka is opaque. Finally, the contrasts in the treatment of ‘slaves’ were caused due to the types of servitude prevailed in these societies and their social and political set up. Despite contrasts, the Athenian chattel slavery, Spartan helotage and Cretan systems of servitude bear parallels in different levels and aspects to Sri Lankan systems of servitude helping to illuminate the condition of ‘slaves’ in each society.

48

residing monks and kämiyan (ll.7-8), implying that ‘slaves’ were an important group in the monastic community.5

Chapter 4:

Evidence attests that multitudes of dāsa/vahal etc lived and worked in ancient Sri Lankan temples: Aġghabōdhi I, for instance, gave the village Lajjika for the maintenance of ‘slaves’ (dāsa, dāsī) in the temple Mugasēnāpati, which he constructed.6 The implication here could be either that the revenue from the village was given to the temple concerned to maintain its ‘slaves’ or that lands from the village were used to lodge the ‘slaves’ of the particular temple. Also, Sirimēgavanna (362-389 AD) reconstructed all the demolished monasteries and fixed revenues to ārāmikas of the monastery to be effected thenceforth.7

Temple slavery and Helotage This chapter breaks away from the normal order of discussion adopted in the rest of the chapters in this thesis, as it examines Sri Lankan temple slavery first followed by temple slavery in ancient Greek poleis and Spartan helotage. It is the inclusion of the latter, which is not a type of temple slavery though it produces more patterns of comparisons to the Sri Lankan system than the other, that leads to this technical change.

Moreover, eight small records of the period between the fifth to ninth centuries AD register donations from several devotees for the maintenance of ‘slaves’ (vaharala etc.) in Abhayagiriya royal temple. The highest amount donated was 1000 kahavana8 and the most frequent amount was 100 kahavana. One case speaks of donating 100 huna kahavana.9 A few other short records, for instance, two inscriptions from Rajanganē and Mihintalē (of the sixth to seventh centuries AD), another from Situlpavuva in Hambantota (of fifth to sixth centuries AD), and a record from Kōngala in Panamā Pattu10 (again of fifth to sixth centuries AD), also report donations of money for the maintenance of ‘slaves’ (vaharala etc) in the temples concerned. Though the amounts given for this purpose in the two former records are not preserved, in the two latter cases they are 20 and 50 kahavana respectively. These cases imply that people of all social ranks contributed within their means for the purpose of maintaining ‘slaves’ in temples, which was probably considered a meritorious deed.

Moreover, discussions on temple slavery in ancient Greece1 are numerous, though temple slavery in strictly Greek territories is less spoken of, and most information on slavery in ancient Sri Lanka is available in relation to the temple slavery on the island which is yet to be explored.

1. Temple slavery in ancient Sri Lanka 1.I. Evidence for the existence and acquisition of temple ‘slaves’: The present section attempts further to assure the existence of ‘slaves’ in Buddhist monasteries and how they were acquired2 to comprehend the intricacies of the system of temple ‘slavery’ in the island. Both literary and epigraphic sources testify the existence of temple ‘slaves.’ The slab inscription of the queen Kalyānavati, (beginning of the 13th century AD) for instance, refers to a list of high and low employees in the monastery,3 of which the last three listed are women. Among these, ‘auspicious female slaves’ (magulmindiyan) are mentioned between ‘women who fill the foot basins with water’ (pädeniyē pän haganā gënun) and ‘garland-making women’ (mālākārin) respectively.4 The Mihintalē record of Mahinda IV also refers to ‘slaves’: daśnat (A l.8), dasun (A l.41), sudasun (A l.43), vehera dasun (A l. 45), and states that they are equally subject to the code of rules just as the

Moreover, it is recorded that the king Udā Mahayā assured means for the protection of villages, lands, ‘slaves’ (dàś) and people belonging to the monastery of Puvāram-vehera.11 Apart from this, a number of 5

EZ 1, no.7: 85 & 99. Cf. App. 2, no. 39.

6

Mv. 42. 23.

7

Mv. 37. 63. (cf. Geiger tr. 1: 4 note 2). Cf. App. 1: 101 for status of ārāmika.

1

8

See e.g. Robert (1936, 1940); Bull. Epig. (1977) 268, 270; (1978) 278; (1985) 255; Cameron (1939); Bömer (1970); Debord (1982); Ricl (1993, 1995). The focus here is not on new slaves but those already in servitude.

EZ 4: 136-141. Kahavana = kahapana. The lithic records of the island mention the denomination of currency as kahavana and the latter denotes the same in literary sources. Cf. also Senanayake (2004): 349- 370. The value of kahapana varies from time to time. For an explanation cf. Codrington (1924): 11-16 & 50-58.

3

9

2

EZ 4. no. 33, (ll. 16-18): 256 & 259-260 and also cf. 260 note 4.

Whether huna kahavana was of less value than that of kahavana is uncertain. EZ 4. no. 16: 136-141. Cf. Senanayake (2004): 352, this coin appears after the sixth century AD.

4

It is difficult to guess the status of the other two types of female workers as to slaves or free or whether they were hired during a particular festival.

49

10

Dias (1991): 43, 90, 92, 94.

11

EZ 1. no. 15, (ll.16-20): 185 & 189.

buffaloes to the temple by Sēna-Lanka-Adhikāra.10 Ayaśmanta the General of Kalyānawati also built a monastery and supplied it with lands and dāsi dāsa.11 Moreover, the Queen Līlāvati (end of the 12th to 13th centuries AD) also built a temple in Anurādhapura and granted it thirty vahal, cattle and land.12 A record dated to the 14th century AD registers a grant of lands and vahal to the temple of Gadalādeniya by the king Buvanekabāhu IV.13 Certain monarchs such as Sīlamēghavanna (AD 619-628) gave only ‘slaves’ to temples.14 Moreover, Aġgabōdhi IV (AD 667-683) placed dāsa at the disposal of the community of monks where they were required.15

surviving manumission records show that temple ‘slaves’ (vaharala etc.) had the opportunity to obtain freedom.1 As hinted above, the earliest as well as the key source of ‘slaves’ to temples was donation. A second century record reveals a donation of a male and a female ‘slave’ to a monastery.2 Furthermore, as cited above, a number of monarchs and their officers bestowed ‘slaves’ of both sexes on monasteries. Samantapāsādika clearly mentions that ‘there are in monasteries, slaves called monastery slaves (ārāmika-dāsa) granted by kings.’3 This feature is supported by other literary and epigraphic sources. For instance, the Tamil officer Pottakutta, serving the king Aġgabodhi IV, granted to a monastery he erected a reservoir, a village and another village, Nitthilavetthi, with dāsa.4 Bhaddhā the commander of the army of Sēna I (mid ninth century AD) built the monastery Bhaddhasēnāpati and gave it ‘slaves’ and revenues. The king, Sēna I, also built a monastery and endowed it with large revenues, many monastery helpers (ārāmika) and ‘slaves’ as labourers (dāsē kammakārē ce).5 Evidence also shows that various donors granted ārāmikas and ārāmikagāmas (villages with ārāmikas) to temples.6 Furthermore, kappiyakārakas were also assigned to monks who held forth on doctrine.7

Although temple ‘slaves’ were usually serving an entire body of monks in a temple, Samantapāsādika hints that some monks had personal ‘slaves.’16 Temple ‘slaves’ attending a sick monk appear in Sīhalavatthūpakarana,17 but the account does not specify whether they were personal ‘slaves’ of the monk. However, evidence for personal ‘slaves’ of monks is rare. Dedication of ‘slaves’ to fulfil a vow may have occurred in historical Sri Lanka with strong Hindu (Indian) influence.18 For instance, Knox states that people offered ‘slaves’, land, money and clothes among the offerings they made in exchange of good health19 presumably when one fell very ill. Nevertheless, the religious motivation to gain merit by dedicating ‘slaves’ prevailed resolutely in the ancient Sri Lankan society, and the climax of this fealty to the religion is marked with donation of one’s own self voluntarily as a ‘slave’ to gain merit.

Moreover, Queen Kalyānawati, built a monastery and granted it villages and dāsi dāsa among many other offerings.8 Another rock inscription of Lankāthilaka royal temple (in Gampola)9 of 1344 AD also mentions a grant of lands, 200 male and female ‘slaves’ (thamangē magul vahalin ranvahalin gänungen pirimingen vahal rū desīyakut…) and 400 cows and 1 E.g. EZ 4.no. 27: 132-133; ibid. no.37: 294-296; 6: 168-172 & 173; Dias (1991): 33. Cf. Chap. 5 for more.

10 Gunasekara (1887): 83-95, (l. 25). He renders vahal as ‘servants’. Cf. Evers (1972): 209. See Vellupillai (1972) pt. 2 (ll. 13-27): 68-81 for the Tamil version of this inscription that was found below the Sinhalese version in the same stone.

2

‘Amitiya mahajanaka…citiya dinē dāsa Anula dina dāsa Kāla ca’: EZ 8: 65 = IC 2.2 no. 151: 246.

3

Smp. 1001.

4

Mv. 46.19-21.

5

Mv. 50. 82 & 63-64 respectively.

11

Mv 80. 40.

12

EZ 1.no. 14 (l. 24): 179.

13

EZ 4. no. 12, (l. 20): 101 & 104.

14

Mv. 44.73. Cf. Chap. 1: 06 for detail.

6

E.g. Aġgabōdhi I gave 100 ārāmikas to Kandavihāra monastery (Mv. 42.16), Jettā the consort of Aġghabōdhi IV granted 100 ārāmikas with two villages to Jetthārāma monastery (Mv. 46. 27-28).

15 Mv. 46. 10-11. For further grants cf. also ibid. 14 & 28 (dāsi, dāsiārāmikē ce) to temples. 16

Smp 1001.

17

Sīhalavatthū 19 the term used is upatthakē (‘helper’).

7

The grant made by the king Buddhadāsa (AD 337-365) Mv. 37. 173. Cf. App. 1: 101 for status of kappiyakāraka. 8

18 Involvement of deity worship, a Hindu influence, may have crept into Sinhalese culture with increasing Indian influence perhaps during the Polonnaruwa period, during which Hindu influence was visible even in architecture, e.g. the removal of the ‘cow’ (sacred animal of Hindus) figure from the ‘moonstone structure.’

Mv. 80. 35-36. The same queen built an alms-house and granted 30 slaves (vahal) and cattle and buffaloes and lands to it. Although this was to offer food for the poor, there is no doubt it also offered alms to monks who could not obtain any alms until the last moment. (EZ 1. no. 14: 179 & 181-182).

9

There was another temple of the same name in Polonnaruwa.

19

50

Knox 83.

Despite donations, temples also acquired ‘slaves’ by purchase. A record from a period between 12th and 13th centuries AD, reveals that the Galapātha monastery has purchased ‘slaves’ out of its own funds (mē vihārayehi mundukaraduyen ran dīla genä lū).1 This is the only piece of evidence so far available testifying the purchase of ‘slaves’ by a temple.

mentions that people of Sri Lanka built 100 monasteries to accommodate c. 20,000 monks on the island.9 Although these figures may not be accurate they attest the large number of monks on the island. An epigraphic source dated to the second quarter of the tenth century AD, provides more reliable evidence mentioning that the king Kaśsapa V built the Mirisavëti monastery as lodging for 500 monks.10 Thus, such large numbers of monks and nuns naturally have required regular and substantial revenues for their maintenance. Lands, fields, villages, reservoirs and canals were, thus, offered by individuals of high social ranks11 to provide permanent revenue for Buddhist monasteries. The nature of endowments can best be understood within the context of the agricultural society of Sri Lanka where the primary source of revenue was paddy fields.12 Though most donations were generally made to all monks for communal ownership,13 there were rare cases where property was granted to individual monks.14

Thus, it is clear that Buddhist temples, at least those accommodating large numbers of monks/nuns, became large slave owners mainly through donations of monarchs and other high dignitaries.

1. II. Labour requirements of temples and the use of temple ‘slaves’: (a) Extent of temple property: Prior to investigating the extent of immovable property owned by Buddhist temples2 that required labour, it is vital to trace how these establishments came to own such property, because vinaya regulations forbid monks accepting such material wealth.3

Accordingly, donations poured into temples for the maintenance of the monks, the guardians of Buddhism. A glance at the extent of temple property and how they were managed is vital to examine the requirement of ‘slave’ labour to these establishments. Chronicles and epigraphic material provide information on grants of hundreds of acres of cultivable lands, villages, reservoirs, canals and cattle to many monasteries in the island from the second to the 14th century AD.15 For instance, Mahādhatthika Mahānāga (third quarter of the first century AD) granted a tract of land measuring half a yōjanā round.16 Vasabha (second century AD) bestowed

Literary evidence reveals that with the spread of Buddhism4 on the island hundreds of people irrespective of their social ranks entered the order of Buddhist monks and nuns.5 Besides, Fa-Hien observes in the fifth century AD that there were thousands of monks in the principal monasteries.6 He further records that there were 60,000 monks on the island who obtained their meals from common stores and besides this the king prepared elsewhere in the city a common supply of food for a further 5/6000 monks.7 Hiuen Tsiang (AD 629)8

9

Beal tr. (1890) Hiuen-Tsang 11: 247.

10 1

EZ 4. no. 25 (ll. 12-13) : 203-204.

11 Kings as donors: e.g. CJS [g] (1928-33) 2, nos. 700 (first century AD); 368, 424 (second century AD); 451 (eighth century AD); 710 (14th century AD); 717 (16th century AD). EZ 6. 1, no. 23 (12th century AD). Princes as donors: e.g. ibid. CJS 2. nos. 524 (fourth century AD); 489 (sixth century AD); 676 (seventh century AD); 436 (14th century AD). Ministers as donors: e.g. ibid. CJS 2. nos. 379, 380 (second century AD); 440 (fifth century AD); EZ 6.1 no. 39 (second century AD). High officials as donors: CJS 2. nos. 384 (fifth century AD) grant made by the Chief Secretary; EZ 6.1 no. 13: 70-72 also mention a donation of lands to a temple, by a servant of the inner apartments of the palace, with maintenance lands.

2

Notably, Christian (Catholic and Orthodox) monasteries are not of any parallel to Buddhist monasteries. A Buddhist temple/monastery may contain residential quarters for Buddhist monks, and places for worship. Monks did not engage in manual work such as cultivation, but only in religious activities including priestly duties. In Catholic or Orthodox monasteries monks mainly resided and performed manual work.

3

EZ 1. no. 4, (ll.6-7).

Vinaya 1:192.

4

Buddhism was introduced to the island & became the state religion in the third century BC and by the first century BC it was established in the island.

12

5

E.g. EZ 1. no. 2 (ll. 11): 28. Also cf. EZ. 1. no. 7 esp. slab A.

6

14 Probably the recipients of such grants were chief monks of temples and the expectation of a donor could be to profit all resident monks in them: e.g. EZ 1. no. 6 & ibid. 6. no. 27, (ll.(13-14): 130-131.

7

15 Gunawardhana (1979): 3 lists many grants made to monasteries from AD 833-1215. Many other grants of equal or bigger size that fall in and beyond this time frame are also recorded in historical sources.

Warnasūriya (1943): 74.

13

Prince Arittha entered the order of monks with 500 men (Mv. 19. 66) and queen Anula entered the order of nuns with 1000 women (Mv. 19.65= SBv. 194). 5,000 monks in Abhayagiriya, (Fa Hien 38. cf. Beal (1890) 1: introd. 73). 2,000 monks in Mihintalē (Fa Hien 38. cf. Beal (1890) 1: introd. 76) & 3,000 monks in Mahāvihāra (Fa Hien 39. cf. Beal (1890) 1: introd. 76). Also cf. Rāhula (1956) 139. Fa Hien 38; cf. also Beal (1890) 1. introd. 76.

8

Hiuen-Tsang has not visited the island and his account is based on second hand evidence: De Silva (1961): 32.

16

51

Mv. 34. 92. yōjana = between 12 and 12½ miles. Cf.

on the monastery Anurārāma a thousand karisas of land.1 Aġghabōdhi I (last half of the sixth century AD) donated a coconut plantation of three yōjanas in extent to Kurunda monastery.2 Mahinda I (first half of the eighth century AD) built a temple for Bhikkunis (Buddhist nuns) and granted the village Nagaragalla3 and Sēna II (last half of the ninth century AD) gave ‘maintenance villages’ (bhōgagāma)4 to Lohapāsāda.5 A grant of land to Lankātilaka temple in 1344 AD is also recorded.6 Such evidence gives an idea of the extent of monastic property.

(b) Management of temple property: 7 It needs to be re-emphasised that although a large tracts of land, reservoirs and canals were granted to Buddhist monasteries, monks were admonished by vinaya regulations to abstain from all kinds of profane pursuits including acceptance and management of property (‘slaves’ included), and enjoyment of material wealth through commercial and agricultural pursuits.8 But Buddhagōsha’s commentary on vinaya (fifth century AD) has relaxed the restrictions on accepting and managing property including ‘slaves’ by monks and such acts were justified with an ethical cover: It behoves bhikkhusangha [monks in general] not to administer, accept or consent to the acceptance of any immovable property like a field, landholding, irrigation, reservoir or canal. But it is permissible to accept ‘allowable’ articles9 from the proceeds of such property if they be administered by kappiyakāraka.10

Áriyapāla (1956): 151.

Dambadenikatikāvata also states that receiving and accepting slaves and other material offerings to temples/by monks should be done following advice of an intelligent and well-mannered lay person who could also be called a kappiyakāraka.11 These measures urge the necessity to obtain a body of people to accept these donations and to maintain them (to support the maintenance of the monasteries and monks) on behalf of the monks. Added to these theoretical incentives are the practical issues such as extensive amounts of properties sometimes located at substantial distances from the proprietor monastery,12 making it indispensable to

1

Mv. 35. 83. One Kiriya/ karisa/ kiri = 4 amuna (Gunawardhana (1979): 54 note 3); amuna = 2 or 2½ acres of cultivable lands: Áriyapala (1956): 154-155). But Paranavitāna reports that Codrington estimated it as one acre in Ūva province (EZ 3: 190 note 2). The same monarch allegedly granted the monastery Mucēla a share in the water of the canal Älisara (Mv, 35. 84) and endowed to monastery Gaĺambatitta a reservoir, with the capacity to irrigate a thousand karisas (Mv. 35. 86). For further grants of reservoirs to monasteries: e.g. Mv. 35. 120 & 36. 2-3, also 42. 28. For grant of Land (2 Karisa- sixth century AD): EZ 4. no. 13: 111-115.

2

Mv. 42 15.

7

But notably every monastery in the island did not own extensive amounts of property in antiquity, though most principle monasteries probably did.

3

Mv. 48. 36-37. Granting villages to monasteries was equally common in historic Sri Lanka. For instance, Mv. 37. 173 reports grants of two villages Samānagāma and Golapānugāma by the king Buddhadāsa (AD 337-365) to Mahāvihara monastery and that of Tintinikagāma to the same monastery (Mv.42. 96-97) by another. Moreover, other popular monasteries also received grants of villages: the village Vasabagāma granted to the Jethavanārāma monastery (Mv.41.97) and the village Punneli and Kasagāma by the Thupārāma monastery (Mv. 45. 28-29). The donor of the last two villages was Datōpatiśsa II (AD 659-667).

8

Cf. supra 51 note 03. For penalties to monks who indulge in commerce and agriculture by depriving their right to reside in a particular monastery cf. e.g. EZ 1. no. 1 (ll. 16-17): 7 & ibid. 1. no. 7 (ll. A 42-43): 104. 9

10

Smp 1238. Following the reading of Kappiyabhānda the meaning of Kappiyakāraka could be ‘laymen (or more loosely ‘workers’) permissible for monks’. For a discussion on the status of Kappiyakāraka and the ārāmika (another group of servitors in temples as noted in literary sources) Cf. App. 1: 101.

4

The difference between gāma (village) and bhōgagāma (‘maintenance village’ -Geigers’s translation) is not clear. Probably, the income of the latter was either used for the maintenance of the residing monks, in form of providing daily victuals or for the maintenance of ‘slaves’ and other servants working for the monastery, while gāma (village) could have been purely used to obtain revenues for the monastery for various tasks. Cf. Gunawardhana (1979): 59-62 for an explanation on bhōgagāma.

11 12

Dkvata 133.

Some cases for distant property of temples: EZ 4. no. 8: 5967 - a seminary belonged to Mahāvihāra possessed a tract of land from Muhundnāruva in the eastern Quarter c. 50 miles from Anurādhapura; Sen Sënëvirad monastery also had lands c. 45 miles away from it, in Anurādhapura: EZ 1. no.12: 163171. For similar cases Cf. EZ 1.no. 13: 172-175; no.17: 200207; EZ 2. no. 44-49; EZ 3: 100-113. Cf. also Gunawardane (1979): 95.

5

Mv. 51. 71. For other similar grants in the ninth & the tenth centuries AD cf. Mv. 52.46; 53. 2; 44. 41.

6

Kappiyabhānda –utensils allowable for monks.

Evers (1972): 209.

52

employ a regular workforce to administer and to maintain temple properties.

residing monks. ‘Slaves’ may certainly have been used for all types and conditions of work in temples according to their availability.

The aim of this section is to study how temple property was managed, and to what extent temple ‘slaves’ were included in the required labour force.

Interestingly, the record of Mahinda IV in Mihintale,7 (that refers to leases kudin, and veheŕ dasun) records regulations on administration of Cetiyagiri monastery8 and gives in the tablet B what appears to be a theoretical list of personnel needed for the temple to function and how they must be remunerated as the list gives only the duties of this personnel and not the names of actual individuals. The list is as follows:

One of the modes adopted at least by a few temples to maintain their property seems to be leasing them out. For instance, the record of Kaśsapa V (the second quarter of the tenth century AD), registering regulations for the administration of temple property of the monastery of Mirisavëtiya, mentions gam patta (ll.27), rendered by Wickramasinghe as ‘village leases.’1 This term also occurs in the Mihintale record (third quarter of the tenth century AD): ‘all the villages and lands belonging to this vihāra shall be administered upon the deeds of lease, but no [absolute] transfers [of the same] shall be executed’.2 Accordingly, leasing temple lands was a known custom and, as seen in the Kondawattan record, the lands were leased out with the householders: ‘Leases shall be enjoyed without ejecting the householders (kudīn)3 and without (the lessees themselves) ploughing (i.e. cultivating the fields).’4 This remark also suggests that the temple land was leased out with the necessary workforce available for a temple. But despite these passing references, evidence does not inform us of another temple managing its property through leases. The leases perhaps were handled by kappiyakārakas5 on behalf of monks in the monastery; they received the temple income (l.16), administered monastic regulations, and worked as stewards, clerks, the registrar and the keeper of caskets, and the almoner of the monastery.6 The absence of further evidence on leasing temple lands need not suggest that all other temples managed their property though it could be one possibility, since some temples may have managed part of their property while leasing some, perhaps with some labour force, cattle and irrigation facilities available for cultivation (if so) as cited above in the Kondawattan record. Besides agriculture, renovation work and routine chores may have required regular labour of a permanent staff for temples with extensive amounts of property and 1

EZ 1. no.4: 44 & 54 note 4.

2

EZ 1. no.7, (ll. A 43-44): 87 & 104-105.

7

EZ 1. no. 7: 75-113. The record contains two granite slabs (7′ x 4′ x 2′ each) named A and B by the editor. The B seems to be a continuation of the A. According to the record (A.ll.67) the rules cited were selected from those which already existed in the Abhayagiriya and Seygiriya monasteries, suggesting that temples with extensive stationary property and large crowds of residing monks had a set code of laws for administrative purposes.

3

Kudīn appear to be the inhabitants of villages given to temples. Free status of these individuals is clear since they were obliged to pay a ground tax for living and cultivating in temple lands: EZ 1. no.7, (l. A41): 86 & 104.

4

EZ 5. no. 10, patta pälin kudin no palavā no sa patta valadnu kot (ll. 9-12): 136, 140 & also 127.

5

8

The regulations for administering monasteries to secure religious practices and monastic property may have been registered by temple clerks under the council of chief monks in the monastery concerned and probably also with royal patronage: e.g. EZ 1.no. 7, (A ll. 4-6).

Cf. supra 52 for detail.

6

For the full list of services cited in this record cf. the table infra 54-58.

53

³ ♣

Special case, the individual appears to be some officer, but does not receive land. Receive only a food ration or land (less than one kiriya) for subsistence and lodging. Doubtful cases, these individuals receive Vasag from Damiya.1 Those receive one or more than one kiriya of land, probably free men working for the monastery.

Services

(l.2) To an administrator of [monastic regulations (niyamjeta). (ll.3-6) The steward (kämiya). Clerk of the vihāra (veheŕleya). The registrar of the caskets (karandleya). Keeper of caskets (karaduatsa mā). Almoner (pasakkämiya).

Amount of land given

Amount of raw rice2 given daily. one näliya4

Any other

-

five kiriya3 for maintenance (jivel). five kiriya

two adamanā

-

-do-

-do-

-

-do-

-do-

-

-do-

-do-

-

-do-

-do-

-

Lay warden (vatkämiya). Master of festivals (maguljetā). (ll.7-15) To Vatsikakämiyak5 [Supplier] of earthen almsbowls (mätipata). To one who arrange outside affairs (pitaśsamā). Servant attends to matters arising [in connection with] the palace (upänikämiya). Ol-kämiya (a master/ drummer)6

two paya

Pereväliya of the Piyangal [monastery] (one who spread clothes)7

two paya

one kiriya one kiriya

one adamanā -

Vasag from Damiya -

one paya

two pata

-

one kiriya and two paya

Two adamanā

-

-do-

-do-

-

two paya

one adamanā and two pata. -

-

One vasag from Damiya

5

EZ 1. no.7, (l. B7): 88. The meaning of this term has become a point of dispute among scholars. The common meaning of Skt. Vatsikā is ‘a female calf’ and based on that Fleet reads vatsikā-kārmika or vatsikākämiya as ‘a cow-herd’. The editor of the record, Wickramasinghe, accepts this reading. But for Müller it means ‘one who prepares medicine’ whereas for Mudaliar it was ‘a servant of one year’: EZ 1. no. 7: 108 note 7 and Amaravansa (1959): 10 accepts Müller’s reading. Though there would have been cow-herds among the temple workforce, the particular text favours Müller’s reading, as the high payment suggests that the duty demanded special skills, (Cf. infra 58) and this person may be preparing medicines other than decoctions, as there is another for that task whose payment is more or less in the same level as that of vatsikākämiya. Furthermore, it is unlikely that a cow-herd will receive such an amount of land. On the other hand, the nature of the list does not tally with the reading, ‘a servant of one year’ as this does not refer to a duty.

1

The meaning is not very clear but Wickramasinghe assumes that this “refers to a certain ‘measured quantity of provisions’ from the common store or almonry of the monastery.” EZ 1. no.7: 83. Also cf. ibid. 1: 28 note 5.

2

The raw-rice allowance for the workers in the monastery may have been obtained from the granary of the monastery. It would have been the duty of the temple ‘slaves’ and other workers to fill the granary for the consumption of the monks and also for its workers, which was given in rations.

3 Yāla, kiriya, and paya are measures of extent. Cf. supra note 17 for the value of Kiriya. Yāla = 20 amuna. Paya = ¼ of a kiri = one amuna. (Ariyapala (1956): 155). 4

Näliya, adamanā, pata are used as measures of capacity. Pata or pasata was a ‘handful’ and according to Clough it was an eighth of a seer i.e. a 256th part of a bushel, and the adamanā was perhaps a similar name for a näli: Ariyapala (1956): 155 in reference to, Clough Numismata orientalia 18, 20.

6 7

Cf. EZ 1: 108 & note 11.

The meaning of the pereväliya is ambiguous but cf. EZ 1: 108 & note 12.

54

Pereväliya of the [Salamevan]pavu [monastery] Head painter (Elināvā).

two paya

For 11 painters, each (Elināvā)

two paya

Each four servants (väri satarak) (ll. 16-25) To each two atsam (receivers of viharā income)1 Head caretaker of the granary (rakināvā). To a caretaker of the granary (räkiya). Jet-mava (older woman doing cleaning)2 Wader of the refractory (batgēlädiyā) . One who issue orders to female slaves (midi): (midiväjërama). To each of the 24 vatmīdi.3

two paya

one adamanā

two paya

one adamanā and one pata.

-

one adamanā and two pata. One adamanā

-

two paya

two paya

two paya

one paya

one paya two paya

one paya

1

Cf. EZ 1: 109 & note 7.

2

Cf. EZ 1: 109 & note 8.

-

one adamanā and one pata. -

One adamanā and two pata. One adamanā and two pata. -

-

One who attend affairs of sang-välla To each of the servants (salaya) who do cooking.

One vasag from Damiya -

One vasag from Damiya -

To the head of these servants (salājetak)

To a servant (salaya) who brings firewood and cooks food. To a servant (salaya) who brings firewood but does not cook. To a servant (salaya) who goes on errands To a servant (salaya) who only cooks on firewood fetched by others (ll.26-30) To the chief of the thatchers (pahaväsijetak) of the monastery. To each of the 11 thatchers (pahaväsi).

-

-

-

-

one kalaňda of gold annually for clothing

One kiriya One kiriya and two paya from Talōlagāma 4 One kiriya and two paya from Talōlagāma -

one adamanā -

-

one adamanā and one pata.

-

three adamanā

-

-

two adamanā

-

-

two adamanā

-

-

one adamanā

-

Two paya

one adamanā and one pata.

-

Two paya

one adamanā

-

3

Wickramasinghe reads vatmidi is ‘hired female slaves’ by taking vat –as hire. But Wimalakitthi’s (1957): 42, argument suits the record, which refers to those served in temples by their duties, best. According to the latter vatmidi were female slaves working in the paddy pounding/husking hall (vathal) and in alms hall (vataraka) in the temple. Cf. App. 1: 100-101 for midi.

4

The sinhala word gāma means ‘village’, thus Talōla- gāma: ‘the village Talōla’. Similarly, when the term gāma is added to a name it means a village by that name.

55

To each of the five potters (kumbal) who supply daily five earthen pots. To an almsbowl maker (pākumbala) who supplies 10, almsbowls and 10 water pots a month. To one who supplies a water strainer (pärähändīya) every month (ll.30-35) To a physician (vedā)

One kiriya

two kiriya

-

two adamanā

-

one kiriya and two paya

-

one niyapäliya1 from Detisäsena two paya

-

-

one vasag from Damiya

one kiriya and two paya

-

one vasag from Damiya

two kiriya

-

To a barber (näviyā).

one kiriya

-

To the keeper of the ‘relic house’ (atsama).

Karandä gama for maintenance

-

To a physician who applies leeches (puhunda vedā). To one prepares medical decoctions (Mandovuva)2 To an astrologer (näkätiya).

The chief of the retinue [of attendants] (ganajetuva). The registrar of shrines (karadaleya). Three superintendents of ‘service by turns’ (vaŕjetu). To dum-malassam3 who serves by turns Two florists who place white [lotus] flowers in the ‘relic-house’ (malvarā). To the keeper of blue waterlilies and supplies 120 a month (mal dena mahanelgovuva). To a painter (sittara). ♠To Ratladuva4 who takes care of the ‘relic-house’. To the six dum-malassam of the temple containing the colossal Buddha statue.

-

-

one vasag from Damiya

one vasag from Damiya one vasag from Damiya -

---do—

-

-

--do--

-

-

--do--

-

-

-

-

four vasag from Damiya one vasag from Damiya

Two kiriya of land from Karandägama Two kiriya of land from Sapugāmiya Two kiriya -

The Gutägama

-

-

-

-

-

One näliya

-

-

-

3

The meaning is not clear, may be those who supply incense and flowers to the monastery cf. EZ 1: 104 & note 1 for more.

4

The editor of the record states that the literal translation of this term is ‘he who has received the country’ which he reads as ‘district headman’. If the task assigned involved managing all tasks in the relic house the amount of his apportionment is very small. On the other hand, if the task involved menial work in the relic house, ratladuva needs to find a new meaning, probably a head of a ‘slave’ village of the temple. Cf. infra 61.

1

The meaning is not clear Müller considers päliyā is another form of päla which is only one eighth of a kiriya (1½ Bushel) and as Wickramasiňghe maintains this amount is too little for a physician. For more detail see EZ 1: 110 & note 2.

2

Cf. EZ 1: 110 & note 4.

56

To the devotee who preaches Buddhist doctrine (bhanavajaranadamīň). To the devotee who is a teacher (äduradamīň). To six other devotees (damīň). To the florist of the temple containing the colossal Buddha statue (malvarā) To the dummal-assam of this village (ll. 41-45) pūnā-kämiya1 of the temple of the auspicious colossal stone-statue of Buddha To one who officiate there.2 (kamaśsamak).

--do--

-

-

--do--

-

-

--do--

-

-

two paya from this Gutägama

-

one vasag from Damiya

-

two paya

two paya

-

one adamanā and two pata.

one adamanā and two pata.

two vasag from Damiya -

-

1

‘A person attending ceremonies connected with the sacred pūnā pot in the temple’ Cf. EZ 1 : 111 & note 7 for further detail.

2 Kam-aśsamak, ‘one who takes an account of work’ [in the shrine with the Buddha statue]. Cf. EZ 1: 111 & note 8 for detail.

57

To an official who provides a cup in which to take oil for the unction of the [statue of ] the Buddha in the ‘relichouse,’ an unbleached clothe for filtering water and the same [articles] for the image house (kamtänledaruva). Chief master artisan (vadumahaädura).

one kiriya and two paya

To two masterartisans (äduravadu). To eight carvers (siŕvadu). To two bricklayers (uluvadu). (ll.46-50) To each of the two carpenters (vadu). Master stonemasons (katuvadu). Each of the two blacksmiths (miniŕ maha äduŕ). To the lime burners (kambuŕ).

Vadudēvägama

-

-do-

-

-

-do-

-

-

one kiriya

-

-

three kiriya

-

-

one kiriya

-

-

Sunuboldēvägama

-

-

?

one adamanā

?

-

All that belong to the guild of artisans at Boňdvehera -

To the six cartmen (gäĺla). To the overseer of ‘workers by piece’ (käbili) in the reparation work. To each of the 12 ‘workers by the piece’ (käbili). (ll. 50-54) To each of the three warders of the three dāgäbas1 (sägovuvan). To each of those who sweep (hämändä). To each of those who go repeatedly round and take care of dāgäbas belonging to Ät-vehera To men who perform service in the ‘relic-house’, in the ‘imagehouse’ and in the refractory (mehekarana minisuň). To two laundry men (radavun).

Dunumugama

-

one kiriya

one adamanā and one pata.

-

two paya for maintenance (jivel). two paya

one adamanā

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

one vasag from Damiya one vasag from Damiya

three kiriya of land in Maňgulävagama

-

-do-

-

required more responsibility and skill and those which were essential for the continuation of religious activities were well remunerated, implying that free people were employed for such tasks.2 On the other hand, chores that appear menial and which needed more labour were poorly paid, suggesting that either poor free who worked for the temple for subsistence or ‘slaves’ covered these labour needs. Though ‘slave’ and free poor workers are hard to distinguish the use of ‘slaves’ is clear in the case of the 24 vatmidi3 who received a paya of land each, presumably once and for all for maintenance and lodging during their service to the temple (ll. B 20-21), besides the annual clothing allowance.4 Complexities occur when the salayas5 in the record were paid in two different ways, one group with ½ kiriya of land while the others were only given food rations which again varied, seemingly, according to the nature of their task. The possible difference could be that the salayas paid with land were free workers performing relatively less hard work than the other group who could have been ‘slaves’ or poor free.

-

Thus though some temple ‘slaves’ were used for these tasks it is difficult to identify the proportion of temple ‘slaves’ with certainty in this record, which shows that most skilled workers were free men. Moreover, the record only cites the workers necessary to function/ maintain the temple and does not refer to the workforce needed to cultivate temple lands possibly because, as noted above, the land was leased out probably with ‘slave’ or other labour available for this temple. Nonetheless the above list helps us to understand how a temple could make its land available to its workforce. However, in cases where temples cultivate their lands, hundreds of dāsa/vahal etc given to temples with land and cattle may have been used for agricultural pursuits6 though bondsmen and free tenants were also seem to have used to work the temple lands when available.

-

Moreover, it is interesting to note that the ‘allotment’ of land to its free and unfree workers did not cause temples to lose land in the process. It is evident from the Mihintalē record, ‘no villages or lands belonging to this vihāra [temple] shall in any manner be mortgaged or gifted away’7 implying that lands always remained the property of the temple and the workers could enjoy them as far as they were serving the temple, and at the termination of their service the lands were withdrawn.

-

Importantly, all individuals were provided with some ‘apportionment’ granted in variant forms: some received either only land or food ration or vasag from Damiya, while some received both land and either food ration or vasag from Damiya. Apparently, the tasks that

2

Some received as much as five kiriya= c. 40 acres. Skilled workers could be people from various professional based castes.

3

Cf. supra 55 note 03.

4

EZ 1. no. 7: 88.

5

Salaya could be a term used for the kitchen staff at least in a monastery.

6

Cf. supra 49-51.

7

EZ 1.no. 7, (B l. 57): 90 & 113.

1

The three dāgäbas are: Navaguna-mahā-säya, Näteviyamahā-säya and Ämbulu-dāgäba.

58

Various groups of craftsmen may also have been required in the permanent staff of a monastery to repair and renovate their buildings and irrigation systems. This permanent necessity of services of craftsmen is shown in the first slab of the above cited record, which mentions that reparation work should be done annually in the monastery of Cētiyagiri (A ll. 35-36).1 Although craftsmen in monasteries may have come from both free and unfree, most skilled craftsmen, as suggested above, may have been free workers. The record from Jēthavanarama monastery (ninth century AD) states that the stonecutters and carpenters employed by the temple were assigned two allotments of land2 and were given a specific time to complete the task (two months and five days) with a warning of deprivation of their allotments if they failed to complete the job within the designated period3 suggesting that they were free men working on contract basis. The grant of land may suggest prolonged employment, but they could have been hired for different tasks in the temple to be completed in set time periods, allowing them sufficient time to work and reap a harvest from the allocated land.4

reported cases in historic Sri Lankan temples, bear parallels to Leslie Orr’s discussions on temple women in medieval Tamilnadu.10 The duties of the 24 vatmidi: working in the paddy pounding/ husking halls and in alms hall in the Cetiyagiri monastery and the way their labour was exacted/ paid off furnish a good example in support of this notion.11 Moreover, as Orr rightly points out, female servants in temples may have been engaged in various tasks12 and the term dēva-dāsi may probably signify the sense of belonging to the particular god(s) of the religious establishment (i.e. dēva--god). Also this Sanskritised Tamil term (tevaratiyāl) may not be applicable to female servants in Buddhist temples due to the simple reason that the Buddha was no god but a human being who had attained enlightenment and Buddhist temples were not considered as abodes of any deity. Female ‘slaves,’ mostly living in families, were performing a range of duties for temples, from cultivation to cleaning, just as their male counterparts. Also, given the nature of the Buddhist precepts, which condemn prostitution and the disciplinary code for Buddhist monks and nuns which was designed to help monks and nuns banish worldly desires as they schooled themselves to attain nibbāna, the ultimate goal of a Buddhist, none of these female temple ‘slaves’ were likely to have been used for any form of prostitution or obscene dancing in order to draw revenues for Buddhist temples at any period in the history of the island. Such exploitation of male or female servitors belonging to Buddhist temples would have been condemned as denigration of Buddhist values beyond imagination, especially by the general public of Sri Lanka (who were mainly Buddhists).13 Similarly, if there were any dēva-dāsis, in the South Indian Buddhist temples, as mentioned by Tarachand,14 these were possibly female servitors who performed various menial tasks such as cleaning and husking paddy in these temples. It is unlikely that they were engaged in any erotic services because, as noted above, the idea of entering monkhood itself was to practise controlling one’s worldly desires to attain nibbāna and to direct lay folks towards the same end. Noteworthy therefore is Orr’s rejection of the notion that dēva-dāsis were sacred prostitutes and his calling them ‘temple women’, instead, who perform various chores in temples.15

Apart from free wage/hired workers there may also have been free craftsmen reduced to bondage/ ‘slavery’ in temples perhaps for debt, and there could also be some craftsmen among the ‘slaves’ donated to temples. For instance, manumission records refer to the presence of a ‘slave’ bricklayer in Dangoĺlagama temple5 and Samantapāsādikā justifies accepting dyer-‘slaves’ (rajakadāsa) and weaver-‘slaves’ (pēsakāradāsa) given to temples as ārāmika.6 As can be seen in the above record7 and in the other reported evidence in this study8 female ‘slaves’ have come into the possession of Buddhist temples through donations and, the single reported case of purchase of slaves, that by the Galapātha temple, also included female ‘slaves’.9 The kind of duties and the form of support received by the female ‘slaves,’ at least in the 1

EZ 1. no. 7.

2

One and half kiri of fields each from the villages allocated to fund the renovation work at the monastery & a plot of unirrigated land for growing ‘inferior grain’ (hēna).

3

EZ 1. no. 1: 8-9 (ll. 25-32).

4

For epigraphic references to Sinhalese and Tamil hired workers (hel kulī, demel kulī) in monastic settings cf: EZ 1. no.12 (ll. C6-7): 167 & 170 note 11; no. 13 (ll. B6-7): 173; 5. no. 32 (ll. C14-16): 349-354.

10

Orr (2000): 119 & 129.

11

Cf. supra 55 note 03 & supra 58.

12

Orr (2000): 3-17.

5

EZ 6: 173. Cf. App. 2, no. 8.

6

Smp. 683.

7

Cf. supra 55 note 03.

8

Cf. supra 49-51.

14

Tarachand (1991) esp. the introduction: 11.

9

Cf. infra 60.

15

Orr (2000): 3-17.

13

For the religious impact on the political system on the island see Deerananda (2004).

59

pay their debt. But temples received ‘slaves’ from donors with or without land accompaniments and in such cases the available ‘slaves’ may have been extensively used. ‘Thus the percentage of ‘slaves’, bondsmen and free workers in a temple may have differed from one monastery to another based on the wealth of a temple and the generosity of its donors.

(c) Routine chores in temples: A considerable amount of ‘slave’/ bonded labour may have been required for regular chores such as preparing food, cleaning, and also for many other menial tasks in temples while attending to personal needs of multitudes of resident monks or nuns.1 Preparing food for large numbers of monks could have been another exhausting task assigned to temple ‘slaves’.2 An account in Sīhalavatthūpakarana refers to monastic ‘slaves’ (ārāmika) responsible for cooking meals for residing monks in a particular temple.3 Moreover, Mihintale tablets also reveal arrangements made for providing food for the residing monks in the temple.4 Apart from work in the kitchen, some temple ‘slaves’ may also have been used as cleaners of the residential areas and places of worship as can be seen in the same inscription.5 Moreover, some temple ‘slaves’ may also have carried palanquins6 and, if need arise, buried the dead and arranged funeral catharsis.7

1.III How temple slaves were managed/ treated? The Galapātha record (12th /13th century AD)8 is the only hard evidence that throws some light on the family structure of temple slaves. It provides a list of more than eighty ‘slaves’ owned by the Galapāta monastery registering them by name and normally by their relation to an adult in their respective families. The record mentions wives, siblings, children of both sexes, both parents and even other relatives. For instance, the first family registered after an adult male containing his parents, younger sister, and four younger brothers read:

However, management of temple property may not have been totally impossible without the service of temple ‘slaves’ because the professional based caste system could have provided skilled wage-workers and the service of free tenants, though the service of temple ‘slaves’ could have been cheaper. Moreover, a temple could also rent its lands, and though temporary, some temples might also have a few bondsmen working to 1

..Konta Boganta, his mother Uba, his younger sister Mindi, his father Uyavandā, his younger brother Getkämi Lokeyi, his younger brother Ponvānī Mindā, his younger brother Raku, his younger brother Suva; ….(ll.13-14)9 Further, in three families wives are mentioned along with children and each of these three families was registered after the husband (ll. 17, 20, 23). Interestingly, one case also cites an aunt of a ‘slave’, along with his siblings and son (l.19). And in another, a daughter, a younger sister, and a younger brother were registered under a female ‘slave’ (ll.16-17) and not under her husband who is not mentioned: this woman perhaps was a widow and no adult males were present in the family. But the fragmentary nature of the record10 does not permit a clear observation of the condition of this family nor of any other ‘slave’ family. Also it is noteworthy that these slaves were given land presumably to maintain their families while working for the temple (l. 23).11 It is difficult to differentiate the purchased ‘slaves’ from those given as gifts to the temple in the list perhaps because they were apparently purchased or donated in family units.

EZ 1 (ll. 30-45): 89-90 & 110-111.

2

As stated above, ordinary men may not have been able to feed multitude of monks regularly although it was a possibility for monarchs. But even the royal support may have been irregular due to political disturbances making it necessary to prepare the meals for residing monks with the resources of temples. Cf. supra 51.

3

Sīhalavtthū 16: 50 in van Eecke (1980). The term used in the original Pāli text is ‘ārāmika’.

4

Cf. supra 58.

5

The attendant who kept the premises clean (sweepers) received only a ‘measured quantity of provisions from the temple store’: EZ 1. no. 7: 90 & 112, (B ll. 51-52). In addition to these some workers called pahāväsi occur in the same record (EZ 1: 89 (B ll. 26-27)). Wickramasinghe, agreeing with Müller and Gunasēkara rendered the term as ‘thatcher’ (EZ 1: 110 note.1) considering the terms veheraväsi and velväsi (EZ 1. no.16, (C ll.10-11): 195 & ibid. 4 no. 6 (A ll. 68 p.52), velvässan; ibid. 2. no. 29 (l. 23): 170, veheravässan) which enables to trace its root from Pāli pāsādavāsi, which probably meant ‘an attendant attached to a monastic residence’.

Another significant phenomenon, which enabled Sri Lankan temples to treat their ‘slaves’ as discussed could be the prevailing practice in the society i.e. the large ‘slave’ owners besides temples, kings and their 8

EZ 4, no. 25 (ll. 12-23): 203-204.

9

6

EZ 4, no. 25: 203. For a brief study on Sri Lankan ‘slave’ names cf. Wijesekara (1974): 16-17.

7

10 The name of the younger brother of the woman and also the name of the main ‘slave’ in the next family are illegible or erased (ll.16-17).

The use of palanquins is mentioned in Dkvata 133 requesting monks to use them as shared property.

D’Oyly mentioned in reference to the Kändyan period that a chief duty of a domestic ‘slave’ was to bury the corpse of the master (1928): 119. That could be a main duty of ‘slaves’ all times even in monasteries.

11

60

EZ 4. no. 25.

entourage, who were the suppliers of temple ‘slaves’, may have treated their ‘slaves’ similarly.

The account however, mentions that ‘when in any spot within this [district] murder or robbery with violence has been committed’, the headmen of ‘dasa-gama’ will inquire among the inhabitants regarding the crimes and ‘they shall have the murderer punished with death’ (ll. 9-12).8 It further continues that the property stolen by thieves by violence may be identified and restored to the owner and the thieves will be hanged (ll. 12-14).9 If the offenders were not detected, the inhabitants of ‘dasa-gama’ shall find them and have them punished within 45 days and failure to do this shall compel them to pay a fine of the weight of 125 kalaňdas10 of gold to the radolat11 (ll.14-18). Regarding serious assault and not murder, a fine of the weight of 50 kalaňdas of gold shall be exacted as penalty for damage to life. Should this not be feasible, ge-dad12 shall be exacted. Once again when the offender cannot be detected the inhabitants had to pay an identical fine to the radolat (ll. 18-20) again compelling them to find the offender. Moreover, the record mentions that,

The Lāhugala record (1153-1186 AD) clearly states that the vahal of the temple Galapāya were given heritable lands (ll.15-17)1 suggesting that these vahal lived with their subsistence for the respective families. But the size of such families is not mentioned in this record or in any other. Though the grant of lands to vahal/dāsa given to temples for lodging and to derive subsistence could be easily explained since they show both serf and slave features, heritable land given to them needs explanation. Apparently, what vahal/dāsa inherited could be the obligation to work for temple and what really happened could be that a block of land was perpetually reserved to lodge and sustain such continuous generations of self-perpetuating ‘slave’ groups for the temple. This interpretation is further supported by the record of Mahinda IV at Mihintale which exempts veherdasun (temple ‘slaves’) from paying ground tax to the monarch2 as these individuals as well as the land in which they worked were sāngika property (i.e. ‘property assigned for Buddhist monks’).

… From those who went out [of the temple] to do menial work, a fine of 50 kalaňdas [weight] of gold shall be exacted. Should this not be feasible ge-dad shall be levied. Should there be no ge-dad they shall be punished by having their hands cut off… (ll. 21-23).

The Vēvälkätiya slab inscription of Mahinda IV (c. 1026-1042 AD) which deals with the administration of criminal justice in ‘dasa-gama’,3 an endowment of a monastery (Demel-vihara) in the northern quarter of the island, is of special importance as this provides an idea as to how the internal affairs of this village were managed c.11th century AD. The rendering of ‘dasagama’ is necessary to show the value of this record for the present study. The editor of the inscription points out that the problematic term dasa is for dāsa (‘slave’) and not for dasa (ten)4 in reference to a number of identical cases and argues that ‘dasa-gama’ is a village in which ‘slaves’ resided5 and Ariyapāla agrees with this notion.6 Apart from this, there are other cases where the terms das, dasun and other variant forms (sudasun, veherdasun) are mentioned to denote the meaning ‘servant’ or (to a greater extent) ‘slave.’7

This detail shows that these villagers had no control over their labour and their service was limited to the monastery to which they belonged, highlighting their unfree status. The record further mentions that the capital punishment shall be exacted for slaughtering buffaloes, oxen, and goats. When the animals were stolen and not slaughtered, after due determination each offender shall be branded under the armpit and when Also cf. App. 1: 97. 8 9

The editor of the record explains that “hanged” here carries the sense of ‘suspending’, and mentions that ‘I have not yet come across ‘hanging’ mentioned as form of a capital punishment in Sinhalese literature.’ EZ 1: 250 note 1.

1

EZ 6. no. 27 (ll. 15-17): 130-131: ‘Fields measuring a total (sowing extent) of two yāla from … neriya and Ran(n) Pattu, measuring one yāla (of sowing extent) each were given away to ‘slaves’ (vahal) as heritable lands (pamunu kota dunnei).’

10

One Kalaňda= eight Aka; one Aka=20 paddy seeds (paddy – rice with husks). From Ariyapāla, (1956): 158.

11

The editor of the record reads this term as ‘the State’ and mentions that it could refer to ‘the royal family’: cf. EZ 1: 250 note 3. A possible reason for the necessity to pay the fine to the ‘State’ or to the royal family or the king could be that the law and order of all communities, let alone, servile communities whether they were property of temples or not, were still under the control of the monarch, who was the supreme authority of his kingdom. Also note that it was the royal officers who promulgated these regulations (ll. 41-45) on behalf of the king presumably with the consent of the monastery.

2

EZ 1. no. 7 (ll. 41-42). Cf. also the record no. 39 in the Appendix 2.

3

EZ 1 no. 21.

4

Wickremasinghe, the editor of the record, refers to a contrary view held by Prof. Kielhorn who read dasa gama as ‘ten villages’ following what is prescribed in Hindu Law books of Manu, Visnu and others. EZ 1, no. 21: 243-244.

5

12 This may be a confiscation of some property of the culprit(s). It is unlikely that the reference is to a fine imposed on each household as suggested by the editor of the inscription, as the measure seems to be an alternative punishment for the accused, when unable to pay the fine, 50 gold kalaňda.

The rendering of gama is undisputedly accepted to mean ‘village’. EZ 1: 243-244.

6

Ariyapāla, (1956): 120.

7

E.g. EZ 1 no. 4 (l. 53); no. 7 (ll. 8, 41, 43, 45); no. 15 (l. 18).

EZ 1 no. 21.

61

the offence cannot be determined (whether of slaughter or lifting of animal) the culprit shall be beaten (ll. 2530). The practice of branding offenders further adds colour to the servile status of these villagers. Moreover, the punishment for effacing the brand-mark, probably of cattle, was to make the culprit to stand on red-hot iron sandals. That kind of torture reminds us of Sawer’s remarks that the masters could torture their slaves with red-hot iron,1 another mark of servile status of these villagers. The record also warns the inhabitants that the privileges given to them to rejoice and to mourn on occasions that may occur in their respective families shall be enjoyed without transgression, yet another control over their lives.

Analysis: Finally, it is clear that there were multitudes of temple ‘slaves’ and also temporary bondsmen in Buddhist monasteries in historical Sri Lanka and the main source of temple ‘slaves’ was dedication and once established inheritance might have played a key role in the continuation of this institution. According to epigraphic evidence, at least some temple slaves lived with their families in communities and were at least partly responsible for controlling their internal law and order. Though evidence is thin purchase of ‘slaves’ by temples also occurred at least once. Notably, the driving force behind the ownership of multitudes of ‘slaves’ by Buddhist temples was the conception regarding giving ‘slaves,’ and other material property to temples to support the continuity of Buddhism, rather than the necessity.

Although the record does not clarify that the punishments were intended only for the offenders who were among the ‘slave’ inhabitants of ‘dasa-gama’, the fact that the inhabitants were punished if they did not detect and punish the offenders signals that the offenders mostly came from this same community. The record also reveals how these ‘slave’ inhabitants were made responsible for controlling their internal affairs. These measures were aimed at protecting the ‘slave’ and animal property of the monastery, while exacting the maximum service for the monastery concerned.

2. Temple Slavery in ancient Greek poleis. 2. I. Labour requirements of Temples and the use of temple slaves:

Heavy punishments such as death penalty may have been measures implemented to prevent the crimes concerned, perhaps at the expense of losing one or two slaves who were culprits. The heavy fines imposed upon them may lead to doubts about their ‘slave’ status. But Knox’s information regarding the condition of ‘slaves’ in Kändyan times2 supports the notion that ‘slaves’ in his time may have been able to pay heavy fines collectively. Perhaps the conditions of ‘slaves’ in times contemporary to the Vēvälkätiya record also may have enjoyed conditions that enabled them to raise such sums. Also the threat of heavy fines may result in a collective effort of the ‘slave’ community to prevent offences being committed, since inability to pay fines may result in incapacitating them to purchase freedom for generations. Although this is the only record of this type available for observation, it is possible that other ‘slave’ villages belonging to monasteries and perhaps also to lay aristocrats, where ‘slave’ or free tenants resided were administered in a fairly identical manner.

(a) Routine chores: Euripides’ Ion (410 BC) shows that Ion, as a temple slave, was performing routine chores in the temple of Apollo at Delphi. He cleans the temple, protects altars and offerings,3 fills purification vessels,4 and assists priests and visitors.5 Presumably, other Greek temples, particularly those that attracted many visitors, also needed some permanent slave labour to perform such tasks. In addition, larger temples might have needed extra labour to meet requirements on special occasions. At Delos (280/79 BC), for instance, slaves were hired to clean the orchestra and seats of the theatre and to remove dust during the Dionysiac festival.6 The need for permanent labour varied from shrine to shrine based on their functions. The phrase pais ho tō theō purphorōn mentioned in one inscription from the Asclepieium of Epidaurus could be referring to a temple slave.7 Pausanias refers to slaves of the god (and

Thus the Vēvälkätiya record is the only evidence that testifies temple ‘slaves’ living in communities in which they had some responsibility over the internal affairs.

3

Eur. Ion 102-108.

4

Ibid. 434-436.

5

Ibid. 301.

6 1

Cf. Chap. 3: 41.

2

Cf. Chap. 3: 43-44.

IG XI 2, 161=Austin (1981) no. 183. Also the employment of a flute payer, possibly a slave, is recorded (ll. 80-85). Cf. also Linders (1992): 10.

7

62

IG IV 951 (l. 43).

suppliants) dwelling within the Asclepieium of Tithora in Phocis.1

walls

of

and those in Greek poleis in Anatolia.8 But importantly, sacred lands of these temples were rented either to the highest bidder9 or on fixed term contract.10 Furthermore, the Greek shrines especially in the Mainland Greece and in Magna Graecia did not possess a vast amount of temple slaves to manage their property.

the

The number of slaves needed to execute routine chores in average Greek temples, however, appears to have been small. The few (one/two) priests in charge of the cult of a temple commonly did not reside in the temple and worshippers apparently brought their slave assistants,2 further reducing the demand for slaves as attendants.

Temples in Mainland Greece, in Aegean islands and in Magna Graecia were fully integrated in the polis, a feature that will have given the cities more authority over the management of their temples. For instance, the Athenian state administered the sacred lands of the temple of Eleusis.11 A third-century inscription from Acraephia in Boeotia clearly indicates that the city mortgaged sacred land although this appears to have occurred in extreme circumstances.12 In Epizephyrian Locris too the city had some power over the sacred property of the shrine of Zeus.13 In such cases renting sacred property may have been more lucrative and easy for the economy of the polis than to work it by temple slaves. Further, renting, as an important source of wealth,14 would appeal to Greeks with means to exploit the land, and the wealthy commonly exploited multiple holdings rather than a single estate.15 Thus the management of temple estates of these localities where temples were civic centres may have followed the interest of the wealthy who exploited at least part of the temple lands as lessees.

(b) Management of sacred property in temples: (i) Sacred land: It is well known that Greek temples in mainland Greece, Magna Graecia and in Greek poleis in Anatolia possessed a considerable amount of property, including lands, and even animals and buildings in certain cases. For instance, the temple of Apollo in Delos owned lands at least from the sixth century BC.3 So did the temples in Euboia (fifth century BC),4 the temple of Eleusis,5 temples in Attica,6 temples in Magna Graecia7

1

Paus. 10.32, 12.

2

While there were very few priests/priestesses in larger shrines, in rural shrines priests were not always present: Burkert (1977): 96, Zaidman & Pantel (1989): 49, Garland (1990): 77, Bremmer (1994): 27. Moreover, Greek temples were usually closed to worshippers and were open only on fixed/festive days, because the centre of the sanctuary was the altar, not the temple [Bremmer (1994): 28], probably compelling worshippers to bring their slaves to assist in sacrifices.

8

For property of temples in Mylasa & Olymos (in 200 BC) see SEG 42 (1992), for that in Lagina see Debord (1982): 88, & for the property of the temple of Artemis in Ephesus see Dignas (1998): 167- 173. Also cf. Dignas (2002): 84-106.

9

Cf. Kent (1948): 266 for the leasing of the property of Delian Apollo. Also cf. Burnet (1990): 669-682. For that of the Euboian sanctuaries cf. IG I³ 84 & IG I³ 418.

3

Thuc. 1. 13,6. Further, in 523 BC Polycrates the tyrant of Samos seized Rheneia and gave it to Delian Apollo (Thuc. 3. 104, 2) and c. mid fifth century BC Nicias bought a land for 10,000 drachmae and gave it to Apollo (Plut. Nic., 3, 6).

10

5

The temenos and buildings of the temple of Eleusis appear in a number of fragmentary accounts dated to the last quarter of the fifth century BC: IG I³ 147, 386, 392. 11, 394.10, 395.5.

Cf. Walbank (1983): 100-135, 176-199, 200-206, 207-231 & ibid. (1984): 361-368 for fixed term leasing of properties of Athena Polias, Artemis Agrotera, Heracles, Olympian Zeus. Cf. Ampolo (1992): 26 for perpetual or five year contract leasing of lands of the temple of Dionysos and that of Athena in Heraclea. Cf. Dignas (1998): 94-104 for that of sacred lands of Mylasa, Olymos, Labraunda, Hydae, Sinuri and Ephesus.

6

11

4

Osborne (1988): 281.

Four fragmentary stelai recording leases of properties of Athena Polias, Artemis Agrotera, Heracles, Olympian Zeus and other unknown deities are found from Athenian Agora: Walbank (1983): 100-135, 176-199, 200-206, 207-231. Also cf. ibid. (1984): 361-368.

Arist. Ath. Pol. 47. 4f.

12 SEG (1927) no. 359 Acraephia at the time faced a controversy with the koinon over the administration of the shrine, which according to Dignas (1998): 22 (= ibid. (2002) 27-28) may have compelled the city to take extreme measures.

7 For the property of Olympian Zeus: Two tabulae Heracleenses dated to the beginning of the third century BC (IG XIV 645) and 39 texts from Locrian archives dated to the fourth – third centuries BC (cf. also Franciscis (1972). For the property of the temple of Dionysus and that of Athena Heraclea cf. Ampolo (1992): 25. The temples of Boreas in Thurii, of Parthenope in Neapolis and of Hera Lacinia near Croton also had lands (ibid. 25).

13

Franciscis (1972): 71-72.

14

Davies (1981): 49-54.

15

Foxhall (1992): 156. Also cf. Osborne (1985): 60 note 56 & ibid. (1992): 21-27.

63

But the shrines in Greek poleis in Anatolia1 produce a complex picture as it is difficult to separate, as is clear from previous research,2 the temples that were fully integrated in the polis from those located in the chōra politikē of the polis, which had sacred lands and enjoyed a semi-independent status. Dignas points out the difficult attempts of Debord and Brandt in identifying the temple of Artemis in Perge with one of these groups.3 Labraunda and Mylasa4 also create similar difficulties. But, interestingly, both these groups of temples leased their land and in the latter case the leases included the temple fairs and rural population (probably slaves/serfs) residing in and working the temple land.5 Dignas further states that the shrines that enjoyed semi-autonomous status allegedly came under the full control of their poleis gradually.6 The assignment of demosioi by Labraunda to work in their respective temples and the direct administration of sacred lands of Mylasa by the city7 manifests the control of the cities over their respective cults. Leasing of sacred lands together with any resident slaves/serfs instead of exploiting them directly with the available servile groups may probably have resulted from focusing on the interest of the wealthy as happened in other ancient Greek poleis.

Augustan times8 as autonomous temple estates managing large slave populations. This situation tells us that the Greek polis structure infiltrated into the cities of western Anatolia through Alexander’s conquest influenced the manner in which the sacred property was administered in the affected cities. Thus importantly, the shrines fully or partly controlled by Greek polis structure evaded the direct management of a large group of sacred serfs/slaves by the temple itself, even when the serfs/slaves formed a part of the sacred property. Thus, the mere ownership of land was not the key point that required or that led to manage a multitude of serfs/ slaves for/ by a temple, but it depended upon the political structure of the city in which the shrines were located as that affected the administration of sacred property.

(ii) Sacred animals: Tending sacred animals is another activity that may require slave labour. The evidence is limited to few cases, and they are open to scholarly debate. For instance, though Delian Apollo is reputed to own animals grazing on his lands, no temple account recording ordinary income and expenses mentions revenue from sacred animals. This calls into question the deity’s ownership of animals cited in the hiera syngraphe,9 debated by scholars.10 Even if Apollo owned sacred animals, a permanent slave force to care for animals was not a requisite for the temple since the animals were rented out. Some temporary labour may have been needed to manage the confiscated animals and slaves until sold.11 But such sporadic needs could have been easily filled with hired labour. However, a fourth-century record shows that revenues from the sale of wool from sacred sheep of Delian Apollo were used to purchase a psuktēr (wine cooler): if the temple

The change from semi-autonomous status of the shrine to full dependence on its polis suggests a previous change that reduced these shrines from autonomous to semi-autonomous status when the city that bore the shrines came under strong Greek control and absorbed them into the polis system. This is further clear from shrines in central and eastern Anatolia, where Hellenization was superficial, which may have helped shrines there to remain relatively indigenous until

1

The pre-existing Greek poleis (those resulted from colonisation in c. sixth century BC) were incorporated into the kings’ territories (Shipley (2000): 2) first with Persian monarchy then with Hellenistic monarchs, unlike in those in the Mainland Greece. Some rural cities in Anatolia were presumably absorbed into polis system with the invasion of Alexander (334-323 BC) and Hellenization.

8

Dignas (2002): 11. Brandt (1992): 48 note 386 argues that the temple of Artemis at Perge belonged to the polis of Perge and not an autonomous temple state but Debord (1982): 222 & 232 bears the contrary view.

Dignas (2002): 8. Virgilio (1981): 167-175 identifies the temples in Comana in Cappadocia, of Comana, Cabeira and Zela in Pontus, Pessinous in Galatia, Venasa and Antioch in Pisidia as indigenous shrines. Also cf. Debord (1982): 163164. Their social and religious structures seem to have been little affected by the Hellenization or were superficial (Dignas (1998): 227-228, idem (2002): 224; Sartre (1995): 104-105). Apparently, these cults with ‘sacred villages’ were independent units where the priests enjoyed great power and the sacred property was maintained by the temples themselves using the large number of subject population residing on the land.

4

E.g. Debord (1982): 52-53. Dignas (2002): 12 & 59-69.

9

5

Debord (1982): 168-169.

6

Dignas (2002): 224.

2

E.g. Debord (1982): 222, 232. Brandt (1992): 48 note 386, 69. Also cf. Dignas (2002):10-11.

3

The hiera syngraphe, a revision of the rules on leasing out of the sacred land from c. 300 BC, also refers to animals. Cf. ID 503. = Kent (1948): 267-282. 10 Kent (1948): 277-278, believes that animals referred to are sacred animals rented out with land. Tréheux (1991): 248-250 argues that the animals belonged to the lessees of the sacred lands. Isager (1992): 17 agrees with Tréheux.

7

Debord (1982): 88 shows that demosioi were among the servile work force in the shrines in Lagina and Labraunda. These appear to me as the slaves of these respective demes assigned to work for the particular temple(s). Cf. ibid. 208 regarding Mylasa.

11

ID 503 (ll 33-38): failure to pay rent resulted in confiscating the crops, animals and slaves of the lessees.

64

regularly kept sheep, some slaves may have been needed.1

available temple slaves might have worked, as can be seen, for instance, in the Erechtheium project.9

Moreover, Isager comments that, save for a few exceptional cases, no account of ordinary revenues from temple lands or animals survives from Delphi.2 One of the exceptional cases reports that in 275 BC fifty oxen were donated to Apollo in Delphi from a Lacedaemonian village.3 Also a record dated to 178 BC refers to Apollo’s tenure of cows and horses,4 which grazed within a defined part of the sacred area. Since private animals or flocks were not permitted to graze where the Apollo’s animals grazed, Isager5 argues that these sacred animals were tended in the temple itself. If correct, the interpretation unveils the need for regular service of some slaves for the temple.

Moreover, workshops in temple precincts producing, for instance, pottery, terra-cotta figurines, coins10 or metalic items11 required for a particular temple did not seem to have demanded slave labour as such for the temple concerned because the temporary nature of such workshops suggest that it was free men who laboured in them with or without their slaves assisting them.12

(d) Sacred prostitution: This was an activity, different in nature from the affairs in average Greek temples, which made some Greek temples significant slave owners. According to Pindar, the temple of Aphrodite in Corinth possessed a hundred slaves who prostituted for the goddess in 464 BC.13 Athenaeus (AD c. 200) confirms this account by referring to Aeschylus, Chamaeleon of Heraclea, Theopompus, Timaeus, Simonides, and Alexis.14 For Strabo (second half of the first century BC) slave prostitutes in Corinth15 were 1000. Strong mentions that the custom of ritual prostitution was an entrenched practice in Cyprus16 and in Epizephyrian Locris17 as well. Moreover, another temple of Aphrodite in Eryx in western Sicily also had multitudes of female templeslaves before the time of Strabo.18

Içten and Engelmann, observing an inscription on a boundary stone of the Artemision of Ephesus dated to the late Hellenistic period describe the shrine as a landowning institution.6 The brief record reads: (/Oroj i(ero\j| )Arte/midoj| xw/raj th=j| e)n i((ppobo/twi.7 But Içten and Engelmann, apparently, stretch their discussion too far in mentioning that the temple raised horses for sale as draught or riding animals.8 The record bears no reference to breeding of horses and the mere act of pasturing horses in the sacred land need not mean that the temple bred them. They could be animals belonging to a leaseholder or sacred animals rented out along with the land. But even if the temple did breed horses, it may not have needed a large force of slave labour.

9

IG I³ 474-479 on Athenian Erechtheium accounts, of which IG I³ 476, for instance, refers to both free and non-free workers at Erechtheium in 408/7 BC. Cf. IG II² 665-685 for the fourth century work at Eleusis and Delos.

To sum up, in most cases sacred animals were rented out and if some animals were regularly tended in temples, a few slaves might have sufficed for the needed labour, while any sporadic animal rearing may have used hired labour.

10

Risberg (1992): 33.

11

For metal working in the temple of Poseidon at Isthmia: cf. Rostoker & Gebhard (1980): 347- 363. For that in temple of Nemea: cf. in the Miller (1977): 19-20. In the temple of Olympia: cf. Heilmeyer, Zimmer & Schneider (1987): 239299. In the temple of Delos: cf. Deonna (1938): 209-235, esp. 209-213 & Rolley (1973): 491-524. In Delphi: cf. also Rolley (1979). In the Heraion on Samos, Aegina, Bassae, Aetos in Ithaca: cf. Risberg (1992): 33. In the shrine of Aphrodite at Corinth: cf. Strong (1997): 85.

(c) Building activities and workshops: Construction projects could be another task that demanded labour for a temple. But the necessary labour for Greek temple construction was mostly acquired from hired free or slave workers along with whom the 1

IG II² 1638 (B l. 66); 1639, (ll. 15-16, 17); cf. 1640, (l. 28).

12 Even in sacred workshops in Graeco-Roman Anatolia the labour force seems to consist of free people. For detail see Debord (1982): 14-15 & Kleijwegt (2002): 100, 109-119.

2

Isager (1992): 16 and note 16 for examples.

3

Syll³ no.407.

13

Pind. fr. 107 (ed. Bowra).

4

Syll³ no. 636, (ll.24-25).

14

Ath. 13. 573 b – 574c.

5

Isager (1992): 16.

15

Strabo 8. 6, 20/ c378.

6

ZPE 108, (no. 2): 89.

16

Strong (1997): 12-69.

7

17 Ibid. (1997): 107-157. Strong uses evidence from Clearchus and Pompeius to prove this notion with regard to Epizephyrian Locris.

Tr. Sacred boundary of the land of Artemis in the area in which horses grazed/ fed.

8

Unfortunately the editors do not provide any reason or reference for their suggestion.

18

65

Strabo 6. 2, 6/ c272.

perhaps because it was more economical than hiring labour for a State that was responsible for maintaining its temples. In such cases the commitment of the temple may have been only to feed and clothe the assigned dēmosioi during the period of service as observable in the only available case from Attica: the inventory of the temple of Demeter and Korē at Eleusis records expenses for food and clothing for seventeen male dēmosioi, who were presumably set to work for the temple by Athens, over ten prytanies in 329/8 BC.11 The type of clothing provided for them, diphtherai,12 hupodēmata, piloi implies that the dēmosioi were used for out-door activities.13

Nonetheless, scholars dispute the existence of temple prostitution in the shrine of Corinthian Aphrodite. Conzelmann (1967)1 and O’Conner2 deny that sacral prostitution took place in Greece and dismiss Strabo’s account as a pure fabrication while Will (1955) maintained that sacred prostitution was oriental.3 But Westermann (1955)4 argues that Corinthian prostitution is wrongly assigned to oriental influence by Hepding, as the Greek attitude towards prostitution was totally candid and uncritical. Salmon (1997) also refers to Pindar and accepts that these were slaves given to the deity for prostitution.5 Moreover, Strong cogently argues with the support of archaeological evidence (building & artefacts) from the forum area6 and the literary evidence from Pausanias, Pindar and Athenaeus7 that ritual prostitution existed in Corinth which was a known custom in ancient Greece8 and that the ‘girls brought by Xenophon’ to Corinthian Aphrodite were slave prostitutes.9 Moreover, Xenophon’s offer of slave prostitutes to Aphrodite in return for his victory in Olympic Games itself signals that it was a valued action among mid fifth century BC Corinthians.10 Thus, despite controversy, Aphrodite at Corinth had slaves prostituting for her.

The use of dēmosioi in Eleusis and Delos suggests that it was a known practice in Greek shrines in Attica and Delos from the fourth century BC. Further, the financial and administrative liaisons between states and their temples might have relaxed the burden of finding labour for temples and undue expenses of hiring labour.

2.II. Evidence and sources of temple slaves: The words of Sokolowski, ‘The Greek sanctuaries managed slaves, owned and sold them as did other enterprises,’14 stimulates one to seek further evidence on Greek temple slaves and their acquisition.

(e) Other labour available for Greek sanctuaries?

Mythical accounts reproduced in literary sources of classical and Hellenistic times show dedications of individuals to Apollo at Delphi to be his slaves. Sophocles, for instance, refers to Heracles’ victory over the city of Eurytus and to removing of women as ‘choice pieces for himself [Heracles] and for the gods’15 and later we learn that these women were to be enslaved,16 suggesting that enslaved women were dedicated to deities. Moreover, Euripides’ Phoenissae provides a clue for a dedication of a group of Phoenician maidens to Apollo.17 Diodorus Siculus (c. 60 BC) refers to another piece of mythical evidence that the Epigoni who captured and destroyed Thebes offered Daphne,

Evidence also reveals that cities deployed their own slaves (dēmosioi) to accomplish certain tasks in temples, 1

Conzelmann (1967): 260.

2

O’Conner’s view appears in S. Mason’s contribution to the electronic discussion on, ‘Sacred prostitution in Corinth’. (accessed: 2001. 12.31).

3

Will (1955): 292. Also cf. Beard & Henderson (1997).

4

Westermann (1955): 11 citing W. Kroll (1930) ‘Römische Erotik,’ Zeitschrift für Sexualwissenschaft 17: 159-160. 5

11 IG II² 1672. Trophēs ll.4-5, 42, 117, 141. Piloi -ll 70-71; himatia -ll.102-103; diphtherai –ll.104; and hupodēmata- ll. 105. The number and the gender of these dēmosioi occur in multiple places in the record: e.g. ll. 5, 40, 103, 104, 141-142.

Salmon (1997): 398-400.

6

Strong (1997): 84-86 refers to the findings of C. Morgan (1953): 131-140 and also to the excavations of C. Williams and J. Fisher in 1971&1972 in support of her argument.

7

12

The second meaning of the term diphthera, - ‘a leathern garment worn by peasants’ (Liddelle and Scott, GreekEnglish Lexicon).

E.g. Paus. 2. 2, 4; Pind. fr. 122; Ath. 13. 32.

8

13 Dēmosioi also occur in Delian records, associated with several cults and Bruneau (1970): 228, vaguely calls them ‘slaves.’

Strong (1997) studies sacred prostitution in Corinth (:70106), Cyprus (:12-69) and in Epizaphyrian Locris (:107-157) and also argues in favour of the presence of Corinthian prostitution (:99-105).

9

Strong (1997): 102. & cf. Pind. fr. 107 (ed. Bowra).

14

Sokolowski (1954): 173.

15

Soph. Trach., 245.

16

Ibid. 301-302.

10

A victory in Olympic Games was considered a great honour one could bring for oneself and to one’s city in ancient Greece. Naturally what Xenophon promises in exchange for such victory could have been something equally great.

17

Eur. Phoen. 203-205. cf. also the Schol. Eur. Phoen. 202, 224, 236.

66

(daughter of Teiresias) to fulfil a certain vow to Apollo at Delphi to offer first-fruit of the booty.1 Pausanias joins the pool of mythical information by reporting the dedication of Dryopes (defeated in battle) to Delian Apollo by Heracles.2 These accounts report enslavement of freeborn individuals, a common plight of the defeated at the hands of the victorious party in ancient Greece. Interestingly, Daphne was dedicated to the god to fulfil a former vow. Since Greeks were generally eager to win divine favour, especially for military affairs, this practice may represent an established custom among the Greeks as to mention it in myths. Suidas supports this notion and reports that the Athenians offered Gephyraians as the tenth part of the war booty to Delphi.3 But, despite the possibility that this custom prevailed in ancient Greece, the temple inventories of the Classical or Hellenistic period do not register dedication of slaves in any number.

many references in literary sources to exposure of infants and the possibility of raising foundlings as slaves in ancient Greek poleis,10 none of them, save Euripides’ Ion, refer to exposing infants in temple premises or to raising foundlings in temples as slaves. However, Garland observes that exposure of infants in temples and raising some foundlings if not all, by temple staff11 were familiar customs in ancient Greece, though the frequency of such practices is doubtful and the supply of slaves through this method may have been few. Moreover, Ion (l.309) signals that the system of purchasing slaves by ancient Greek temples and selling slaves to Greek temples were known exercises in ancient Greece. Furthermore, whether these temple-slaves were allowed to obtain freedom is another issue that deserves our attention. Unfortunately, there is no evidence, literary or epigraphic, to prove or to disprove that temple slaves obtained freedom.12 This raises a series of questions that remain unanswered due to scant data, such as, whether Greek temples did not permit their slaves to obtain manumission, or whether these slaves could not earn the necessary amount to buy their freedom.

As noted above, Pindar, Athenaeus and Strabo provide evidence, for dedication of 100s and 1000s of slaves, to Aphrodite in Corinth and Eryx.4 Strabo is silent about when and why the 1000 courtesans were dedicated to Corinthian Aphrodite, but he recognised their contribution to the prosperity of the city.5 In Eryx prostitutes were dedicated to Aphrodite by local and foreign people of both genders to fulfil their vows, although the practice declined in the time of Strabo.6 Other than these, there is no reference to dedication of slaves to Greek temples or deities. Though one case dated to 139 BC hints that a land donation to improve a royal cult in Alexandria by Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II and his queen included serfs/slaves in the land,7 no evidence shows that Hellenistic monarchs donated slaves/serfs to temples in Greek poleis to improve Greek cults.

Summing up, though the sources of the few slaves in most temples in Mainland Greece, Magna Graecia and western Anatolia are obscure, purchase, raising foundlings and even dedications could be some possibilities. However, dedications appear to be the key source of slaves in shrines with multitudes of slaves that occur in exceptional cases. Furthermore, mythological evidence13 cited above reveals that dedication of slaves to gods was a well-established custom in ancient Greece and for Euripides ownership of slaves by temples was an accepted feature of Hellenic life, though the subject of temple slavery in Classical and Hellenistic periods was given a low profile.

As hinted in the Ion, some temple slaves in ancient Greece may have been raised foundlings. Ion introduces himself to Creusa as tou theou kaloumai doulos.8 As the reference is from the fifth century BC, the account suggests that contemporary Athenians were aware of the tradition of raising foundlings at temples as potential slaves.9 But notably, although there are

2. III. How temple slaves were managed/treated? Very little is known as to how the temple slaves in Greek poleis were managed. The only evidence regarding the condition of temple slaves in strictly Greek territories is from Euripides’ Ion. Ion mentions

1

Diod. Sic. 4. 66, 5-6. Paus., 9. 33, 2 also furnishes a brief account of the same myth.

2

Paus. 4. 34, 9.

3

Suda s.v. ‘Do/ru khru/keion’.

4

Pind. fr. 107, (ed. Bowra) cf. supra 65.

5

Strabo 8. 6, 20/ c378.

6

Strabo 6. 2, 6/ c272.

7

Bagnall & Derow (1981) no. 138: 230-231.

8

Eur. Ion 309.

9

Cf. Chap. 1: 02.

10

For child exposure in ancient Greece cf. e.g., Ar. Nub. 528; Arist. Pol. 7. 16, 15/ 1335b & Men, Epit. 468-470. Also cf. Patterson (1985): 103-123. 11

Garland (1990): 84. But unfortunately Garland does not cite evidence.

12

The undated record from Oinoanda interpreted by Hepding and Latte as recording a manumission of two temple slaves by providing two substitutes to the deity Meter Oreia is notable in this concern. But this was rightly criticised by Cameron who reads the record as two cases of manumissions through fiduciary consecration to the deity (Cameron (1939): 154-155). Darmezin (1999): 163 agrees with Cameron. 13

67

Cf. supra 66 and the top left column in this page.

that he was fed and clothed at the expense of the temple of Apollo at Delphi, where he was raised as a foundling, and its visitors.1 Besides, the temple prostitutes at Corinth show that they were nothing other than chattel slaves who were handled as animate property being disposed of by Xenophon as a dedication to the deity. However, though the rural inhabitants, who might have been slaves/serfs, leased with the sacred property of temples in Greek poleis in western Anatolia, may have lived with their families, the scant information do not provide detail on their conditions.

Messenian serfs are referred to as both ‘helots’ and ‘Messenians’ and the attempts to control the revolt in 464 BC by the Spartans is called ‘war against the Messenians.’6 Despite concerns on their true ethnic identity, they were Greeks7 reduced to helotage by conquest, and the status of Spartan helots is usually compared to the other similar unfree groups in ancient Greece such as Thesselian penestai of Thessaly, gymnētes of Argos, katōnakē-wearers in Sicyon.8 As to the main point of the discussion, though there is no direct evidence regarding the residential patterns and household structures of Spartan helots, the available information shows that the Spartiates tolerated the ‘families’ of helots who cultivated their (Spartiates’) land. The only available evidence to helot families comes from Tyrtaeus and Thucydides. Tyrtaeus refers to helot wives9 suggesting that they were affected by the Spartan law, though they may not have been recognised by it and Thucydides’ reference is to the wives and children of Messenian helots.10 However, the presence of wives implies that the helots were self-reproducing. It is hard to estimate the precise number of helot families in one klēros,11 but Xenophon12 hints that more than one helot family may have worked in each klēros.

3. Spartan Helotage Though the information on temple slaves in ancient Greek poleis does not provide evidence on their conditions to allow a comparison in this concern with Sri Lankan temple slavery, Spartan helots, though not temple slaves, provide more comparable features as to the manner these unfree groups lived. A brief introduction to helots, prior to discussing their conditions, is vital to comprehend their condition. There were two helot groups under Spartan subjugation, Messenian2 and Laconian3 helots, who were reduced to this position by conquest. The ethnic identity of these helots is an unsolved dilemma. Although many believe them to be natives of Messenia and Laconia4 some suggest that the Laconians have no clear ethnic identity as do the Messenians, because they arguably have lost their ethnic identity since they were made helots centuries before Messenians.5 Van Wees points out that Laconian ‘serfs’ are simply called ‘helots’ whereas 1

Furthermore, Cartledge and Luraghi maintain that the Spartan toleration of the families of helots may not have been different from the manner in which other Greeks tolerated the families or unions of their slaves.13 This suggests that any special allowances that helots enjoyed could have been a necessity of circumstances, to manage this mass of local populace subjugated on their own land. Hodkinson, observing the management of distant servile agrarian populations through the

Eur. Ion 323, 327.

2

Poems of Tyrtaeus that refers to Theopompus, the king of Sparta, is the earliest existing account of the subjection of Messenians, (F. V 1-6 West). Cf. also Van Wees (2003): 35 note 6 on a discussion on this issue. But Plutarch (Moralia 194b) and Aelian (VH 13. 42) seem to have considered that Messenians were not subjected until c. 600 BC. Pausanians mentions that after the defeat some Messenians immigrated to Sicily and the rest were captured and reduced to tribute paying helots (IV 23. 1 & 24. 5). Cf. also Hunt (1998): 28-31, Van Wees (2003): 34-37.

6

3

8

Cf. Chap.2: 17 note 12 for references in this regard.

9

Tyrtaeus (F V 7 West).

Hdt. 9. 35, 64 & Thuc. 1, 101. 2. But their ethnicity was also widely debated. Of Messenians Hodkinson (2000): 119 argues that they were natives of Messenia who ‘became servile cultivators of the same fields they had farmed before the conquest.’ Cf. also Hodkinson (2003): 253-254.

7

Due to the obvious fact that they were living in Greece: Laconia and Messenia were both states in Peloponnese, and Greek history does not report of any invasion of these territories by a non-Greek at least prior to Spartan subjugation.

Late fifth century historian Antiochus of Syracuse (FGrH 555 F 13) made the creation of Laconian helots contemporary to that of Messenian. There are two more rival accounts to this. One account from a fourth century historian, Ephorus, (FGrH 70 F 117) who states that Helots agreed to serve as helots when defeated in war on certain conditions. The other is from Pausanias who conceals his source (III 2.5, 7.3, 2.6 (with 19.6, 22.6) & 7.4. Moreover Theopompus too presented an account in this regard (in F. V. 5-7 West). Cf. also Van Wees (2003): 48-49.

10

Thuc. 1. 103.

11 The available evidence on the numerical ratio of helots is in a military context and not in an agricultural context: Each Spartan who fought at Plataia in 479 BC was accompanied by seven helots (Hdt. 9. 10, 1; 28, 2; 29, 1) Cf. Talbert (1989): 2227 for a discussion on helot numbers.

4

Oliva, (1981) ‘Heloten und Spartaner’ Index X: 43-54; Cartledge (1979): 160-177; J. Ducat (1978): 5-49.

12

Xen. Hell. 3. 3, 4-11 esp. 5. Cf. Hodkinson (2000): 66-94 for a discussion on klēroi of Spartans.

5

Cartledge, (2002): 83-84 and cf. also Van Wees (2003): 49 note 52.

13

68

Cartledge (2002): 140-141. Also cf. Luraghi (2002): 229.

leaders chosen among these servile populations, as in the case of serf stewards and communal officials within Russian serfdom, argues that the Spartiates, being absentee landowners, may have controlled their agrarian helot populations through helot leaders: mnōionomoi.1 Further profiting from comparative studies Hodkinson suggests that the helot’s self directed agrarian character could be linked with ‘nucleated settlement patterns’ as observable in communities of Russian serfs and in some groups of African slaves and convincingly argues that Spartan helots may also have lived in communities.2 As Hodkinson has persuasively maintained, there could have been some system to control any anti-social behaviour, maintaining internal law and order, and administering social sanction among helots.3 Probably, the mnōionomoi who supervised the agricultural work of helots may also have been in charge of their civil affairs. It is also necessary to remember at this point that severe State measures to control helot behaviour were also practised in Sparta through systems like krypteia (secret service). According to Plutarch, young Spartiates were dispatched at certain intervals, armed with daggers, to kill helots who chanced upon them in the doomed nights.4 Presumably, these Spartiate killers may not have spared any aggressive and brave helot who appeared to be a potential threat to the continuation of the helotage.

socially and intermarry within the helot society while continuing their local cults as in the case of tomb cults in Messenia. Although the land of a Spartiate passed to his sons through ‘partible inheritance’ as pointed out by Hodkinson,6 there were durable circumstances, such as the type of sharecropping practised in Sparta,7 which favoured the continuation of helots, who cultivated the lands, for generations. Despite different views concerning the amount of apophora (rent) paid by the helots, they (helots) were apparently allowed to enjoy a certain portion of the harvest for their consumption and for other needs furnishing them a chance to accumulate some ‘wealth.’ This is evident in the following cases: In 425 BC, for instance, Messenian helots had their own boats, and in 223/2 BC 6,000 Laconian helots could raise five Attic minas to buy their freedom.8 Moreover, Spartiate children may have inherited land with helot families and in certain cases they may have inherited helots without land and vice versa. Moreover, some helots may have been taken out of the land for domestic chores or to labour in workshops.9 Also it may have been possible to dispose of helots through gift or sale since the restrictions on sale of helots applied arguably to the boundary of Sparta and not to the boundary of one kleros.10 Such measures may have helped to maintain reasonable helot numbers on the land favouring the continuation of helotage. Thus the Spartan helots arguably lived with their families in helot communities, where they had some responsibility as to the organisation although they

Hodkinson further states that ‘under more favourable and enduring conditions of Messenian helot villages, we should expect a particularly solid network of kinship relations and community’ with a strong sense of liking to the territory and refers to the evidence from Messenian tomb cults explored by Alcock.5 Even Laconian helots may have been allowed to interact

6 7

Hodkinson (1992): 123-134, has cogently shown based on a mixture of textual hints such as that of Tyrtaeus (West F.V 6) and ethnographic comparison that a mode of sharecropping was exercised in Sparta but not a fixed rent. And he shows that this form was very effective and efficient for both helots and for Spartiates and that it did not deter helots from accumulating some wealth, which they were probably able to transfer to their heirs. Cf. also Garlan (1988): 96-97 & Hodkinson (2000): 126 & 129-131 for ‘share-cropping’. Contrary views were held by both ancient and modern scholars. For Plutarch helots paid a fixed rent (Lyc. 8.7). Among modern scholars, Singor (1993): 33 & 41-60, for instance, argues that Spartans maintained a fixed rent system since it answered Spartan egalitarian policy.

1

Hodkinson (2003): 268-269. Mnōionomoi is a gloss surviving from Hesychios’ Lexicon probably of the fourth century AD. Based on this evidence along with that from Hybrias’s poem (ap. Ath. 695f-696a), to which Ducat (1990): 63, 74 points to conclude that the mnōia was a group of slaves living and working on an estate, Hodkinson argues that mnōionomoi could be leaders chosen among helots to control the fellow helots on behalf of the Spartiate master. 2

Hodkinson (2003): 272. Singor (1993): 42-43 & 48-49, also states that helots lived in little hamlets away from their working land. Also cf. Luraghi (2002): 231. For a contrary view see Cartledge (2002): 141 who considers that the helots were forced to leave their ancestral homes to live dispersed in the lands of Spartiates. Cf. also Osborne (1987): 122.

3

Hodkinson (2000): 76-85.

8

Plut. Cleom. 23. 1 with Welwei (1974) 1: 163-8.

9

Even in Sparta there were domestic helpers: maids, nurses, wool workers & cloth makers (examples in Hodkinson (1997): 49). But, whether these were chattel slaves or helots taken from the klēroi is a dispute among scholars. Based on Plut. Alc. 122d and Lyc. & Num. 2. 7. MacDowell (1986): 38 argues that they were chattel slaves obtained through war or bought in the market. But Garlan (1988): 97, Ducat (1990): 54-55, & Hodkinson (2003): 259 convincingly state that these were young helots taken from the klēroi and trained for domestic and various other non-agricultural duties, and the term ‘slave’ was used to distinguish them from the helots in the field. Cf. Hodkinson (1997): 46-55 for more detail on the use of helots as domestic servants.

Hodkinson (2003): 273-274.

4

Cf. Plut. Lyc. 28 for detail on how krypteia were engineered. But some scholars undermine the force of this evidence. Cf. Oliva (1971): 45-46. As suggested by Plutarch (Lyc. 28) this system may have emerged after the helot revolt in the fifth century BC. Cf. also de Ste. Croix (1972): 89-93. 5

Alcock (2002): 132-175. Surprisingly such evidence on tomb cults is totally absent from helotised parts of Laconia according to Antonaccio (1995): esp. 69-70.

10

69

Cf. Chap. 2: 17 note 10.

(helots) were subject to various interventions from their masters and the State.

Locris were exceptional due to the different business that led the temples to hold large numbers of slaves.

Analysis:

The situation in Buddhist temples in historical Sri Lanka shows an interesting contrast as well as a resemblance in the aspect of numbers and management of temple ‘slaves’.

The political structure and the economic interest of Greek poleis affected the manner in which the available temple slaves in their particular sanctuary were managed. Besides, temple slavery and sacred prostitution were arguably established Greek customs though uncommon in average Greek sanctuaries. Last but not least, the social conditions of Spartan helotage, though a group of private slaves, offer comparable elements to Sri Lankan temple slavery.

As to the contrasts, the temples/ monasteries in historic Sri Lanka, as discussed above, accommodated multitudes of resident monks/ nuns, which itself required a considerable regular labour force to accomplish regular chores. Besides numerous land grants that accompanied other necessities to cultivate the given land (‘slaves’, animal and irrigation facilities), the autonomous character of the Buddhist temples and the condemnation that involved in monks engaging in agricultural or commercial pursuits, led temples to employ the donated ‘slaves’ in its lands and for other affairs in the temple. However, the grant of ‘slaves’ did not result only from the need for such a servile labour for temples,1 since it was the religious notion of the time (grant of ‘slaves’ to temples was meritorious) that induced royalty and aristocracy to offer masses of ‘slaves’ to temples making them ‘slave’ owners.

4. Comparison Interestingly, both ancient Greek poleis and Sri Lanka share a few features in the context of temple ‘slavery.’ The most obvious element, of course, is that their temples possessed slaves, although variations occur in the number of slaves possessed and the way they were managed by these establishments. While the number of slaves in Greek temples in the mainland Greece, Magna Graecia and temples fully controlled by their poleis in Anatolia, save that in Corinth (100s & 1000s) and Eryx (a multitude), was a handful, Greek shrines that were semi-independent from their poleis in western Anatolia had sacred serfs/ slaves attached to their land. In Sri Lanka at least principal monasteries appear to have owned tens or hundreds of ‘slaves’, though all temples in the island may not have been owners of large ‘slave’ numbers in any given time.

Also notable are the political and economic interests of the wealthy (royalty and aristocrats) in historic Sri Lanka which affected the administration of temple property. The royalty and aristocrats, the main ‘slave’ and land owners of the island besides temples, were also the suppliers of these items to temples and show no interest in renting them as a business. This is clear from the manner of donations, which included, as noted above, the necessary facilities to exploit the lands by the temples themselves. Further, the reverence for the religion may have left temple estates with some power as to the enjoyment of the revenue of their property, though the administration of these establishments was still regulated by the monarch probably with the consultation of chief monk(s).

The handful of slaves in average Greek temples in the mainland Greece may show the futility of having many slaves/ serfs in these temples since the couple of priests in a temple hardly or never resided in the temple itself and their property was mostly rented out. The situation in western Anatolian temples that were fully or partly under the control of their poleis show a parallel interest in administrating temple property to those in Mainland Greece, as they needed only a few slaves to manage temple affairs and rented the available slave/ serf population with the land and temple fairs. The attachment of these slaves/ serfs to land owned by the temples in the poleis in Anatolia may reflect their indigenous social and cultural identity prior to Helenization rather than the need to own such sacred servile populations. But the circumstances in the temple of Aphrodite in Corinth, Eryx, and in Epizephyrian

But the different political background and the economic interest of the wealthy in ancient Greek poleis, precisely those in Attica, have affected the manner the temple property was administered. The property of the Greek shrines in Attica, and those in other Greek poleis were under the total control of the polis in which they were located. Thus, inevitably, the management of sacred property catered to the interests of the wealthy, the influential bodies in a Greek polis, who preferred to rent sacred land on a relatively shortterm basis. Such interests appear to have been echoed even in the Greek poleis in western Anatolia.

1

Long-term labour of free people was made available to temples by paying their service in form of land, though it may have been costly as the quantity of land payments seem to have varied according to the type of service provided. Cf. supra. 5458.

70

Greek religion, in contrast, did not reportedly induce motivations to dedicate slaves, and dedication of slaves is not recorded in temple inventories though dedication of other material items to the extent of second hand clothing to deities are recorded.1 Albeit such information may suggest that dedicating slaves to Greek deities was not a common custom among ancient Greeks, Greek mythology shows otherwise. Also the origin of multitudes of temple slaves prostituted for Aphrodite in Corinth and Eryx, the odd feature of Greek temple slavery though for a different business (sacred prostitution), was dedication, performed to accomplish a vow to the deity in return of the donor’s personal success.

However, temple slave families/ communities are not reported to have owned by average Greek temples, although the serfs/ slaves rented with the sacred lands of the temples located in chōra politikē of the polis in western Anatolia may also have lived in communities as those in ancient Sri Lanka. Also the evidence does not reveal how the temple prostitutes at Corinth and Eryx resided. The closest parallel to Sri Lankan temple ‘slave’ communities is Spartan Helots as they were attached to the land they worked though not for a temple. Their families and property were tolerated by their masters and they were arguably allowed to live in communities due to the necessity of such arrangements to preserve and manage this group of unfree who were needed to continue the military career of the Spartans. The restriction on selling helots out of the country could also be necessary for the prevalence of the system of helotage. Accordingly, the absence of recorded cases of selling ‘slaves,’ let alone temple ‘slaves,’ out of Sri Lanka in antiquity by Sinhalese could also be due to a similar reason.

The religious notion behind offering ‘slaves’ in Sri Lanka, though the custom of temple prostitution is never known or occurred, helps to illuminate this odd feature in Greek temple slavery. Offering slaves to fulfil a vow is not very different from offering slaves in hope of some future success, which is the ultimate aim behind the religious notion that induced offering ‘slaves’ to Buddhist temples. In the case of Corinth the donor may have intended to show his gratitude to the deity by fulfilling the vow in making a significant contribution of slave girls to practise the task in which the deity excelled- love. Further, the nature of the task, sacred prostitution, may have made it impossible to manage such slaves through lease because of the need that these slaves remain in the possession of the deity and perform in the shrine to distinguish their task from other commercial brothel work.

Moreover, though helots lived and worked the private lands of Spartiates, which were affected by inheritance unlike temple lands in ancient Sri Lanka, yet the underlying system of helotage, which attached helots to the land they cultivated and the type of sharecropping operated, favoured continuous existence of helots for generations.3 More clearly, since temple lands of ancient Sri Lanka remained settled, as oppose to private property, being unaffected by inheritance the temples could maintain an equally settled group of workforce if the lands were worked by the temples themselves. This explains the existence of communities of selfperpetuating ‘slaves’ in ancient Sri Lanka where the grant of plots of land to ‘slaves’ further assure their perpetual service.

As to the resemblance, there is at least one case showing that at least part of temple property in ancient Sri Lanka was managed through lease and the lands seem to have leased along with the residing workers.2 Though the status of the residing workers (kudin) is not very clear, as to whether these were ‘slaves’ or free workers, this suggests the possibility of leasing some temple lands, at least occasionally, with the ‘slaves’ given with it as occurred in some temples in Greek poleis in western Asia minor. But, sadly, even the extent of the popularity of leasing temple property in historical Sri Lanka itself is not clear.

Moreover, the self directed picture of Spartan helot communities presented by Hodkinson gets more colour when this is compared to the responsibility of Sri Lankan temple ‘slaves’ in maintaining internal law and order in their community (as shown by Vēvälkätiya records). Also it is necessary to remember at this juncture that some, if not all lands, bestowed on temples were located at a considerable distance4 and even when located closer to the temple the vinaya rules may have compelled the temple to administer such villages through lay officers who in turn managed such communities through heads appointed among the villagers,5 rendering the temples absentee landlords.

Thus, the different political, social and religious set-up in a community shaped the administrative patterns in temples in both ancient Greek poleis and Sri Lanka, which in turn affected the manner the temple slave property was managed and the number of ‘slaves’ owned by a temple. This is further linked with the conceptions in their societies regarding ownership of slaves/ serfs by temples.

1

Linders (1972): 12-13. Cf. also Kleijwegt (2002): 105-108.

2

Cf. supra 53 & 58.

3

Cf. supra 68-69.

4

Cf. supra 52 note 12.

5

It is generally known that the social administration of historic Sri Lanka involved a chain of officers of which the lowest were village headmen and the highest was the monarch. In the case of temple owned villages the highest authority could still have

71

Moreover, the family units registered, probably, under the head of a family in the Galapātha record throws some light towards understanding the structure of helot families, which might have been similarly organised. Furthermore, both Spartan helots and Sri Lankan temple ‘slaves’ were subject to various degrees of interventions by the master, (Spartiates/ temple), or by the State, either to control the disposition of their labour or to preserve these unfree populations. In addition, neither helots nor Sri Lankan temple ‘slaves’ could be branded chattel slaves since these unfree groups tend to show features of both chattel slaves and serfs. For instance, these groups were attached to land. There are at least one case that refer to purchase of Sri Lankan temple ‘slaves’ and even in Sparta helot sale was banned arguably outside the boundary of Sparta, leaving the possibility that sale of helots was possible within Sparta. Also, some of both unfree groups performed menial domestic chores and also industrial work whereas the majority cultivated the lands of the master. Obviously, there are other differences between the Spartan helots and Sri Lankan temple ‘slaves’ besides that which is repeatedly cited above - helots were not temple slaves. For instance, no evidence testifies the existence of a system like krypteia to control the uprising of ‘slaves’, let alone temple ‘slaves’, in ancient Sri Lanka because there was no necessity to curtail the ‘slave’ population as it does not seem to have exceeded the free population as in Sparta, and also ‘slave’ revolts or other related cases are not heard of. Finally, though the reasons for maintaining slave groups to work for temples in ancient Sri Lanka and in Sparta were different, the manner these servile groups were maintained provides interesting parallels illuminating the conditions of each other system. Also, as seen above, the comparison with temple slavery in ancient Greek poleis itself highlights certain issues, such as what led a particular temple in a particular society to own and manage slaves, which could have been otherwise imperceptible.

been the monarch being the supreme authority over the law and order of the island.

72

Although Greek slaves were not legally allowed to possess any private property,4 slave owners appear to have tolerated slaves’ savings to raise their manumission fee for their (ex-owners’) own benefit. Presumably, an average slave would have taken a considerable time to accrue the sufficient cash, but all slaves may not have been able to obtain the full sum necessary for the task. Historical evidence5 informs us about the interest free loan system, eranos, that helped Athenian slaves to collect their manumission fee, according to which a slave could borrow loans pooled for his/her release by relatives, friends and wellwishers.6 But such help may have been rarely available for average slaves and mostly free persons reduced to ‘slavery’ by capture may have profited from this system. Demosthenes, for instance, states that Apollodorus gave 1000 drachmas for the eranos collection to ransom Nicostratus, when he was caught by privateers.7 Neaera, the famous courtesan, was also partly helped by the eranos loan pooled by her lovers and friends to buy her freedom.8 Further, references to “koinon eranistōn” also appear in Athenian phialai records. 9

Chapter 5:

Manumissions of slaves in ancient Greek poleis and Sri Lanka The topic raises a series of questions: What chances did slaves have of obtaining freedom? What motives induced anyone to help a slave to gain freedom? What were slave owners’ attitudes towards freeing their slaves? What was the objective in recording manumissions? What reception ex-slaves received from their society? These questions inform the present discussion and are answered in the course of this study.

1. Manumissions in ancient Greek poleis. 1.I. Chances available to slaves to obtain freedom: Both epigraphic and literary evidence from ancient Greek poleis informs us that slaves could buy their own freedom by paying his/her value. In most cases it was the slave him/herself who paid the value while some received financial help from relatives or friends and well-wishers. Although self-purchase of freedom is not explicit in most manumission records, there are rare cases as that from 178/7 BC, which clearly mention that the manumission was a self-purchase.

a. Motives: Besides eranos loans, available for some slaves in Athens, certain slaves received help from their relatives, who presumably were ex-slaves to buy their freedom. The motives that induced these ex-slave or metic relatives to cause the freedom of a slave were either adoption or cohabitation. Most manumissions executed with the motive of adopting the ex-slave were presumably practised by freed parents,10 who tried to

/)Asandroj Mena/ndrou Beroai=oj a)nati/qhsi tw=i )Apo/llwni tw=i Puqi/wi e)leuqe/ran e)m paraqh/khi )Eupori/an th\n au(tou= paidi/skhn katabeblhkui=an draxma\j )Alecandrei/aj diakosi/aj... [SGDI 2071].1

Cf. Chap. 3: 34.

5

Cf. the continuing text for evidence.

6

However, the interest free loans (eranos) system began in Athens in the fourth century BC which was originally designed to help needy Athenian citizens and the contributions to this was counted as a part of liturgies. This could either be a contribution of one individual or of a group. (Millett (1991): 157; Osborne (2000): 47).

Moreover, certain manumissions by consecration from Stiris and Thespis reveal that slaves were freed and a deposit was left under the protection of the mediator involved in the affair, who is generally a deity,2 and this deposit could have been their manumission fee. In addition, there are cases where slaves reimburse their ransom fee to gain full release.3

7

Dem. 53. Introd. But Nicostratos neglected the reimbursement to Apollodorus.

8

Dem. 59. 31.

9 Lewis (1959) 220 (ll. 563-569) Niki/aj libanwto e)m [P]ei oi)k< w= >n a)pofugw\n vv Filokra/th )Epikra/to )Eleusi/ kai\ koino\ e)ranistw=n tw=n meta\ Qeofra/stou Baqu/llou Xolarge/wj fia/l staqmo/ : [H]. Also cf. Lewis (1959): 220 (ll.566-567); 221 (l.3); 224 (l.153). On phialai inscriptions Cf. infra 79 note 08.

1

Asandros the son of Menandros Beroea consecrated to Pythian Apollo, his child slave Euporia [who paid] 200 Alexandrian drachmas to be freed [eventually]. Also cf. Samuel (1965): 268 who concludes that slaves paid their manumission fee in his study on conditional (paramone) manumission records, which is discussed shortly in this work. 2

4

10

At least in Athens after 450/1 BC slaves were probably not adopted as children by Athenian citizens due to restrictions in enrolling them as citizens (Plut. Per.3). According to Apollodorus, Stephanus’ attempt to enrol his son by the courtesan Neaira in his deme was repudiated by the authorities

Darmezin (1999): 181.

3

FD 3 (2) 120. Such slaves perhaps were bounded by paramonē service to the owner until reimbursement.

73

slave woman Theutima to be freed (ll. 9-11)7 and records many witnesses.

release their children still in servitude. Referring to Delphic manumission inscriptions between 201-1 BC, Hopkins mentions1 that a majority of child slaves (80%) were freed separately from their mothers, possibly because the mothers freed their slave offspring later due to high cost of manumission.

Slaves also occasionally profited from political motives of the governing bodies in their poleis as that opened a chance to gain free release in emergency situations.8 Evidence reveals cases of manumissions either to reward their military service or to employ them in the army.9 The main informant Aristophanes, reports that slaves who fought in the naval battle of Arginusae (c. 406 BC) were given freedom.10

In cohabitation manumissions, slaves were freed in order to marry them. In Athens, such practices may also have been limited to metics, especially ex-slaves who manumitted their spouses still in ‘slavery’ to enter legal unions, at least after c. 340 BC, because by then freed persons or metics were liable to severe penalties if they married citizens.2 Moreover, a citizen or a metic would purchase a female slave rather than freeing one to keep as a concubine as in the case of Timanoridas and Eucrates who bought Neaira for 30 minas to keep her as their slave mistress.3 But, whether such prejudices also existed in other Greek poleis is hard to know.4

Further, literary sources refer to manumission of a few slaves for providing information on public offences, and for being witnesses in homicide cases. For instance, Antiphon11 reports that, in cases of homicide, informers were generally rewarded with money if they are free, and with liberty if they are slaves. Speeches of Lysias support this detail: in one case a speaker expresses concern about the risks of slaves bringing alse charge to obtain freedom,12 and in another a defendant worries that his slaves may give false witness to obtain freedom.13 Further, the decree on Athenian monopoly of the sale of red ochre of Cos (before 350 BC) announces freedom to slave informants of any infringement with the astunomoi.14 Interestingly, the slaves freed gratis by the political bodies were not necessarily state slaves but private slaves, though their owners do not seem to have been compensated for freeing them free of charge by the state.

b. Further chances: Apart from purchased manumissions, a few lucky slaves occasionally received manumission gratis from the master during his life-time. Chariton’s5 novel Callirhoe refers to a case of a slave freed thus for her loyal service in Miletus. Though this is not an historical account, this incident may perhaps reflect what happened in Miletian society around the first century BC. Loyal slaves, mainly domestics, also received freedom through the testaments of their masters which came into effect at the latter’s death. The testaments of Athenian philosophers provide examples for such manumissions, where most slaves gained free release because if these slaves were to pay their fee the manumittor would cite it in the testament to be noticed by the executor(s). Most slaves in these wills were apparently freed as a reward for their prolonged loyal service. The testament of Alcesippus of Calydon, from Delphi (182/1 BC)6 provides an example for a testamentary manumission with a deity as the mediator. Besides many valuable offerings Alcesippus promises the city of Delphi and Apollo in his testament, he also pledges to dedicate the

7

If (Alcesippus) dies,… his home-nurtured slave Theutima will be consecrated to the God to be free.

8

When a city was in danger especially due to military circumstances, the slaves were the last resort the citizens could look to as recruits for the army. In Athens fighting in the army was originally considered as an aristocratic privilege and it was later expanded to the hoplite farmers. Even the thetes (the fourth or the lowest group of Athenian citizens) were not given a chance to take part in war until the fifth century BC (Hunt (1998): 3). Slaves were deprived of taking part in warfare due to beliefs that they were cowards and that the warfare was closely connected with civic rights (Hunt (1998): 3). Also, arming slaves who were long deprived of any privileges could be dangerous.

(Dem. 59. 60). 1

Hopkins (1978): 165.

2

Dem. 59. 16 & 52.

9

Hecataeus of Miletus freed a certain number of slaves: Diod. Sic. (c. mid first century BC) 10.26. Paus. (7, 15. 7) informs that Diaeus freed slaves imitating the policy of Militiades and the Athenians before the battle of Marathon (490 BC). But Hdt. does not refer to a case of manumitting slaves who fought in Marathon.

3

Dem. 59. 31. Slaves had to yield to their masters’ sexual needs.

10

Ar. Ran. 33, 693-695, also cf. schol. to ibid. 33.

Also cf. Klees (1998): 307-320 on motives of manumission of slaves.

11

Antiph. 5. 34.

5

Chariton 3.7.8. Chariton’s date, however, is not certain but is agreed to fall between the first century BC & mid second century AD.

12

Lys. 5.5.

13

Ibid. 7. 16.

6

14

IG II² 1128= Tod GHI 162. Also cf. Klees (1998): 321-324.

4

SGDI 2101; Darmezin (1999) no. 141.

74

required to stay in service until the death of both the owner and his/her spouse,6 or until the death of two manumittors whose relationship is not clear.7 However, certain paramonē contracts have set a fixed service time for the ex-slave and some instigate precautionary measures to prevent any loss to the manumittor if death interrupts the service, requesting the particular exslave(s) to remain in service,8 or to pay an extra sum of money to an individual nominated by the manumittor for the un-expired period.9 Moreover, a record from Delphi (160/159 BC) demands an extra payment (three minas) from the ex-slave to grant apolysis from paramonē service upon the death of the two manumittors and also offers a chance to gain early release while manumittors were alive by providing a substitute.10 A number of parallels can be traced separately for demanding extra payment for apolysis from paramone service,11 and for providing the choice of early release from obligation.12 Another form of paramonē contract from Delphi requires a child or two of a certain age to the manumittor or to an individual nominated by him/her as an alternative to final cash payment for the apolysis from paramonē service.13

1. II. Attitude of slave owners towards manumission: Obviously, the decisions on manumitting a slave came from the slave owner although the slaves’ eligibility to make the required payment or to fulfil the required conditions was also important.1 The attitude of the slave owner towards manumission of his/her slaves is reflected to a certain extent in the type of manumission given to the slaves: immediate or conditional (paramonē) manumission. In the former, the full freedom of the slave came as an immediate effect, while in the later the slave received full freedom in instalments subject to the fulfilment of the conditions set up by the owner. In most cases immediate manumission required the full value of the slave at the time of manumission and the number of records that register this type of freedom is few compared to those that register paramonē manumissions. The latter provides a considerable proportion of records containing conditions ranging from simple to complex. Usually, the conditions required ex-slaves to remain in service (paramonē)2 for the owner/ manumittor or the person(s) nominated by the manumittor(s) for a designated period mentioned in the contract prior to obtaining full freedom.3 However, the crucial point in conditional manumissions is the duration of paramonē service and other demands expected to be fulfilled by ex-slaves to gain their complete freedom.4

ZPE, 29 no. 5 = Darmezin (1999) no. 96). 6

E.g. IG VII. 2872; 9.1. 42. Darmezin (1999) nos.129 & 133.

7

E.g. IG VII. 3202, 2228, 3378; 9.1. 66; ZPE 29 (1978) 138 = Darmezin (1999) no.134.

8

E.g. ZPE 29 (1978) no. 4 = Darmezin (1999) no.95: This record from Chaeronea (end of the third/ beginning of the second century BC) registers a consecration of a slave, by a couple, to Artemis of Ilythia to be freed but, the slave was to remain in service for the manumittors for 10 years and if they die before that the slave was to serve their daughter for the unexpired time.

A substantial amount of paramonē clauses demand exslaves to remain in service until the death of their masters.5 In certain other cases the ex-slave was 1

9

The only exception to this was the politically motivated manumissions where masses of slaves gained free release for their service in the army. But presumably the masters who themselves fought in the army in such a situation may have given their consent to the deed as that may have been better than the price of defeat in war which may make themselves slaves of the winner.

E.g. SGDI 2084. In this account from Delphi, (185/4 BC) the slave was to remain in service for Nicon, the manumittor, for eight years, and if Nicon dies before that the slave was to pay Nicon’s daughter half mina for each un-expired year.

10

SGDI 1717.

11

SGDI 1749, a record from Delphi (168/7 BC) where three ex-slaves were to pay an additional sum of half mina each at the death of the manumittor to end their paramonē services.

2

The ex-slaves manumitted conditionally were generally known to be in paramonē (obligatory) service, which derives from the term paramonē denoting ‘to stay beside or near’.

12

Samuel (1965): 221, states that the term paramonē first appears in Greek epigraphy and papyrology from the third century BC. The few records available from times before the third century show a simple form perhaps because they register full immediate freedom of slaves concerned. Though this raises the question whether all slaves gained full manumission before this time, it is impossible to come to a precise conclusion by observing only these few records.

E.g. SGDI 1811: A case from Delphi (171/0 BC) where, a slave was freed by fictitious sale for three minas on the condition to remain in service for 10 years to the manumittor. And this slave was given the choice of early release from his service by paying 30 silver staters for each un-expired year to the manumittor. Some ex-slaves expected to remain in paramonē service until the death of the manumittor were also given similar provisions for early release [e.g. A Delphic record from c. 124 BC in FD 3 (2) 243].

4

13

3

Cf. Samuel (1965): 221-311 for a detailed study on this. Also cf. Klees (1998): 325-330.

Samuel (1965): 262. E.g. FD 3 (3) 332 of 40 BC-18 AD, records that an ex-slave in paramonē service for the manumittor and his wife for an unspecified period was to give either two silver minas or a one-year-old child to one Stacte, presumably at the death of the manumittors, to effect her full release.

5

Although some records explicitly mention that the slave gains absolute freedom at the death of the manumittor (E.g., Darmezin (1999) no.116, no. 125, no.127, no.135, no. 138) some remain silent on this issue (E.g. IG 7. 3388, 3399, 3412;

75

This raises the point whether masters received the full value despite the type of freedom, immediate or conditional, given to slaves. Delphic records show that masters expected the full market value from a slave when granting immediate release that may have enabled the master to purchase a replacement. But, conditionally freed slaves paid only a part of their market value first,1 and it was followed by requirements to accomplish other demands as paramonē service and/or extra payment. The duration of paramonē service and/or the extra sum for the apolysis from paramonē service may depend upon how much of the full value was paid as the first payment at the demand of the manumittor:2 in the record (e.g. FD 3 (6) 31) the sale price 10 minas occurs without a proviso for extra payment presumably because that sum along with paramonē services covered the full value of the slave. Thus, the ex-owners finally received the full value for their slaves whether they were given full or conditional release. The only difference was whether the full sum was paid instantly or in fractions. In some cases, slaves had the option to provide children instead of paying the final instalment in cash.3

who obtained release is clear in the following data from Hopkins.

Table 1

The number of adult salves who received full and conditional release at Delphi (201-1 BC)6

Sex ♂

♀

The prices set for full and conditional freedom may reflect the owners’ attitude towards these types of freedom, but the data available are limited to that furnished by Hopkins which are invaluable due to the absence of any other parallel data. Some of Hopkins’ statistics are duplicated here to study the preferences of masters in allowing full and conditional freedom to slaves4 (Figure 1, Plate 1). The data shows a steep rise in prices for full release of male slaves which has doubled in 53-1 BC compared to 201-153 BC, and even those of adult females show some rise. But, though the prices for conditional release of slaves5 also have risen, it is relatively less sharp. The impact of rising prices on the number of slaves 1

Manum. Type Full Manu. Cond. Manu. Full Manu Cond. Manu.

Approximate dates 201-153 15310053BC 100BC 53BC 1BC 107 67 07 10 23

16

02

09

140

106

21

10

50

22

06

09

The number of slaves obtaining freedom in either manner shows a clear decline over the years. But was there a fixed manumission fee or did prices change according to circumstances? Hopkins’ data7 showing average prices of slaves in Delphic records are again reproduced due to their value for the present study (Figure 2 in end plate 2). The data illustrate a firm increase in manumission prices in the last two centuries BC and the impact of the manumission prices on the number of adult slaves manumitted is also clear.

Hopkins (1978): 148.

2

SGDI 1717: manumission price three minas with extra payment one mina at the death of the manumittor. Identical payments in SGDI 2186. But in FD 3 (3) 387 manumission fee was two minas with five minas as extra fee. Some records demand equal sums at the manumission and at the apolysis: e.g. BCH 88 (1964): 390, FD 3 (3) 369 of 93/2-81/0 BC, FD 3 (3) 355 & 364 both of 84/3-60/59 BC, FD 3 (3) 174 & 332 of 40 BC–18 AD.

3

FD 3 (3) 332. In FD 3 (6) 8 & 9 for instance, requires children at the apolysis.

4

But this focuses only until the first century BC. Hopkins (1978): 161 table III. 4.

5

300 drachmae for conditional manumission price of male slaves (100-53 BC) is parenthesised by Hopkins.

76

6

Hopkins (1978): 161 table III. 4.

7

Ibid. (1978): 159 table III. 3.

Hopkins’ data further shows that the source of ‘slavery’ also affected the manumission price and the proportion of slaves freed:4 the manumission price of purchased slaves (known aliens) was higher than that of the home born slaves,5 yet, more purchased slaves obtained manumission than the home-born slaves.6 However, the number of purchased slaves gaining freedom shows a significant decrease after 153 BC while that of the home-born slaves shows an increase or remains fairly constant.7 This does not signal a decrease in the manumission value of home-born slaves, but the average increase in their value was fairly low compared to that of foreign slaves, which was steep.8 Thus the manumission fee of slaves was not fixed as such, but differed along with individual slaves and the need of the ex-owners.

Table 2: The number of slaves manumitted at Delphi (201-1 BC).1 Slaves}

Approximate dates

Sex Adult Children

♂ ♀ ♂ ♀

201153 BC 130 190 11 09

153100 BC 83 128 19 18

10053BC 09 19 08 15

531BC 19 18 10 15

Thus the masters clearly have attempted to gain the maximum service and profit from their slaves in the manner they allow them to obtain freedom, immediate/ conditional, and the prices demanded. This profit seeking aspect is not totally absent even when a slave was granted free release through the testaments of their masters as some such slaves were freed conditionally. For instance, in Aristotle’s testament four slaves were to receive freedom once his daughter gets married.9 Theophrastus (c. 370-286) freed two of his six male slaves conditionally.10 Lycon freed three slaves with paramonē service: two years for Agathon, and four years for Opheilon and Posidonius.11 Moreover, a

Noticeably, the proportion of female slaves gaining freedom was higher than that of the males, perhaps due to high manumission prices set for male slaves in comparison to those of females (table 1). Even the prices of child slaves seem to show an identical pattern according to their gender, but the price hikes take the opposite turn: a significant rise in the prices of girls is evident (from 160 to 333) compared to that of the boys (from 235 to 330).2 Yet the number of slave girls obtaining freedom shows an increase over the time though that of slave boys does not mark a noticeable decrease.

4

As Hopkins suggests, the reason for this price hike could have been political circumstances in central Greece during the time of Roman conquests,3 which possibly sent more slaves to Rome than to Greece. Low supply of new slaves might have affected the prices of slaves and also their manumission prices. Consequently, this may also reflect masters’ dislike to manumit robust slaves in such situations.

5

The above data suggest that the masters have taken the gender and age of a slave into account when setting their value at least as shown in Delphic manumission records. Though these figures may not represent manumissions in all ancient Greek poleis, similar features might have been considered by the slave owners in all Greek poleis as well. Talent, strength, health and beauty of slaves to be freed may also have taken the attention of the owners in this process as such features influence the market value of a slave.

3

Hopkins (1978): 159.

6

Ibid. (1978): 140, table III. 1.

7

Ibid. (1978): 140, table III. 1.

Prices of knownaliens (purchased slaves) 357 drachmae 404 346

Also the chances available for home-born slaves to accumulate their manumission fee could have been better than that to purchased slaves.

9

Diog. Laert. 5, 12-16. The personal attendants were to gain freedom once they grow up but the testament does not mention in whose service the latter should remain while growing up.

From Hopkins (1978): 159. These prices often appear in epigraphic records in round numbers: e.g. three minas (=300 drachmae), four minas (= 400 drachmae), five minas (= 500 drachmae) etc. Cf. table 2.

Hopkins (1978): 167, note 55. Prices of home-born slaves ♂with 333 drachmae paramonē ♀without 363 paramonē ♀with 300 paramonē

8

1

2

Ibid. (1978): 140, table III. 1.

10 Ibid. 5, 51-57. Straton (died between 270-268 BC) manumitted four slaves perhaps with immediate effect (Ibid. 5, 61-64). 11 Ibid. 5, 69-74. Lycon further granted immediate freedom to eight slaves (six male and two females) and also three exslaves from paramonē service without exacting further payment. Copies of the testaments, the proof of freedom for

77

deities.8 Also, one deity may receive consecrations in several cities and one city may consecrate its slaves to several deities.9 But some deities received only regional recognition. For instance, Pythian Apollo received fiduciary consecrations and fictitious sales of slaves only in Delphi, though even fictitious sales of slaves were not confined to Pythian Apollo and to Delphi.10

record from Lebadea in Boeotia dated to the second century BC presents a case of fulfilling a request in a testament to manumit a slave conditionally following the sacral form.1

1. III. Sacral and civil manumissions: It is necessary to distinguish the manumissions that occur with a deity as mediator or those that followed sacral form, mentioned above in passing, from those that did not involve a deity, and to assure whether these different procedures had any particular effect on manumissions. Epigraphic evidence informs us of two procedures of manumissions, sacral and civil, practised in ancient Greece. Manumissions that happened with divine association were called sacral manumissions and occurred in a shrine of the deity involved in the affair, and the manumissions without divine involvement are tagged civil manumissions.

The deity involved in the manumission protected the ex-slave becoming his proistamenos– protector,11 not the new owner, and anyone protecting an ex-slave from seizure/ enslavement was considered to be acting on behalf of the deity.12 However, the records registering full manumissions following sacral procedure are few compared to those granting conditional manumissions. An example for a full release through sacral procedure is recorded from Lebadea in Boeotia (end of the third century BC) where a slave was consecrated to Zeus Basileus and Trophonius.13 The involvement of the deity in sacral manumissions is interpreted by some scholars in relation to the legal deprivation of slaves to enter monetary affairs and to give manumissions due recognition. According to Sokolowski, as noted above, the god acted on behalf of the slave paying his/her (slaves’) value, provided by slave him/herself, to the ex-owner turning the business to a fiduciary consecration or a fictitious sale.14

Since almost all manumission records available from Greece register sacral manumissions, they deserve first attention. Bömer2 and Darmezin3 recognise two different forms of sacral manumissions: fiduciary consecration and fictitious sale to a deity. In the former method, a slave gains freedom on the pretext that it was consecrated to the deity involved and the owner received the manumission price from the slave freed out side the shrine as pre-arranged. In fictitious sale the slave gained freedom on the pretext that s/he was sold to the deity involved and the priest of the deity handed over the manumission price, which he previously obtained from the slave to be freed, to the owner.4 Evidence shows that manumissions by consecration were not limited to Delphi or to Pythian Apollo, but also occurred in many other Greek cities5 involving a number of deities.6 Such consecrations were made either to single deities7 or to groups of two or three

century BC) a female slave was consecrated by her mistress with the assistance of her husband Olympichus to Artemis of Ilythia to be freed eventually (ZPE 29 (1978) no. 1 = Darmezin (1999) no. 92). 8

E.g. a record dated to c. 360 BC from Mt. Cotilion in Arcadia registers consecration of three slaves to Apollo Bassitas, Pan Sinoeis, Artemis of Cotilion and to Orthasia by one Cleinis (IG V. 2, 423= Darmezin (1999) no.2). A parallel case is reported from Hyampolis in Phocis, where a female slave is consecrated to Artemis of Elaphebolos and to Apollo (Darmezin (1999) no. 153). Also many records consecrating slaves to Zeus Basileus and to Trophonius, datable to the end of the third/ the beginning of the second century BC are found from Lebadea in Boeotia, (IG VII. 3080, 3081, 3082, 3083 = Darmezin (1999) nos. 10-13).

these slaves, would have been given to witnesses, as cited in Theophrastus’ will (Ibid. 5, 57), and also to the freed slaves themselves, in all of these cases. 1 IG VII. 3083: Doilos consecrates Andricus to Zeus Basileus and Trophonius to be hieros and to be free. But Andricus was to remain in service to Doilos’ mother for ten years and if she dies early Andricus was to continue service to Doilos for the un-expired period. If the mother was still alive after ten years Andricus was to pay the amount prescribed [in the will] by [Doilos’] father (ll. 15-16). 2

Bömer (1960) 2: 12.

3

Darmezin (1999): 9.

4

Sokolowski (1954): 175.

9

E.g. Asclepius received consecrations of slaves from Chaeroneans, Orchomenians, Thespians, Stirians, Elateans and the inhabitants of Buthrotos, though he was not the only deity venerated thus in these cities, and Chaeroneans, for instance, also consecrated their slaves to Sarapis, to Artemis of Ilythia, to Great Mother: cf. Darmezin (1999).

10 E.g. in Tithora in Phocis, slaves were sold to Sarapis to be manumitted (SGDI 1555d & e). 11

SGDI 2275.

E.g. Elis, Arcadia, Laconia, Messenia, Boeotia, Phocis, Western Locris, Epirus, Thessaly, Aegean islands, and from Asia Minor. Cf. Darmezin (1999).

12

SGDI 1951, 2275.

13

IG VII. 3080 = Darmezin (1999) no.10.

6

14 Sokolowski (1954): 175. But, how payment was implemented in civil manumissions, which had no deity to act on behalf of the slave is not clear due to the absence of records.

5

E.g. Poseidon, Olympian Zeus, Sarapis, Asclepius, Artemis, Athena Polias, Demeter, and Thespis.

7

E.g. in Chaeronea (end of the third/ beginning of the second

78

Also significant are the sacral manumissions, fiduciary consecrations to be precise, which took place in the shrine of Poseidon in Tainaron.1 This also reminds us the importance of this shrine as a place of refuge for helots though it was not always respected by their Spartiate masters.2 Those who received freedom at this shrine could probably be the helots taken from the fields to serve as domestic aids in Spartan households and private slaves belonging to the citizens of the neighbouring Dorian poleis.

Thus, whether the slaves were freed according to the sacral form or civil form the result was the same – slaves received freedom. Neither sacral form nor civil form provided the ex-slaves greater benefits or protections than the other. These two procedures only seem to represent the locally accepted procedures in freeing slaves. The importance given to registering manumissions in ancient Greece leads us to examine how they were recorded or what details appear in them and for what objective.

The significant element of civil manumissions in contrast to sacral manumissions, as noted above, is the absence of the involvement of a deity as proistamenos of the ex-slave. But, unfortunately, the recorded evidence for civil manumissions is very thin. Patterson, referring to Bömer,3 mentions that civil manumissions were largely practised in Athens, Corinth and Thebes.4 According to Harrison, Athenians did not follow a strict formula when manumitting a slave, and that the vital task of the master was to publish the manumission of the particular slave in order to secure his/her freedom.5 Also it could have been the duty of the master to release a slave in the presence of witnesses and guarantors for the same purpose. Eumathes, for instance, was manumitted by Epigenes in the court6 and possibly a majority of civil manumissions took place in a court of law, that may have provided the necessary legal setting for the affair. Moreover, emancipation of slaves was announced in theatres until it was banned sometime before 330 BC.7 Though publishing manumissions was considered a necessity, no epigraphic manumission record (other than phialē records8) is found from Athens.9 Nonetheless, the phialē records themselves stand to testify the existence of previous conditional manumissions of slaves in Athens.10

1. IV. Records of manumissions:

1

Darmezin (1999) nos. 3-8.

2

Cartledge (2002): 141.

3

Bömer (1960) 2: 120.

4

Patterson (1982): 237. Cf. also Westermann (1946): 95.

5

Harrison (1968): 183.

6

Isae. fr. 15 Th.

7

Aeschin. 3. 41,44.

As is evident from the previous section, almost all manumission records available follow the sacral procedure of which a majority is from Delphi. Greek cities, such as Lebadea, Calydon and Mantinea produce a handful of records whereas Magnesia, Iolchos, Echinos, Oropus and Amphipolis have so far produced only a single record each.11 Among the content of these records important common elements are observable despite certain regional differences in the manner these features were recorded. Almost all these records provide dates, identify the owner and the slave manumitted, the type of freedom and a guarantee for the acquired freedom. Such common elements provide a ‘crude’ categorization on the content of manumission records encapsulating all available Greek manumission records. Date of manumission is vital to the slave manumitted to refer to his/her freed status if need arises to demonstrate. A considerable number of Greek manumission inscriptions, both from Delphi and from the other Greek cities, begin by referring to the date, month, and the officers in power when the manumission happened. However, the practise of giving a precise date for manumission records was rare before the mid third century BC12 and seems to have developed from the third century BC onwards. Once the dating information begins to occur in these records, as one may expect, it varies in the degree of information given: some are brief while some are detailed. Some records only mention the date and the month, the event occurred,13 whereas some records from Thespis in Boeotia, Stiris in Phocis, and Taenarum from Laconia, for instance, cite only the archon or the ephor in power as the chronological remark.14 Yet, a substantial number of records such as

8

For Phialai records cf. Lewis (1959): 208-238, & ibid. (1968): 368-380. Gomme ((1933): 41, note 2 & also 96) & Westermann ((1946): 94-97) argue that the phialai records involve freedmen and not slaves and they register release of freedmen/women from their paramonē services. Harrison (1968): 185 considers that these records refer to real dike apostasiou trials. Cf. also Todd (1995): 191.

9

11

Reilly (1978) index.

12

For records that lack the ‘dating’ information see e.g. Darmezin (1999) no. 1 from Elis (beginning of fourth century BC); ibid. no. 2 = IG V. 2. 429 from Mt. Kotilion (c. 360 BC) and Darmezin (1999) no. 9 =IG V. 1. 1470 from Messenia (beginning of the third century BC).

On absence of manumissions cf. infra 82.

13

10

Lewis (1959): 208-238 & (1968): 368-380; Klees (1998): 325-331.

14

ZPE 29, no.3. = Darmezin (1999) no. 94.

Archon: IG VII. 1779, 1780; IG IX 1. 35. Ephors: Darmezin (1999) nos. 3, 4, 6, 5, 7 = IG V. 1.1228-1233 also from

79

those from Delphi,1 Chaeronea2 and Coronea,3 mention the archon in power along with the date and the month. However, records from certain cities such as Orchomenus reflect a variation in the chronological detail among its own records.4 Moreover, some records from Delphi and Elatea, are more informative in this concern.5 Besides these, records from Physcis in Western Locris mention officers in power both in Physcis and Locris.6 But the dating information whether brief or detailed does not lead to increase or decrease the end-result available to the ex-slave.

mentioned. Accordingly, as evident in records from Physcis,13 and in most Delphic records14 the gender of slaves is specified as: sōma andreion, sōma gunaikeion. Some records also refer to their services15or connections to their ex-owners: in one case the slave is addressed korasion ton idion threpton16 and in another oikotrophes.17 Thus the ex-slaves are clearly identified with their ex-owners who dominate the action. The records that register purchased manumissions note that the due payment was made though the payer is not clearly identified, perhaps because only the detail of payment was sufficient to confirm the release of a particular slave(s).

The identity of the slave owner is clearly mentioned with his/her name and anyone who assisted or supported to accomplish the manumission. Very often assistance7 or approval was sought when the manumittor was female, from male relatives or philoi.8 But there are exceptions, where males sought the consent of a female9 or of a male10 or parents assisted by children11 and mothers assisted by daughters12 in manumitting slaves. However, the role of the manumittor is clearly recognised in these records.

The other vital feature in most Greek manumission records is labelled in this study as ‘the manumission clause’ and it includes details of the type (sale/ consecration) and the manner (immediate/ conditional) of manumission and the guarantee for the acquired freed status. If it was a conditional manumission, it spells out the contract agreed by the ex-slave to fulfil in order to receive the full freedom.

Furthermore, the detail of the slave who received manumission is also spelt out: the name, which is key to ensure the new status, gender, services and connections of the freed slave to the manumittor are

Different verbs and phrases in these records distinguish the records that report manumissions by fictitious sale from those of fiduciary consecration, which do not necessarily show a regional variation18 but perhaps a writing etiquette of inscribing sacral manumission.19 As noted above, since these different types do not lead to produce different results in the business of manumissions, this issue is not taken further.

Taenarum (c. c.420-410, 365, c.380, c.375-370, 350-340 BC respectively). 1

E.g. FD 3 (3) 30, 32, 33; FD 3 (6) 7, 8.

2

ZPE 29, nos.2, 3 = Darmezin (1999) nos. 93, 94 respectively.

3

Darmezin (1999) nos. 128, 129; some times they omit the date as in nos. 130 & 131 from Coronea.

13

E.g. IG IX² 1/3, 677c.

14

E.g. FD 3 (6) 9, 10, 23, 31.

4 They may either mention the priest of the deity involved and the polemarch (IG VII. 3198, 3199), or the priest and the hierarchs (IG VII. 3200, 3201, 3203, 3204; Darmezin (1999) no.116), or the priest and the financial controllers (IG VII. 3202) despite the archon.

Domestic slaves were specified as oiketai. E.g. a record from Chaeronea (Boeotia Antiqa 7/8, no.5) and several from Coronea (Darmezin (1999) no.128, nos. 130-131).

5

16

15

Many Delphic records mention the month, the archon, and the councillors [e.g. FD 3 (6) 09, 10, 22, 107; FD 3 (3) 121, 365, 366] the polemarchs [FD 3 (6) 108], secretaries and even those who hold priesthood besides the detail on the month or the archon [SGDI 2172, 2097; FD 3 (2) 120].

6

IG IX² 1/3, 677c.

7

Darmezin (1999) no.119.

FD 3 (6) 29. Parallels in ZPE 29, nos. 3-7 = Darmezin (1999) nos.94-98.

17

FD 3 (6) 37. The slave’s place of origin is also often mentioned: e.g. paidarion to idion threpton oikoge(ne)s, FD 3 (6) 27. Parallels in FD 3(6) 22, 23 ;(3) 277, 296, 306, 436. But FD 3 (3) 31 uses the term ‘endogenē’ to denote the same idea. Boeotia Antiqua 7/8 no.2 = Darmezin (1999) no.103, notes that the slave is from Heraclea.

8 Philoi here is taken to mean ‘loved ones’ including the relatives, friends and well-wishers. IG VII. 3204, 3198, 3199; Darmezin (1999) nos. 116 & 139.

18 E.g., the Chaeronean, Delphic, Stirian records have used a number of forms and many other Greek cities share the formulas expressing manumission by consecration.

9

19 Most records from Delphi and also from other places such as Tithora employ the verb apodidōmi- to sell (apedoto, apedonto or apedeto) to refer to fictitious sale. The common verb used to indicate manumission of a slave by fiduciary consecration to a deity is anatithēmi (consecrate) but in different forms. For a list of such verbs and phrases used in manumissions by consecration in Boeotia and in Hellenistic Greek world cf. Darmezin (1999): 180-182.

FD 3(2) 120.

10 These two could be father and son, but they also could be possible freedman and his prostatēs. Ridder BCH 19 (1895) no. 2 = Darmezin (1999) no.119. 11

IG VII. 3325.

12

IG VII. 3396.

80

The guarantee of the acquired freedom cited in a manumission record is the core for the ex-slaves concerned. Most records from Delphi contain this feature in various forms. It generally declares that the slave is anephaptos for life.1 In the case of instant manumission and in some paramonē manumission it is explicitly stated that the slave gains spatial and professional mobility.2 But the way this condition affected the freedman in paramonē service is intricate3 and was still under the control of the ex-master.4 Moreover, in Delphic records very often and in those from other cities rarely, guarantors of freedom of the ex-slave were appointed complying with the law of the city, and were responsible to defend the ex-slave from arbitrary seizure or enslavement.5 Moreover, these records also furnish protection for the defenders of exslaves. The common formula in majority of Delphic records in this concern is more or less as follows:

SGDI 1961 & 1963). Moreover, manumission records from cities such as Orchomenus, Coronea, Thespis and Stiris, contain a security clause different from that cited in Delphic records. In Orchomenus, for instance, the archon, the polemarch, the priest or any officer mentioned at the beginning of the inscription (in the chronological note) were authorised to punish those who seize/ enslave the ex-slave.8 Coronean records produce several forms of security clauses, but all contain witnesses. In some, the priest of the deity is authorised to protect the ex-slave from arbitrary seizure,9 whereas some empowers the priest and any voluntary Boeotian to protect the slave in parallel circumstances.10 A record11 (mid. Second century BC) citing the latter form compares seizure of an ex-slave to a theft of a sacred property and imposes a fine of 3000 Attic drachmas to be consecrated to Charops Heracles (the deity involved in the case). The Stirian manumission records also furnish identical provisions for the protection of the freedman.12 But some of the records from Thespis only mention witnesses as protection for the freedman.13 The formula used in most Chaeronean records seem typical to the city: they simply mention, tēn anathēsin poioumenoi dia tou sunedriou kata ton nomon14 without witnesses, guarantors or a security clause,15 presumably because the law of Chaeronea according to which the manumissions were executed covered all needed immunity. Thus, it is clear that, while certain manumission records contain more detail in the proviso for the protection of the freed person, some records fulfil this task with a brief statement. But, whether this reflects changes in the social and cultural background where the manumissions occurred, requiring more security for the freed slaves, or whether they simply reflect regional variations or sophistication in the manner of recording manumissions at a particular time

o)moi/wj de\ kai\ oi( paratugxa/nontej kurioi e)so/ntwn sule/ontej Sw=son w(j e)leu/qeron o(/nta a)za/mioi e)ontej kai\ a)nupo/dikoi pa/saj di/kaj kai\ zami/aj.6 Besides this clause, these records also contain a list of witnesses.7 But some manumission records, even from Delphi, mention only witnesses and omit the provision for the protection of the defenders of the ex-slave (e.g. 1

E.g. SGDI 1964, 1965.

2 E.g. SGDI 1949, 1950. Cf.. infra 82 notes 05 & 06 for more examples. 3 FD 3 (6) 31, for instance, cites the security clause (ll.7-12) before the paramonē clause (l.13) that the slave becomes anephapton pantōn ton panta chronon pantachē (l.8). But the conditions of the contract still bound the ex-slaves to work for the manumittor until his death, being liable for punishments. For parallels cf: FD 3 (6) 29, 33, 34, 35, 36, 58, 79, 108. But some records (eg: FD 3 (3) 32. ‘ … pla\n mh\ pwle\ontej’) specify that such a slave should not be sold even as a punishment. 4

Even the fate of their offspring depended upon the mercy of the manumittor who regulated the contract: some ex-slaves had to hand over children instead of extra cash payment for apolysis, (E.g. FD 3 (6) 38 of 20-45 AD) whereas some children born during the service were declared free, SGDI 1798 of 168/7 BC. Similar provisions appear in SGDI 2225 of 140/39 BC, FD 3(3) 280, 296 & 318 of 40 BC – 18 AD; (3) 439 of 53/2-39/8 BC. A contract of complex nature in this concern is recorded in SGDI 2171 of 84/3-60/59 BC.

E.g. IG VII. 3198, 3199, 3200, 3203.

9

Darmezin (1999) no.129.

10

Ibid. (1999) nos.130-131.

11

Ibid. (1999) no, 135.

12

Even these records authorise the priest of the deity involved and any Stirian or Phocian who volunteers to protect the freed man from seizure. They also mention witnesses, and impose a fine of 30 minas (3000 drachmas) on wrongdoers (second century BC). IG IX. 1. 35,36,39,42 = Darmezin (1999) nos. 147, 148, 149, 151. The 30 minas (/3000 drachmas) appear to be a standard fine for these cases of which half was consecrated to the deity and the rest was given to those who intervened to protect the slave.

5

Physcis and Orchomenus are among the other cities which mention guarantors, the former mentions two (IG IX² 1/3, 677c) while the latter mentions one (Darmezin (1999) no, 119).

13

6 FD 3 (3) 32. ‘Likewise, anyone present shall have the authority to seize Soson (from the person attempting to enslave him) as a free man, and shall be free and immune from all lawsuits and damages.’ 7

8

IG VII. 1779.

14 IG VII. 3378. The same form appears in all other records from Chaeronea. E.g. IG VII. 3313. 3314. 15 But some Chaeronean manumission inscriptions do not mention this particular clause just mentioned but, only contain a list of witnesses, e.g. Darmezin (1999) no. 92-93.

E.g. FD 3(3) 318, 366; (6) 14, 23; SGDI 1685, 1784, etc.

81

is not clear. However, in all cases this may be representing the needs of the social and cultural setting in their poleis.

1.V. The freed persons: How slaves fared in the society after receiving manumission or the reception they received from their society is equally important, as that could be the inspiration that led slaves to seek freedom. Slaves who received full manumission immediately or later, after fulfilling the set conditions, became judicially free being anephaptos (unseizable) i.e. protected against arbitrary enslavement,5 and also enjoyed ‘occupational mobility’ (i.e. the right to choose one’s profession) and ‘spatial mobility’ i.e. the right to go where one wants.6

Thus, it is clear that despite certain differences in recording details of manumissions they all provide information about the ex-slave, the manumittor and the protection available for the ex-slave. This diverts attention to the objective for recording manumissions of slaves and the apolysis of freedmen from paramonē service and possible reasons for the absence of such records. Presumably, these records were intended to secure the newly acquired freedom of ex-slaves from re-enslavement and may have emerged as a social and political publication certifying the freed status of a particular slave. For this effect, manumissions need to be displayed in a place where all could get access either to demonstrate or to verify a claim of freed status if need arises. In Delphi, manumissions were engraved on the temple walls of Pythian Apollo. And sacral manumission records from other Greek cities may perhaps have followed a similar practice, though no precise evidence exists. Even phialai inscriptions, which arguably recorded apolysis of freedmen from paramonē service, were unearthed from the Athenian Agora, presumably where they were originally displayed. Thus, the names of freed slaves may have been evident in respective places, securing their freed status.

Any other detail of the status of freedmen is available only from Athens, yet some attention to that is worthwhile. Notably, complete freedom did not grant Athenian citizenship to a slave (though it may occur in very rare circumstances) unlike in ancient Rome, but they generally became metics.7 These ex-slaves still had certain obligations to their former masters, who became their prostatēs to represent them (ex-slaves) in all legal affairs.8 Failure to have their ex-master as prostatēs made them liable for trial, dikē apostasiou, and if acquitted the ex-slave gained ‘complete freedom’9 and also probably could choose a new prostatēs10 suggesting that even then s/he was not granted citizenship. But if convicted, s/he was reenslaved. There were also other limitations which delimited freedmen: they were forbidden to marry Athenian citizens by about 340 BC, and were liable for prosecution by graphē for violation of this law and again faced enslavement if convicted.11 Besides, freedmen had no tenure of real estate in Attica nor could they lend money on the security of land and were isolated from political affairs of the city.12 Their lawsuits were tried by the polemarch.13 Further, when metics were victims or plaintiffs of homicide they were

Recording manumissions of slaves, therefore, is a vital issue, but surprisingly, such records are absent from certain powerful ancient Greek cities, such as Athens, Thebes and Corinth.1 All these cities according to Patterson have manumitted their slaves according to the civil formula.2 The absence of manumission records of slaves from Athens is bizarre3 because the existence of many Athenian inscriptions, in general, indicate that the Athenians were aware of the custom of record keeping. However, it is hard to conjecture causes for the absence of manumission records of slaves in Athens, where many slaves were freed according to literary sources.4 Finally, the aim of recording Greek manumissions was to guarantee the acquired freedom of the ex-slave, which is clear in all records.

5

E.g. FD 3 (6) 14, 22, 27.

6

Trechousa hopa kathelē kai poiousa ho kathelē. FD 3 (6) 37.

7

Fisher (1995): 68.

8

The difference between the foreign metics and ex-slave metics was that the former could choose any citizen as their prostatēs unlike ex-slaves.

9

What is meant by ‘complete freedom’ is not clear: ‘..tou\j de\ nikh/santaj tele/wj h)/dh e)leuqe/rouj. Harp. s.v. a)postasi/ou. Yet it could mean that the slave gained such freedom to choose a new prostates.

1

Corinth was demolished by Romans in 146 BC and that may also have destroyed all Corinthian inscriptions, if there were any.

10

Harrison (1968): 183 & 185. Dem. 59. 16. & 52.

2

Cf. supra 79 note 03.

11

3

Cf. supra 79.

12

Metics were barred from attending or voting in ekklēsia or at elections or holding offices, Harrison (1968): 184.

4

E.g. Ar. Ran. 33, 693-695, Diog. Laert. 5, 12-16, 51-57, 6164, 69-74.

13

82

Whitehead (1977): 92.

tried in the Paladion, just like slaves, whether the cases were pre-meditated or unpremeditated murder.1

Analysis:

Freed slaves also had to pay the metoikion (a special tax) and were liable to be re-enslaved for neglecting it.2 Interestingly, ex-slaves had to pay extra three obols besides the 12 drachmas paid by foreign metics as the annual metoikion. But whether this extra sum was an annual or a monthly due is not clear.3 Moreover, if a freedman had no children of his own to inherit his property, his manumittor or his (manumittor’s) heirs inherited the property by law,4 since a freed person could not dispose of his property in a will or by adopting a child.5

Slaves in ancient Greece profited from several chances available to obtain freedom, which varied from selfpurchase to occasional free manumissions. Also slaves received financial help from their freed relatives or wellwishers to gain freedom. However, the attitude of their masters dominated the affair which determined whether the slaves received immediate freedom or conditional freedom, and how much they had to pay instantly to achieve the former and the conditions slaves had to fulfil to achieve the latter in instalments. Furthermore, while the attitude of the owner is reflected in the records, the protection for the ex-slaves’ acquired freedom was also given a significant display in the records by identifying the owner and the slave freed and by spelling out the guarantee for his/her freedom. Last but not least, the ultimate result of both immediate and conditional release, whether gained through sacral or civil form, was similar – freedom of equal degree. Further, at least in Athens freedom generally transferred slaves into the status of metics and not that of citizens.

A successful metic may become isotelēs, the status of a privileged metic exempted from metoikion and foreigners market-tax.6 Apparently, they paid the same taxes as citizens and were regarded as socially superior to ordinary metics, although their lawsuits were still tried by the Polemarch suggesting little or no progress in their legal status.7 Very rarely, in cases of military emergency, slaves gained free manumission and citizenship.8 Also, though rare, evidence shows that certain metics, Pasion and Phormio, received citizenship over time,9 which their children inherited.10

2. Manumissions in ancient Sri Lanka. The problem of limited evidence and its uneven distribution, both chronologically and geographically, is common even with regard to the manumission of ‘slaves’ in ancient Sri Lanka. Also it needs to be noted here that we have no information as to the manumission of ‘slaves’ in the Tamil speaking Jaffna but this must not lead to assume that acquiring freedom, through purchase or by any other means, was not available for ‘slave’ in Jaffna.

Consequently, manumission made a considerable practical change in the status of Athenian slaves, although they did not gain liberty in a complete sense, being barred from political and judicial rights. But the condition of freedmen in other Greek cities was perhaps different from that in Athens, though we have no evidence from other Greek cities to compare with Athens other than the concise security clauses in manumission records from Delphi and a handful of other cities, which do not provide detail on the status of ex-slaves in their respective societies.

2.I Chances available to slaves to gain freedom: In historical Sri Lanka too ‘slaves’ profited from different chances to obtain freedom. Purchasing freedom was one and perhaps the most common option open to these ‘slaves.’ The social and religious ambience of the island also encouraged various forms of financial help, especially from non-relatives, for slaves towards obtaining freedom. Occasional cases of free manumissions granted to few fortunate ‘slaves’ by their master were also not totally absent. However, a considerable number of recorded cases produce selfpurchases, a feature explicit in the manumission records of the island.

1

The highest penalty the Paladion could inflict was exile for life. Harrison (1968): 169-170.

2

Whitehead (1977): 165.

3

Ibid. (1977): 16.

4

IG IX 1² .3, 705= Darmezin (1999) no. 144.

5

Harrison (1968): 148 & 185.

6

Harp. s.v. i(sotelh/j kai\ i(sote/leia.

7

Whitehead (1977): 11-12.

8 Ar. Ran. Athenians enfranchised slaves who fought in the naval battle of Arginusae 406. 9

Dem. 36, introd: in Loeb rev. ed. (1946): 319.

10

Dem. 46.13. Trevett (1992): 1 & 14.

83

As discussed in Chapter three, the toleration of ‘slave’ property by the masters may have enabled ‘slaves’ to amass the necessary sum to petition freedom from their masters. Apart from self-accumulating the manumission fee, ‘slaves’ received financial aid directly or indirectly from their relatives and non-relatives to buy freedom. Though direct financial aid to ‘slaves’ from relatives and non-relatives for the purpose is evident from manumission records dated to times between fourth and the eighth centuries AD. Indirect help from relatives and non-relatives can be gathered from D’Oyly’s information on the Kändyan times. He reports a case showing that those reduced to ‘slavery’/bondage received financial support from near relatives or friends to release themselves:1 if all children were enslaved/bonded by the creditor for unpaid debt of their deceased parents,

low caste creditors and it is not clear whether this form of relief was available for all ‘slaves’. Though this detail of pooling financial aid at least to a few in ‘slavery’/bondage existed in Kandyan times, it is likely that the religious enthusiasm in the island in earlier epochs also may have induced such charitable manners of mutual support common among Buddhists. Possibly, such financial support available for ‘slaves’ in earlier times passed unrecorded in earlier historical sources in the island, perhaps because incidents involving the general public were ignored in these sources that were devoted mostly to extolling monarchs and their patronage for Buddhism.

a. Motives:

....it was customary for a nearest relative or a friend to tie a piece of linnen [sic] rag round his neck with a small coin in it and [having it] placed on the throat, and in his miserable mode [to] walk about the country until he had collected in charity a sum sufficient to release his unfortunate relative.2

It is interesting to examine the motives that inspired relatives and non-relatives to pay for the manumission of a particular slave. Adoption could be the motive of freeing ‘slave’ children by their poor free (or freed) parents. Two such cases appear in the Veśsagriya inscription (c. 526-552 AD).6 In these, fathers released their children from ‘slavery’ in the monastery. As discussed in the first chapter certain destitute parents have given their children into ‘slavery’/ bondage in dire financial situations.7 Though not mentioned, such parents may have intended to free their children later when they could afford to pay the value as noted in one case from Sihalavatthūpakarana.8 After manumission these children were possibly integrated and adopted into the families. Besides, it is also likely that servile parents freed their children born in servitude9 either when they obtained freedom themselves or later when they could afford it with the same intention.

He continues that a child seized for a parent’s debt was eligible to redeem him/herself at any time within 30 years by paying that debt unless the parents have voluntarily given the child with a ‘written Deed of Transfer,’ and at the expiration of 30 years such a ‘slave’/bondsman lost the eligibility to obtain freedom. If it is a woman this restriction was extended to her children.3 Regarding indirect financial support to ‘slaves’/ bondsmen from non-relatives, D’Oyly reports that even when the king interfered to redeem people seized for unpaid debt, the debt was paid to the creditor from the Royal treasury. He continues that,

There is one piece of recorded evidence that shows that a ‘slave’ girl freed by a non-relative, a person of high social rank, was adopted by that person. This particular account is from Sīhalavatthūpakarana10 and it informs us that a girl, pledged by her parents to ‘slavery’/ bondage in order to obtain money in their miserable times was finally redeemed by the king Saddātissa (77-

…it was customary for Dessaves4 and other Chiefs of Provinces, when they gave redress in such cases, to raise a voluntary contribution to which they always largely contributed themselves, to pay off the Debt, for which the Debtor had been seized and enslaved by his Creditor’.5

6 7

Such deeds may perhaps have been executed to prevent high caste people falling into debt ‘slavery’/ bondage of

Sīhalavattū 45: a poor farmer pledged his daughter to ‘slavery’ as the security for eight kahapana he borrowed during a famine; ibid. 55: A couple pledged their daughter to ‘slavery’ as the security for 12 kahapana they borrowed under similar conditions; cf. ibid. 33, 62; Rv.2.32 for parallel cases, though the amounts borrowed by parents were different in each case.

1

This incident comes from the Kändyan period, when the foreign influence was present in the island and some of the coastal areas were under foreign influence. Either D’Oyly may have been an eye-witness of the incident or may have received the information second hand.

2

D’Oyly (1928): 184.

3

Ibid. 185.

4

Dessāvēs = Provincial chiefs who were higher royal officers.

5

Sawer’s Digest 29 in D’Oyly (1928): 189.

EZ 4: 132-133. ii & iii. For the tr. cf. App.2, no. 12.

8

Sīhalavatthū 56.

9

Literary sources such as Svinī, and NN confirm that there were home-borne slaves in ancient Sri-Lanka. Cf.Chap. 1: 06.

10

Sīhalavattū contains a number of stories famous among the Sinhalese folk of ancient times. Perhaps there was a certain amount of reality in these stories.

84

59 BC), who kept her in the palace as his granddaughter.1 Whether the manumission was executed with the intention of adoption or whether the adoption resulted as a second thought of the monarch is not clear. Besides, a single possible case of manumission effected with the intention of cohabiting or marrying the ‘exslave’ is reported in the first record of the Veśsagiriya inscription, where a husband redeems his wife from ‘slavery’.2 This release may have occurred under two possible situations: if the husband was an ex-‘slave’ of the temple who obtained freedom in an earlier occasion or if the husband pledged his wife to ‘slavery’/bondage as security for the money he borrowed3 probably in hard times. Whatever could have been the circumstance, the husband is now freeing his ‘slave’ wife when he could afford it.

themselves voluntarily to Buddhist temples or monks followed by immediate self-purchase could be an extension of the religious motive to redeem ‘slaves’.10 The only precise evidence supporting politically motivated manumissions of ‘slaves’ is that Parākramabāhu II redeemed a number of people reduced to ‘slavery’ by Māgha.11 But the political situation in the island suggests the possibility that the Sinhalese enslaved by Tamil invaders regained freedom when Sinhalese kings re/assumed power.12 Such politically motivated manumissions, when occurred, may have granted free of charge to the ‘slaves’ concerned.

Interestingly, certain manumission records reveal that some individuals, not apparently related to ‘slaves’, redeemed them out of religious piety in their quest for merit.4 The Kudārathmalē record (end of the sixth century & the beginning of the seventh century AD) registers the manumission of a ‘priest’ (pävji)5 named Sidhattha by some officer with police duties (arakalayi)6 paying 100 kahavana.7 The Murutāwa record (c.508-516 AD)8 registering an order of a military commander, Dalana, to manumit “all children in ‘slavery’” provides another example.9 People of high social ranks offering

A notable feature in some Sri Lankan manumissions is rituals carried out while manumitting ‘slaves’. What impact these rituals impart into the affair of manumission deserves attention while explaining the rituals that are linked with the lives of Sinhalese even today.

1

Sīhalavattū 56.

2

Cf. App. 2 no. 12. i.

b. Rituals practised when manumitting ‘slaves’:

Samantapāsādikā and Niti-Niganduwa, furnish information in this regard referring to “pouring buttermilk” on the head of ‘slaves’ and “pouring water on the hands of the ‘slaves’” respectively when manumitting slaves.13 But, none of these sources provide detail on these practices. Nevertheless, these two rituals show a link- pouring some liquid over some physical part of the ‘slave’ to be manumitted. Pouring water appears to be a general custom followed when donating items to monks or to lay people and runs back to the third century BC.14 Further, manumission by

3

Ariyapala 1956: 301-302, examines the position of women as depicted in Sdlkya and Sdrvya which highlight the male dominance and inferior status ascribed to women in the society. Such notions may have allowed a husband to pledge or even to sell his wife into ‘slavery’ to obtain money if he desired.

10 E.g. Mv 24. 86-89; Mv 49. 63-64 Cf. Chap. 1: 12-13 for more.

4

Avmdsva (beginning of the 14th century AD): 43. Cf. infra 90 note 03.

11

12 E.g. the Sinhalese king Asēla defeated the two Tamils (in the second century BC) ruling in Anurādhapura for 12 years, and re-conquered the kingdom and reigned for 10 years, until it was again conquered by another Tamil invader, Elāla, who occupied the kingdom for 44 years (145-101 BC) until defeated and killed by the Sinhalese King Dutugamunu (EZ 3: 4-36 chronological table).

5

Scholars doubt whether this is a Buddhist monk freed from ‘slavery’, because Vinaya regulations ban slaves from entering the order unless emancipated. But Budhagōsha mentions in Smp a story of an individual who had entered the order unaware of his ‘slave’ origin and was trying to redeem himself from the person who may have claimed him as a slave. (EZ 5: 33; Smp 1001). This inscription may be recording a similar manumission.

6

EZ 5: 34, note 03.

7

Cf. App. 2 no. 14.

Mv. 87. 46-47. Cf. also Geiger (1960): 36.

13

Smp 1001 & NN 10.

14 Water was poured upon the hands of the recipient at the first donation of land by the king Devānampiyatiśsa to Rev. Mahinda and other Buddhist monks who brought Buddhism to the island in the third century BC (Rāhula (1943): 59-68). Sdlkya, Sangadattha vaggaya 645. Cf. also Velupillai (1971) 1: 64, for giving a gift by pouring water to Brahmin. Also cf. De Silva (1928): 62-77. The practice of pouring water is referred to in a tenth century AD record of Udaya IV (EZ 5: 184 (ll. D 38-39). But the reference here is for not pouring water upon the head of an individual as a penalty if he entered a village from which he was formerly banished for an offence. The implication is that ‘pouring water upon the head’ would have purified the individual from his former offence, highlighting the value of such spiritual cleansing for an individual.

8

EZ 5: 29. This record in Kurunëgala district is dated a century or so later than the reign of the king Kumāradāsa (508-516 AD). 9 Cf. App. 2 no. 11. If the record refers to all child slaves in Sri Lanka’ as maintained by Dias (2001): 103, it should be a political decree Dalana accomplished as the military commander, in which case the record may contain the monarch as the benefactor of these freed children. But the absence of such detail in the record suggests that this manumission was a private deed of Dalana to gain merit for himself. Cf. infra 89.

85

pouring water upon the head (or by washing the head) was popular even in India during the Buddhist epoch (about the fourth to fifth centuries BC).1 Water, a spiritual cleansing agent in both Sri Lankan and Indian societies, was used at manumissions possibly intending to purify the ‘slave’ in his/her transition to free status. But, the significance of pouring ‘buttermilk’ is not clear. The clause reads:

2. II. ‘Slave’ owners’ attitude to manumission: Whether ‘slave’ owners agreed to manumit their ‘slaves’ whenever the ‘slaves’ managed to provide their value either themselves or through another or, whether the owners controlled manumissions of their ‘slaves’ to suit their interests is not very clear from the available scant evidence.

…then [when the masters give slaves to monks as ‘park keepers’] they [slaves] become as if buttermilk has been poured on their head: it is proper that they be admitted to the order2.” (my italics for emphasis)

All existing manumission records seemingly record outright manumission as none provide a clue for freeing a ‘slave’ conditionally, a necessity if both types existed. Niti-Niganduwa furnishing information about manumitting ‘slaves’ in the Kandyan times mentions that those freed received absolute freedom.5 But even this source is silent about conditional release of ‘slaves’.

Apparently, this was a common ritual observed in manumitting ‘slaves’ in temples because the author expects his readers to understand the manumission of ‘slaves’ simply by mentioning the ritual. However, as there is no other evidence in this concern it is difficult to say whether buttermilk was used only when freeing ‘slaves’ in temples according to sacral procedure.

However, Samantapāsādika furnishes a clue for a conditional freedom6 of a different nature because the intention here is not to delay the full manumission pending fulfilling any service to the master to acquire complete freedom by the ex-‘slaves’ concerned. In this masters brought home-born (antōjātō) or purchased ‘slaves’ (dhānakkhitō) for admission to the order of Buddhist monks, and if they preferred to lead a religious life they were declared free and admitted to the order but, if not, they reverted to ‘slavery’.7 Moreover, this offer of manumission with a conditional nature does show some concern of the masters towards manumission of these ‘slaves’ though that is not commercial. This could have been a precaution to prevent ‘slaves’ getting freedom on the pretext of entering the order of Buddhist monks. Accordingly, if a ‘slave’ manumitted on the condition to lead a religious life as a monk was expelled from a temple or if s/he derobed her/himself,8 the ex-master may have had the

It is likely that the methods and rituals of manumissions in the island changed over the time and that South Indian (especially after 1215) and European influences (after 1597) may have contributed to these changes to some extent. But the scant information prevents us from checking possible variations and changes in the methods and patterns that may have existed in manumitting ‘slaves’ in ancient Sri Lanka. It is the use of rituals, which are performed at key events during and even after one’s life-time among Sinhalese,3 that has inserted value to the event of manumission in the life of the ex-‘slave’, and it also signals the recognition of the manumission in the society. These rituals may symbolise the transfer of the control of the ‘slave’ from the master to the ‘slave’ him/ herself. The two rituals cited almost from the two ends (i.e. the fifth and 17th/ 18th centuries AD) in the historical period of the island suggest the prevalence of some ritual linked with manumissions throughout history, though the chronological and geographical application and diffusion of these two particular rituals are obscure due to scant evidence.4 1

(c. the fifth century AD) may be referring to a practice in the Anurādhapura kingdom just as NN may be referring to a custom in the Kändyan provinces (17th century to 1815AD). 5

NN 10. Cf. supra 85 & the left column here for detail.

6

Smp 1001.

7 Ibid. 1001. Buddhagōsha, referring to Kurundi (Smp 1001, cf. App 3: 4 for detail on Kurundi and Mahāpaċcari), states that slaves should not be ordained as monks as they were ‘temporary one[s]’. But the text also states that both Kurundi and Mahāpaċcari agree that slaves could be ordained as monks once manumitted.

Chanana (1960): 80-85. Dating based on EZ 3: 4.

2 Smp 1001. Paranavithāna suggests that this could be a formality observed in manumitting a slave (EZ 5: 60 note 2) as slaves had to be manumitted to qualify to enter the order of Buddhist monks according to Vinaya rules.

8

Vinaya rules aimed at securing the discipline among Buddhist monks/nuns, and if a monk/nun violated rules the chief monks/nuns had the authority to expel the wrong doers from the order: Thaniśsaro Bhikkhu (1994) Introduction to the Patimokkha rules: ‘penalties’ (accessed: 2001.09.12). No rules prevented monks from de-robing themselves if they desired thus: (ibid. (1994) The Buddhist monastic codes, ‘Disrobing’ (accessed: 2001.09.12).

3

There are numerous rituals performed even today at birth of a child, at the puberty of a girl, at weddings and at funerals for instance. Cf. D. de Silva Life cycle rituals among Sinhalese, a brief note on the contents of this book to come by A. GeiszlerJones appears in

(accessed: 2004.01.02). 4

The two details come from two different chronological and geographical places far apart from one another. However, Smp

86

power to enslave her/him once again. In these cases, perhaps ‘slaves’ received free manumission, which gave the master a great authority to enslave the ex‘slave’ at the breach of the condition. Also it is likely that they remained in this conditional status throughout their lives. But, as monks, they were presumably well treated by every member of the society, though, perhaps, they were not allowed full spatial mobility because the monks who ordained them probably needed to monitor their conduct. However, such an ex‘slave’ may have gained full freedom once they obtain the status of arahant.1

a master too may have had some effect in raising or lowering that price. Thus it is possible that while 100 was the set value for one adult male ‘slave’ it was the collective sum required by a particular owner to free two of his/her ‘slaves.’ Furthermore, owing to the scarcity of manumission records, it is not possible to come to a conclusion regarding the general manumission prices set by the masters in a particular period. However, though the existing records seem to hint at a standard manumission fee for adult male ‘slaves’ in the time between fourth and eighth centuries AD (100 kahavana), the records maintain a complete silence concerning the prices of child ‘slaves’ and female ‘slaves’. It is also notable from the available records that it was only adult male ‘slaves’ who paid for their freedom themselves.

This also hints at the religious instinct in at least some of the masters towards manumissions which sometimes led them to release slaves gratis in order to obtain the merit attached to freeing a slave, while some masters allowed others to quench their religious thirst to obtain such merit by freeing a slave by providing his/her value. The Murutāwa record arguably provides an example for a free release granted to ‘slaves’ by their owner.2

The archived information on the Kandyan times by Englishmen also provide detail on prices of ‘slaves’ which may have had an impact on their manumission value, though these do not directly show the attitude of masters towards manumissions. One case cites the value of a ‘slave’ called Dingittu as 100 ridi, and that Sawers has remarked “100 ridi in 1812 would have been an enormous price for a child ‘slave.’”6 Sawer mentions that the “rates at which ‘slaves’ were valued have been established and fixed from time immemorial, viz. for a male, without reference to his age, 50 ridi, for a female, also without reference to age, 100 ridies.”7 According to Lawrie around 60 years ago, an adult female and a child ‘slave’ were generally valued at 150 ridi, in 1822, two female and six child ‘slaves’ were valued at 730 ridi and an undated case briefly refer to a claim of six ‘slaves’ for 450 ridi.8

Besides this, whether masters regulated the prices of ‘slaves’ to control manumissions or to guard their profit when allowing them to purchase freedom is also worth attention despite scant evidence. As can be gathered from many records that register the manumission of adult male ‘slaves’ the price for a single adult male appears to be 100 kahavana.3 But there are cases where this amount was paid to purchase the freedom of two individuals, and the obscure nature4 of the records make it hard to assume whether 100 was the collective fee or that paid by each. But the Kotakanda Ätkanda vihāra record suggests that the 100 kahavana was the collective fee.5 Possibly, masters decided the manumission price of a slave based on his age and industriousness, while the religious instinct of

Moreover, masters apparently allowed the parents to free the children pledged to ‘slavery’ as security for money they borrowed with the reimbursement of that sum.9 But such amounts must not be trusted as a standard manumission fee set for child ‘slaves’ because these sums may represent the amounts these individuals were allowed to borrow or that they required in desperate circumstances.10 For instance, as mentioned above,11 Nāgā from Nāgadipa borrowed 60 or 40

1

This was the ultimate goal every Buddhist wished to attain. Once he/she obtained this status, reincarnation ended. The state of arahant is the stage of complete control over one’s senses, thus an arahant monk would never disrobe.

2

Cf. infra 89.

6

JCR 12. 05. 1824 in Lawrie Mss. 3: 294. As kahapana was the earliest currency used in the island and ridi was a currency used after 1817 it is hard to find a monetary link between the two. For early monetary systems of Sri Lanka cf: (accessed 2003.8.24).

3

E.g. Nīlagama (App. 2 no.13), Kudārathmale, (no. 14) Nuwaraväva (no. 5), Dangoĺlagama records (no. 8), slab record from Anuradhapura (no. 9). Although a fragmentary record from Sangamu vihāra (no. 28, iii) and a record from Dambuĺla (no. 16. i) mention 100 kahavana as the manumission fee, the records are too fragmentary to identify further detail of the ‘slaves’ manumitted. Another record from Dambuĺla (no. 7, i) mentions fifty kahavana as the manumission fee and again the fragmentary nature of the record does not disclose any detail as to the gender, or age of the freed ‘slave.’

4

E.g. the last record in the Veśsagiriya inscription (App. 2 no. 12).

7

Sawer 29 in Lawrie Mss. 3: 307.

8

Lawrie Mss. 3: 307.

9

Sīhalavatthū. 56.

10 For some other parallel cases cf. Rsv. 2: 143: A man pledged his daughter to ‘slavery’ in a rich family as the security for 12 kahapana. Ibid. 2: 32: A son was pledged to ‘slavery’ by his parents as security for eight kahapana.

5

The two ‘slaves’ were named with their place of residence, (but this detail appears in full only concerning one ‘slave’ and the other in fragmentary form) EZ 6: 121-124 (App. 2 no. 4).

11

87

Sīhalavatthū. 62. Cf. Chap. 3: 44.

kahapana and become a ‘slave’ working during the day, and then borrowed another 60 and became a ‘slave’ working in the night (ratti-dāsi), increasing her manumission value to 120 or 100 kahapana.

AD). Thus, when the queen Maha Biso Bandara emancipated all her ‘slaves’ before she died of fever at the age of 35 in 1613AD,8 she may probably have freed them at her death-bed. But, since no written record exists after the eighth century AD it is difficult to examine when the ‘slaves’ were freed following a secular formula and the witnesses began to be involved in freeing a ‘slave’. Further, what kind of manumission existed between the eighth and 16th centuries AD is equally obscure. Also no positive or negative evidence is available to assume whether civil manumissions existed during the fourth to eighth centuries AD or whether sacral manumissions existed after the 16th century AD.

Obviously, it is difficult to derive conclusions on how masters controlled manumission fees of ‘slaves’ or of their attitude on manumissions from such cases, as the evidence is thin.

2. III. Sacral and civil manumissions: Although there is very little evidence to identify civil and sacral manumissions in the island, it is interesting to examine their nature to study whether they make any impact upon the final result of manumissions. Ancient Buddhist monasteries in Sri Lanka in the period concerned possessed a multitude of ‘slaves’1 and some of them obtained freedom.2 Samantapāsādika also supports the notion that ‘slaves’ were manumitted in temples,3 stating that even a ‘slave’ of a bhikkhu4 should be manumitted before being admitted into the order.5 Manumissions of ‘slaves’ in temples may probably have followed some religious procedure, whether they were ‘temple slaves’ or ‘slaves’ brought by lay owners to be freed in order to ordain them as monks. Probably, lay masters may have chosen to free their ‘slaves’ in temples due to the religious inclination in the deed, suggesting that all recorded cases followed sacral procedure.6

2. IV. Records of manumissions: This section studies the features that can be observed in these surviving records, which are brief, fragmentary and few in number, to study the aim of recording manumissions in the island. Chronological information is a notable feature with which some of these records begin. Nīlagama and Kudārathmalē records provide fairly detailed information including9 the date, the month, and also the regnal year dated from the coronation of the current ruler.10 In the former case, the act was done in the month of Vesak (May) perhaps in the most sacred day in this month (vesak pōya day) and in the latter case it was the sacred day (amāvaka pōya) in Il (November) month.11 These individuals may have deliberately chosen such days to perform these meritorious deeds – purchasing one’s own or another’s freedom- to stress the significance of their actions. Although the name of the ruler can be useful to date the records, the king is often identified in these records with the local form of address with honorary and religious epithets. For instance, in the Nīlagama record Dali – Dala could refer to the sacred Tooth Relic.12 Similarly in the Kudārathmale inscription, the king is mentioned with his adopted epithet, ‘Siri Sangaboyi Abayi’ proceeded by his real name, which is very fragmentary, making it hard to identify the king concerned and thus to use it as

Niti-Niganduwa informs us of the existence of a secular type of freeing slaves that can be called civil manumission: ‘slaves’ were freed either by granting a certificate of freedom, or by pouring water on the head and declaring them free in the presence of witnesses, or if the master is in deathbed just by naming and declaring the ‘slave’ free7 perhaps also in the presence of witnesses. Possibly, the monarchs, aristocrats and any other lay owner might have manumitted his ‘slaves’ in their respective residences, perhaps in a similar manner reported in the Niti-Niganduwa at least in the Kändyan period (the 16th to early 19th century 1

For ‘slaves’ in monasteries see EZ 1: 43-46, 84-90, 129-130, 179; 4: 104, 205-211; Evers (1972): 209. Grants of slaves to monasteries see e.g. Mv. 44. 10-11, 19, 70; 80. 35-36, 40; EZ 1: 179. For more on ‘temple slaves’ cf. Chap. 4: 49-50.

8

2

These two records are fairly ‘long’ compared to the other such records. Cf. App. 2 nos. 13 & 14.

9

E.g. from Veśsagiriya and Nīlagama monasteries: EZ 4. 132133 & 285-296 respectively. 3

10 ‘Raising of the umbrella of the dominion’ of a king is an expression that refers to the coronation of a ruler. This could be referring to the umbrella held above the king as a symbol of his sovereignty. EZ 6. 2: 202.

Cf. supra 86.

4

This is one of the few rare cases that refer to personal slaves owned by bhikku (monks).

5

11

Cf. also the reference to Mahāpaċcari in Smp 1001.

Cf. EZ 5: 34 note 2.

12 EZ 4: 294, indicating that the monarch was the custodian of the sacred Tooth Relic, legitimising his access to the throne. The dates of most records were decided by paleographic details, and by comparing the content of the records with other parallel historical material and incidents.

6

The terminating clause in most records further supports this notion. Cf. infra 90. 7

Peiris (1913/14): 422.

NN 10.

88

a dating information for the record.1 Apart from this, many other manumission records available do not contain a date, either because they are fragmentary or that detail was omitted deliberately for some unknown reason.

manumitted (if there is any relation) instead of the owner. Though all this detail is evident in the first two cases of the Veśsagiriya record and also in the Dangoĺlagama record, the choice of detail may vary from one record to another: the third case in the Veśsagiriya record and the Nuvaraväva record omit profession,5 whereas the Kotakanda Ätkanda vihāra record and the Murutāwa record omit the place of origin or residence.6 But in the Murutāwa record Dalana could have been easily recognised in his society from his military rank, commander-in-chief, despite the omission of his place of origin or residence. The Kudārathmalē record cites the profession and his place of origin or residence but his name is omitted perhaps because he was known from his profession. Apart from these, the Mādagama vihāra rock inscription only cites the name and his relation to the ‘slaves’ for whom he bought freedom.7

Another feature one would expect in manumission records in general is the detail of the slave owner, but it is ignored or cited only in passing in Sri Lankan manumission records. In a few, such as in the Nīlagama and in the Veśsagiriya records, the respective monastery seems to be the owner of the ‘slave(s)’ freed as they were liberated from ‘slavery’ in these establishments, which are noted in passing. But most records omit the identity of the ex-owner.2 But, Dalana in the Murutāwa inscription could be the ex-owner. It is the absence of the amount paid for the freedom of “all child ‘slaves’” that leads to this suggestion, because if it is a third person not related to ‘slaves’ the amount spent will be mentioned to highlight his meritorious deed. But if he is the owner this detail is futile, as he could free them gratis. Moreover, the vague notice that Dalana emancipated “all children in ‘slavery,’” could be a reference to all child ‘slaves’ possessed by him (Dalana), but not all child ‘slaves’ in general.3 Abi Mihidala, his associate, presumably Dalana’s wife or mother,4 also tallies very much with the above interpretation, since if this included all slave children in general, as noted above, it would be a royal decree and the associate would be another officer, presumably a man. Thus, the crucial point here is that Dalana is named in this record because he has freed these ‘slaves’ at his own expense, but not because he was their owner.

When a ‘slave’ pays for his freedom he is clearly mentioned as the purchaser of his own freedom. The name of such ‘slaves’ is always mentioned with or without the amount paid. But the names of freed female ‘slaves’ and child ‘slaves’ are omitted perhaps because they were to be recognised from the identity of the father or the husband, the payer of the fee, probably due to the low social status assigned to women and children. But, when a third party pays the manumission fee for an adult male ‘slave’, both the name of the payer and that of the ‘slave’ are mentioned. The reference to the name of the ‘slave’, being a Buddhist monk, in the Kudārathmalē record may also have been necessary to prove the validation of his ordination.8 The place of residence of ‘slave(s)’ cited, mostly in cases of self-purchases, may be the location of property of the particular monastery where ‘slave(s)’ was(ere) lodged and worked.9

Although no emphasis is given to the owner as such, at least in the manumission records so far available from the island, they highlight the identity of those who paid the manumission value on behalf of the ‘slave’ or who freed the slaves gratis being the owner, as in the case of the Murutāwa record. Such individuals are often mentioned with name, profession, origin or the place of residence and also the relation to the ‘slaves’

Another significant element in these records is the absence of direct provision (ie. witnesses, guarantors or some guarantee phrase) for the protection of the ex‘slave’ from arbitrary seizure and enslavement. But interestingly, all surviving records, except those which are clearly fragmentary at the end, and few others such as Nīlagama and Dangoĺlagama records,10 seem to

1

This epithet does not help to recognise the king mentioned, because many Sinhalese kings have adopted it. For example, Aġghabōdhi III (c. 628-639 AD) and also Aġghabōdhi IV (c. 667-683 AD) adopted this epithet, among many others. However, with the help of palaeographical and other parallel historical data the king is assumed to be Aġghabōdhi I (c. 571604 AD) the nephew of Mahānāga, EZ 5: 30-34. The Murutāwa record also cause the same problem (EZ 5: 27-29) and is dated following palaeographical detail.

5

Perhaps the name of the person who effected the manumission is erased in the Kudārathmalē inscription. EZ 5: 34 note 3. Cf. App. 2, nos. 12 & 5. Cf. App. 2, nos. 4 & 11.

7

Cf. App. 2, no. 35.

8

As noted above, if a person entered the order being unaware of his slave status manumission was to be obtained as soon as the fact comes to be known. Smp 1001= EZ 5: 33.

2

Records from Kotakanda Ätkanda vihāra, Nuvaraväva, Dangollāgama, and Mädagama vihāra and many other records except very fragmentary ones omit detail of the owner. Cf. App. 2, nos. 4, 5, 8, 35.

3

6

9 Most of these ‘slaves’ belonged to the temples/monasteries in the vicinity of which these records were found.

Cf. supra 87.

10 The last line of Nilagama record is apparently fragmentary. In Dangoĺlagama record it is not clear whether the last line is totally lost.

4

‘Abi’ is an honorary title of royal women: Perera (1949) vol. 1 of the thesis published in (2001): 31.

89

contain one particular clause which clearly has a religious tone, ‘pala sava-satanata’ (May the fruit of this action benefit all), at the end of the record. While this phrase may sometimes appear on its own, it also may occur with few additions: ‘pala sava-satanata vayavaya risi Budu-bava vayavaya.’ (May the fruit of this action benefit all, may there be Buddhahood as desired1). This feature is evident in the second and third cases of the Vessagiriya inscription. What significance does this clause bear in manumission records? First, it reflects the idea that manumitting a ‘slave’ was meritorious2 revealing the religious inclination prompting this deed. Further, this clause also shows the desire of the executor of the meritorious deed to share the merit with all other living beings, a very common practice among Buddhists.3 But the wish to attain Buddhahood through merit (as in some records) is ascribed to Bōdhisattva ideal in the Mahāyāna sect of Buddhism.4

thanks to the religious setting in the island of the time. The absence of any significant protection to freedmen could also be due to the lack of risks to their freedom. But, what kind of protection could be expected from non-Buddhists? In the Anurādhapura period (all existing manumission records are limited to this period) even Tamil invaders seem to have favoured Buddhism.7 For instance, Hindu influence was clear in and after the Polonnaruwa period8 and later, with European contacts and conquests,9 certain parts of the island came under Christian influence. But, owing to the lack of evidence, it is hard to check the impact of these foreign religions in recording manumissions of ‘slaves’ and on the security provided for freedmen. But, providing a personal copy (/certificate) of freedom to ‘slaves’ and freeing them in the presence of witnesses as stated in Niti-Niganduwa show a change in the process of freeing slaves at least in the Kandyan times. This suggests that the religious protection ex-‘slaves’ enjoyed previously was failing in the Kandyan period and the issuing of certificate of freedom could be a measure to avert enslavement of ex-‘slaves’, though when this system came into effect is hard to trace.

If the act of freeing ‘slaves’ was considered meritorious, enslaving or harming ex-‘slaves’ may presumably have been believed to earn religious offence leading to horrendous punishments in the next birth.5 This religious ambience of the time may have protected ex-‘slaves’ from arbitrary enslavement. Moreover, historical sources mention that Sinhalese monarchs have rewarded those who have done meritorious deeds,6 and these monarchs probably punished those who committed religious misdeeds such as enslaving freedmen. Thus, freedmen may well have received some religious and political protection as an indirect effect of the above-mentioned clause at the end of the manumission records. Furthermore, despite the presence of this particular clause, the ex-‘slaves’ possibly received immunity from arbitrary enslavement 1

Since the payer for the release of a ‘slave’ is highlighted in manumission records due to the prevailing belief (freeing a ‘slave’ was meritorious) the instigation to record the event also probably came from that same person in order to publicise his meritorious deed and to share it with others. Finally, it is interesting to study possible reasons for the scarcity of manumission records. The handful of those available, limited to the time between fourth and eighth centuries AD,10 is surprising compared to the number of ‘slaves’ that appear to have lived in the island in antiquity.11 One of the possible technical reasons for

What is meant here could be the path to end rebirth.

2

7

Avmdsva 43 mentions that in order to free oneself from evil tendencies one should liberate slaves.

For instance, the Tamil officer Pottakutta, serving Aġgabōdhi IV (658-674 AD) offered many villages and slaves to temples: Mv 46, 19.

3

Eight short inscriptions found near Barrow’s pavilion which deal with people granting money to maintain slaves in the Abhayagiriya monastery, also terminate with the clause ‘pala sava-satanata.’

8

The rough date of the kingdom c.1070-1236 AD, but from 1215-1236AD was under the South Indian Māgha who usurped power of Polonnaruwa and this period was a reign of terror, as he disregarded the established traditions and religion. (Sinnappa (1985): 185).

4 The new schism of Buddhism, Mahāyāna Buddhism, erupted within the ranks of Buddhism in the first century AD. It attempts to reformulate the teachings of Buddha to accommodate a greater number of people as the Thēravādha (pure) Buddhism, which concentrated mainly on meditation, eight-fold path and monastic life, was limited to a few. For more cf. (accessed 2004.02.19). The appearance of Bodhisattva ideology, a feature of Mahāyāna sect of Buddhism, in Sri Lanka appears to be late, and the presence of this ideology would not have been known if not for these few records. EZ 8: 98. Cf. also ibid. 99-101. 5

Vimāna stories 346-347.

6

Sīhalavatthū. 33, 35, 45.

9

From c. 1515 Sinhalese kings maintained contacts with Portuguese. But it was only after AD 1597 Portuges occupied some coastal areas of Sri Lanka, which was the beginning of Christian influence in the island. Peiris (1913/14): 46-49.

10 Cf. Gnanawimala (1942) forward: 1-3, for more on variety of media, besides stone rocks, used for keeping records and also for their scarcity. Also cf. App 4: 120. 11 Thousands of ‘slaves’ were possessed by Buddhist monasteries and by the aristocrats either as the retinue of the rich aristocrats or as the ‘slaves’ of the Buddhist monasteries. E.g. EZ 1: 43-46, 84-90, 129-130 and Mv 44. 70; 46. 10-11, 19; 73. 34-36; 80. 35-36, informs us about the number of ‘slaves’ possessed by the Buddhist monasteries of Sri Lanka in the period concerned. Sīhalavatthū 33, 35, 45 suggests that

90

the lack of the manumission records could be that many inscriptions are yet to be discovered and some records may have been lost with their sites over the time both by natural and human activities. Though all the existing records are engraved on natural granite rock surfaces, it is likely that manumission records were also inscribed on granite stone slabs or pillars or on stone seats, which were more vulnerable to destruction. Perhaps some of these items could have been reused by people as construction material,1 and for various other purposes effecting erasure of the whole or part of the record.2 Even rock inscriptions may have been equally at risk especially from treasure hunters who might explode a rock with an inscription on its surface, believing that the writing refers to a treasure in the rock.3

Summing up, the aim of recording the few manumissions available seem to be to advertise the meritorious deeds of people who caused manumissions of a ‘slave’ which led to provide only indirect protection for ex-‘slaves.’

2.V. Freed persons: Social and legal status of freedmen is the focus of this section. But sadly, no epigraphic or literary source refers to the freed status that awaited ex-‘slaves’. Owing to this absence of evidence about the conditions and treatment the freed ‘slaves’ received from the society, this discussion is speculative but draws its strings from the social and historical background of the island.

Also, possibly, some manumissions were simply not recorded, when executed at a religious ceremony in which many people participated to share the merit of the activity and they may have become obliged to protect the freed status of the ex-‘slave’. Moreover, some manumissions may have been recorded in perishable material such as palm/ola leaves, a writing source available for many since the first century BC.4 Documents written in such perishable material may have been preserved until necessary to the ex-slave and to his/her relatives and were left to perish when neglected.

The silence of both epigraphic and literary sources suggests that freed persons did not form a special group in the society, possibly because once they obtained freedom they merged into the society as normal individuals. But when the caste system began to show its power as a social measure the freed status of ex‘slaves’ may have differed both according to their former caste and also perhaps according to their origin of enslavement. In other words, the Sinhalese freed from self-imposed or enforced ‘slavery’/bondage (due to poverty, unpaid debt or penalty restitution) were probably restored to their former caste5 and may have continued their lives just as any other member in that particular caste enjoying its privileges and obeying due restrictions.

hundreds of ‘slaves’ were possessed by aristocrats. 1

Fort Hammenhiel Tamil inscriptions, found on a small islet called Hammenhiel off- Kayts (EZ 6: 28-30 & 154-160 respectively), were built into walls of some buildings in the Dutch fort when the buildings were repaired. K. Indrapala editing the second inscription assumes that the inscribed stone may have been transported by sea to use at renovations of the Dutch fort.

But, whether the Indian captives of war enslaved in ancient Sri Lanka ever obtained freedom is a mystery, let alone what happened to them afterwards. If gained freedom, the chances are that some returned home (India) if conditions favoured them while some settled on the island complying with local customs.

2

E.g. EZ 3 no. 23: the inscribed pillar was first blasted by its owner in search of treasure and later the pieces were brought to the local temple and were built into its inner doorway. In the process, three lines in the top and two in the bottom of the record were concealed by the masonry. In EZ 1 no.7, the middle portion of the record is damaged and Wickramasinghe, the editor of the record, suspects that this erasure may have caused by using the slab to grind or to rub things on its surface. Further, a stone seat record assigned to Niśsankamaĺla was found to have been moved from the original location and was being used as a flower altar in a temple: EZ 2: 128.

Moreover, some temple ‘slaves’ probably continued to work in temples after becoming free as kudīn6 (free labourers who lived and worked temple lands while paying rent to the temple). Furthermore, it is likely that the kindly treated ‘slaves’ may have continued their service to ex-masters and may even have lived with the ex-masters’ household with their (ex-‘slaves’) families for generations and eventually may have integrated into the master’s family as distant relatives (of the master) after few generations.

3

Though copper (e.g. EZ 1 nos. 1, 3; 5 nos. 1; 6 nos. 24) and gold (e.g. EZ 4 nos. 29) plates were also used as medium of inscriptions, perhaps manumissions were never or rarely recorded in such material for obvious reasons. While copper could be destroyed by oxidisation if not promptly preserved, gold plates are also at high risk due to the high value of the metal.

Presumably, the best-treated group of Sri Lankan freedmen could have been those who became monks7 or those freed on the condition to become monks. As 5

A person did not loose the caste identity by falling into ‘slavery.’ Cf. Chap. 2: 22-23.

4

Nāgā’s master noted her agreement to work during night in a ‘pata’ which could well have been a palm leaf (Sdlkya 480). It is a well-known fact that the Buddhist doctrine (Tipitaka) was written down on palm leaves in Mātalē Aluvihāra during the reign of Valagambāhu I/Wattagāmani (88-76 BC).

6 7

EZ 5: 140.

However, slaves were not admitted to the order of monks before emancipation: Smp 1001.

91

Buddhist monks they may have received honour and respect from all social ranks.

not related to them was the religious enthusiasm to obtain the merit attached to such a deed.

Finally, the future of freedmen in ancient Sri Lanka may have been controlled by the caste system when it emerged as a strict social measure. But before the caste system assumed rigidity the status of all ex-‘slaves’ may have been fairly similar.

On the other hand, the attitude of Greek slave owners towards manumissions and their control over the affair is clear from the records of manumissions and from the fluctuating manumission prices observable from Delphic records. But the scant evidence obstructs a clear picture with regard to ancient Sri Lanka where a majority received outright manumission, while the single reported conditional manumission does not impart profit seeking attitude of the owner unlike in ancient Greek poleis, where that is evident in majority of manumissions. Furthermore, in both ancient Greece and Sri Lanka it was only sacral manumissions or those with a religious instinct that have left records but not civil manumissions2 and none of these procedures seem to have made any difference to the ultimate result of manumissions.

Analysis: Evidently, some ‘slaves’ and bondsmen gained freedom either by paying for it themselves or with external help while a few lucky ones received free release. But, to our surprise, only a few manumissions are recorded or reported from the entire history in the island. The content of the records reflect the religious ambience of the island in its contemporary era, highlighting the religious aim for recording them rather than to protect the freedom of the ex-‘slave’ who joined the bulk of population as ordinary citizens not as a special group.

Two striking differences are observable in the systems of manumissions in ancient Greece and Sri Lanka, of which the first lies in the items prioritized in their records of manumission. Greek records highlight the ex-owner and the ex-slave and, more importantly, provide direct protection for the ex-slave, while Sri Lankan records focus on the one who paid the manumission fee for the ‘slave’ and the merit obtained by the payer of the manumission fee. The owner is not identified unless he caused the manumission by freeing the ‘slaves’ gratis as noted in the Murutawa record, even the identity of the ‘slave’ is omitted unless it is a necessity for some special cause as in the Kudarathmale record or the affair was a self-purchase. The driving forces behind this distinction are evident:

3. Comparison The above study reveals that the ‘slaves’ in both ancient Greek poleis and ancient Sri Lanka enjoyed several chances to redeem themselves of which purchasing freedom by paying the value of the slave was the commonest opportunity recorded or reported, while gratis manumissions are also reported occasionally. In the case of purchased freedom, some slaves managed to amass the necessary sum to effect a self-purchase while some were financially helped by relatives and non-relatives who were inspired by various motives towards this action.

In Greece, the gulf between slave and free was distinct and thus required the clear display of the newly acquired legal status: freedom. These social and legal conditions required the full recognition of the freed slave, from whom he obtained freedom and protection for the acquired freedom. On the other hand, this recognition is again necessary to avoid false claims for freedom by the slaves and because the main objective of most Greek slave owners when manumitting a slave was to gain the maximum profit from the business. The latter also explains the significance given to the recipient of the manumission value over the payer of the fee. On the contrary, in Sri Lanka, there does not seem to be a great distinction between free and ‘slave’, because as noted above ‘slaves’ were not marginalized by social, political or legal restrictions,3 diminishing

In both ancient Greek poleis and ancient Sri Lanka relatives of ‘slaves’ have paid the manumission fee on behalf of the ‘slaves’ in certain cases, due to personal motives such as to adopt or to marry the freed ‘slave.’ Besides, ancient Greece produces precise cases that show emancipation of slaves by political bodies in emergency situations to enrol them in the army or, to reward them for support in military or judicial affairs. But, the detail for politically motivated manumissions of ‘slaves’ from ancient Sri Lanka is limited to one precise case,1 which is different from that in ancient Greece, precisely Athens. Moreover, whether ‘slaves’ were used in warfare in ancient Sri Lanka or any concepts on this regard among ancient Sinhalese, let alone freeing them to use in the army, is unknown. One interesting motive peculiar to ancient Sri Lanka that has induced people to cause the manumission of a ‘slave’

1

2

Though NN refers to a certificate of freedom given to slaves at the time of manumission no, such document has so far been found, perhaps because they were documented in perishable material like palm leaves. Similarly, the absence of civil manumission records in Greece could be because they were documented in perishable material and given to individual slaves at the manumission, which were left to perish after few generations.

3

Cf. supra 85.

92

Cf. Chap. 3: 40, 42-44.

the need to focus on the owner and ‘slave’ as such. But the religious setting drove their attention to the merit one may earn by freeing a ‘slave’ by paying his/her manumission fee, and recording the act to publish that meritorious activity. Unlike in ancient Greek poleis, one of the motives that led non-relatives to cause the manumission of a ‘slave’ by paying the full manumission fee (or by contributing to that) of the ‘slave’ was to obtain merit attached to the activity. Thus, any money mindedness of the owners was overshadowed by the concern for merit, and the payer of the manumission fee was identified, whether it was the ‘slave’ himself or a third party. Even the protection for the freedom of the ex-‘slave’ was indirectly expressed again in connection with the religious inclination in the act expressed in the terminating clause in manumission records -‘pala sava-satanata’. The Sri Lankan manner of identifying the value of manumission for a ‘slave’ seems to be the performance of rituals, which probably occurred at each occasion, though not always reported.

political power making their interests focus on the professionally based caste system, which began mild and evolved into a rigid form later. Thus, the different objectives formulated by the cultural and social settings of ancient Greek poleis and ancient Sri Lanka have affected the manner the manumissions operated, recorded and the social status of ex-slaves. Thus the comparison, which highlights the contrasts between the ‘two systems’ help one to perceive more clearly the main characteristics of their patterns of manumission and the societies behind them.

Moreover, the direct and formal protection declared for freedmen in ancient Greece may also hint that they faced the risk of loosing their freedom. The lack of direct protection, on the other hand, may suggest little or no such risks to Sri Lankan ex-‘slaves’, thanks to the religious atmosphere of the time. The involvement of witnesses in references to manumissions in the NitiNiganduwa from the Kandyan times may show the loss of religious protection once available for ex-‘slaves’ and the growing risks for their freedom. These features shows that the Greek manumission records emerged as social and political adverts securing and certifying the freed status of slaves, while Sri Lankan manumission records emerged as religious adverts of meritorious deeds of individuals who caused manumissions of ‘slaves’. The second contrast lies in the status of freedmen. While, ex-‘slaves’ in ancient Sri Lanka probably became normal members of the community, in Athens, they became a special social group, and freedmen did not became citizens (save in rare cases).1 The reason for this contrast is that Athenian citizen status was valued for its political rights while it was possible to enjoy various civic rights being a free noncitizen. But in historical Sri Lanka there was apparently no strong concept of political citizenship for the mass of the free population and thus no necessity to bar exslaves from normal free-status. Instead, Sinhalese were interested in social rank, which confined the political power to a handful in the highest social rank. This weighed the bulk of population together who had no

1

As noted above though what happened in Athens cannot be generalised for the entire Greece, the only detailed evidence on the status of Greek freedmen is limited to Athens.

93

the fifth bore relatively more information on other Greek poleis, which carried surprisingly less information on Athens. Naturally, the study did not cover ancient Greek poleis which do not provide evidence for the present study.

Conclusions Comparing the systems of servitude in ancient Greek poleis and in ancient Sri Lanka has indeed proved to be a complex, yet an interesting task. Despite limited evidence, I have tried and I believe I have succeeded in producing a picture, as clear as possible, of the systems of servitude in both ancient Greek poleis and ancient Sri Lanka.

In the case of ancient Sri Lanka it has been even harder to present a balanced picture since the few available pieces of evidence are widely scattered over its history, with most evidence limited to the first and the last phases of the island’s history which is evident in all chapters. While certain sections such as ‘sale of adults, children and raising foundlings’ in the first chapter provide more evidence from the Kandyan period, the section on ‘voluntary slavery for merit’ in the same chapter only contains evidence from earlier epochs and none from the Kandyan period. Likewise, it was unavoidably impossible to bring in evidence from all cultural periods and geographical areas of the island to discuss all aspects of slavery. In this difficult venture the independent studies on the two systems have made it easier to identify the imbalance in the evidence towards a fair comparison.

This is the first detailed study on the systems of servitude in ancient Sri Lanka and it has given new impetus into the study of ancient slavery, as it presents a range of new material and has opened up a fresh area of research in the wealth of studies on slavery. Further, the comparison of these two servile systems, which is also novel, has helped to contextualize the two systems better within their political, social and cultural settings. The study showed that both in ancient Greek poleis and ancient Sri Lanka there were different types of unfree who enjoyed equally different treatment from their masters and their particular society. Though these types could be identified relatively easily in the case of ancient Greek poleis, the identification of the exact type of servitude implied in a particular context by the local terms is not easy with regard to ancient Sri Lanka, as explained below in the Appendix 1, since the local terms taken to read as ‘slavery’ bear various nuances. The attempt to overcome this difficulty by mentioning slavery and slave within inverted commas has been shown to be fruitful as it not only signalled the uncertain gradation of servitude expressed by a particular local term but also has prevented any mistaken recognition of Sri Lankan ‘slaves’ and ‘slavery’ along the lines of various types of unfree in ancient Greece.

A comparison of different types of subject labour in ‘two societies’ surrounded by different religious, social and political settings, inevitably, produces many contrasts. Interestingly, some of the major contrasts led to illuminate the systems of servitude in the ‘two societies.’ The absence of ‘slave’ trade in ancient Sri Lanka and the reasons that triggered this situation shed more light on the causes that led to the need for a slave trade for ancient Greek poleis, precisely Athens. In brief, ownership of ‘slaves’ was almost under the control of the monarch who was the main supplier and distributor of slaves to the other leading slave-holders, royal entourage and temples, and there was no major reported demand from ordinary citizens for slaves, though a few owned a handful. Further, most transactions on slaves occur in form of donations or gifts to temples or individuals. Such situations would reduce the need for a slave trade since the two parties interacted directly even in the single case of slave purchase. But Athenian slave ownership was not under the monopoly of any individual or group and was relatively widely distributed among its citizens who often owned only a few slaves mostly acquired by purchase, leading to a high demand for slaves requiring a trade to satisfy the needs.

Independent discussions on Greek and Sri Lankan systems of servitude under the chosen aspects of survey have not overshadowed the comparative approach but, has supported in understanding the comparison with a little known, if not ignored, Sri Lankan servitude. As noted above, with regard to Greek poleis most available evidence was from Athens, which was not a typical Greek polis, or from Athenian sources. Thus, despite the attempt to bring in all available evidence from other Greek poleis, inevitably, the first three chapters and the section on the status of ex-slaves in the fifth chapter presented relatively more Athenian evidence, which is clearly identified to avoid unfair generalisations. The fourth chapter on temple slavery and the first sections of

Secondly, the impact of caste on the ownership of slaves, as occurred during the later part of Sri Lankan history and which allowed some identity to slaves, is not known to ancient Greece. Such elements offer new food for thought in slave studies as to what social or cultural

94

has brought out several patterns of comparisons to the discussion that would not have been raised otherwise. Accordingly, the tolerance of families, communities and the property of the servile groups reportedly lived in Buddhist temple estates (and arguably in the estates of wealthy aristocrats) while working for the master helps us to grasp possible family structures that may have existed among helots, while illuminating the theory on the community lives of Spartan helots who lived and worked the kleroi of Spartiate masters. Further, various concessions given to Cretan serfs, comparable to various restraints on Athenian slaves, do not appear peculiar and is easy to grasp when this is seen in parallel to the conditions of ‘slaves’ in ancient Sri Lanka who also were apparently free from social and political restraint.

features would have affected slave ownership in Greece and, more broadly, in any other slave holding society. In turn, a social freedom to own slaves as it happened in ancient Greek poleis make us ponder about the pattern of slave ownership in ancient Sri Lanka before caste system became dominant affecting slave ownership. Further, different political, social and religious concerns of ancient Greeks and Sinhalese reflected in the treatment given to their ‘slaves’ become more explicit with the comparative perspective. Political citizenship in Athens inspired a distinction not only of citizens from slaves but also from ex-slaves, leading to a ban of slaves from most social and all political dealings. But the monarchy in Sri Lanka reduced the need for a distinction between ‘slave’ and free since a majority had no political power, enabling ‘slaves’ to become normal citizens following emancipation. Importantly, the concerns of Sinhalese gradually drifted towards the distinction in castes, giving some identity even to ‘slaves’.

Moreover, the study of brief Sri Lankan manumission records provides a fresh insight as to why Greek records needed much fuller detail and emphasis on the security for the acquired freedom of the ex-slave towards the last three decades before Christ. Also, the available manumission records of ancient Sri Lanka that seem to be advertisements of merit performed by those who paid manumission fee for a slave whether it was the slave himself, a relative or a third party helps us to look at Greek manumission records with a new perspective. Furthermore, the formality focused on establishing the legal status of slaves and their newly acquired freedom, helps us to understand the change in the procedure of manumitting ‘slaves’, as reported in Niti-Niganduwa, in the later part of Sri Lankan history.

Furthermore, since chattel slaves and helots were central for the prosperity of Athenians and Spartans respectively, their main concerns were to preserve these institutions while keeping them under subjection. In ancient Sri Lanka there is no recorded evidence declaring the importance of ‘slaves’ for the well being of the free: although the ‘slaves’ were regarded as inferior, they were not apparently regarded as tools, but humans who have become ‘slaves’ due to their sinful actions in their previous births. This very notion may have caused at least pious Buddhists to treat their ‘slaves’ kindly in the hope of avoiding such misfortunes in their next birth. Thus, though ‘slaves’ were regarded as material property they were not marginalized. In contrast to the Greek religion, Buddhism shows a strong link between the concept of slavery, their condition and manumissions inducing masters to treat their ‘slaves’ with lenience.

It remains to consider whether the societies in ancient Greek poleis and ancient Sri Lanka were slave societies or whether they were simply slave-holding societies. If we are to consider that a slave society contained a significant proportion of slaves whose contribution to its economy was significant,1 neither Sri Lankan society at any time in its pre-colonial histroy, nor the societies in all Greek poleis throughout their historical periods be called slave societies. As to historical Sri Lanka the proportion of the total population, let alone that of the ‘slaves’, is a mystery before the census taken during the British period in early 19th century and there do not seem to be a constant supply of large numbers of slaves through commercial transactions during the times of Sinhala monarchy. Moreover, the absence of a developped market economy on the island in these early days may not have encouraged mass scale production for the market and also the servile population included all sorts of unfree labour. It was during the short period of the Dutch dominion especially in the Northern provinces ‘slaves’ became part of the export economy and were used largely for agriculture. Even in Greek poleis the proportions of total populations and that of the ‘slaves’ is

In Sri Lanka, it appears to be the religious belief that induced pious Buddhists to donate ‘slaves’ to temples with or without land and other stationary property which made Buddhist temples large ‘slave’ holders than the demand for such servile populations for these temples. This set up of Sri Lankan temple ‘slavery’ assists us to comprehend the peculiar feature in Greek temple slavery: the presence of large numbers of slave prostitutes. As noted in the chapter on temple slavery, beliefs and acts of the donors may have caused large numbers of slaves prostituting for the deities concerned. By discussing Spartan helots, although they were not temple slaves, in the chapter on temple slavery the study

1

95

Bradely (1994): 12-13.

not accurately known although, the well-known Greek poleis, Athens and Sparta possessed a considerable number of servile groups in their populations. Although the production of the Spartan economy depended upon the helots and the full production of silver mines, and at least a part of the agricultural production of Athens depended upon Athenian slaves working in them, it is hard to know of such information of the other Greek poleis. Also it is not clear how the proportions of their servile populations faired and their production mattered when the Athenians and Spartans lost their supremacy in the Greek world. It is, therefore, safe to conclude that Sri Lanka was rather a slave-holding society just as most of the Greek poleis in antiquity, while Athens and Sparta were ‘slave societies’ at least during the times of their pre-eminence. The contribution of the current study to the existing scholarship is thus twofold. Firstly, this is the first detailed and systematic study of Sri Lankan ‘slavery’, within the limits the scant evidence offers. Secondly, while exhibiting the superficial resemblance between the unknown Sri Lankan ‘slave’ system and the well-known ancient Greek slave system it shows that at least some contrasts between these systems illuminate each other, generating fresh areas of research. Some of the new studies that take impetus from this research are mentioned here. Macedonian temple slavery and the slavery in eastern and central Anatolian temples omitted from the present study as noted in the introduction, though they bear more parallels to Sri Lankan temple slavery than the temples in ancient Greek poleis are two areas of research that emerge through this study. The religious impact on slavery in ancient Sri Lanka gives rise to another point to speculate: the impact of religion in a particular slave-holding society on its slave system. In brief, to what extent the religion would form the masters’ attitude vis-à-vis their slaves? Apart from these, in a much broader sense, a similar comparative study between ancient Roman and Sri Lankan slavery and another detailed study on Sri Lankan slavery under different perspectives such as ‘slavery and its abolition in the island’ are further research incentives that generate from this study.

96

term as ‘servant’ which does not have the connotation of ‘property’, or perhaps because some scholars considered serf and slave as synonymous.

Appendix 1:

Dāsa, vahal, vaharala etc in Sri Lankan historical sources.

The extreme notion in disputes over the meaning of dāsa is that there were no slaves but only male and female servants in the island, as held by De Silva.8 But he refers to the account of Nāgā, in the Saddharmālankāraya as an example for a woman serving to pay her debt.9 This notion may have resulted from the writer’s consideration that dāsa signified just one type of servitors and the mild treatment to dāsa as advocated by Buddha.10 However, Gunasinghe (1960), Wijēsēkara (1974) and Hettiāractchi (1988) point to this same account as evidence for the prevalence of slavery in the island,11 which is also a result of limiting to one notion.

A number of terms in Sri Lankan epigraphic and literary sources are read as ‘slave’ or ‘slavery.’ But, to what extent these western terms correspond to the status implied in the indigenous terms is problematic.

Dāsa/ dāsi: The terms dāsa/dāsi1 occur both in literary and epigraphic sources in the island as well as in Indian literary sources. Among the latter, the Pāli Buddhist texts, are specially well known to Sri Lankan authors of literary works, suggesting a link between the Indian and Sri Lankan meaning of the term dāsa. Thus, the position and status of dāsa as stated in Pāli Buddhist texts might also help to understand that in ancient Sri Lanka. The term is usually taken to denote ‘slave’ though it encapsulates different forms of servitude ranging from absolute control over a person to temporary bondage.2 Chakravarti states that according to one interpretation dāsa derived from the root das denoting ‘to treat violently’ and continues that the Pāli literature suggests that dāsa implies ‘absolute power of the master over the individual.’3 The origin of the term dāsa is attributed to an Indian tribe of this name, which was repeatedly conquered by the Aryans and used to perform menial tasks for the conquerors, and later the term dāsa was used to describe slaves denoting their subjectivity and menial duties assigned to them.4 Moreover, in Indian texts, agricultural and menial domestic duties were assigned to most dāsa, and there are cases of physical and sexual exploitation of these groups, and all these add to further assure the servile nature of dāsa.5

Although it is not always very clear to what kind of servitude (slavery, serfdom, or bondage) the term dāsa refers, evidence shows that it covers at least two groups of unfree. Of these, one group displays features of both slaves and serfs while the other group seems to be those in bondage. As to the slave status epigraphic evidence shows that they were disposed of as gifts, very often to the entire community of Buddhist monks and to the name of lord Buddha (though these dāsa/i became the property of the temple in which the dedication was physically made) just as any material property12 and this is further clear when dāsa are mentioned among land and cattle offered to people of Ruhuna.13 Further, literary evidence shows that the term dāsa is associated with disgrace and humiliation.14 The ‘serf’ feature is shown since most donations of dāsa accompany land,15 which was to be cultivated by these dāsa for the master and such land could also be a necessity for lodging purposes especially when working for temples. Furthermore, grants of villages with dāsa to temples by certain Royal officers16 suggest that the dāsa lived in communities with their families. Accordingly, most individuals called dāsa show both slave and serf features.

Likewise, the term dāsa in Sri Lankan texts is also not confined to one group of unfree. Sri Lankan epigraphic and literary sources use this term from about second century AD until late 12th century AD, and the latter continue to mention this term even in the 14th century AD. Different renderings of the term adopted by scholars, such as ‘serf’, ‘slave’, or even ‘servant,’6 further hint at various types of servitude covered by the term dāsa. Different readings could also be due to the duties and conditions supposed by particular scholars in the contexts the term occurs or due to ethical concerns. For instance, when dāsa/ dāsi are cited as property of monks who are not allowed to possess material property including slaves7 one may read the 1

The term dāsa also seems to cover debt-bondage, which was generally a temporary status. We infer this from the comment of Nāgā’s master that the other dāsi try to end their service in course of their service while Nāgā was prolonging her service period by becoming further indebted17 bears testimony.

have been less embarrassing than citing that of monks’. Thus, doubt arises as to whether this difference is due to the choice of words by the editor due to ethical concerns rather than a representation of the real status of dāsa. 8 De Silva (1928) 73. He studied the Sinhalese society as depicted in Sdlkya (14th century AD), which refers to dāsa.

Dāsa -Male, dāsi –female.

2 Chakravarti (1985): 35-36, Cf. the entire article for a full discussion on the different status of dāsa as depicted in Indian literature.

9

3

Ibid. 73-74.

Ibid. 37-38. Also note that the Pāli and Jain literature gives various groups of dāsa (1. Born in the house of the master –antojato, 2. Dāsas that are purchased – dhanakkhito, 3. Dāsas captured in the warkaramarānito) which is similar to that mentioned in NN for instance.

10

4

Kosambi (1975): 81, esp. 97.

12

E.g. cf. App. 2 no.1.

5

Ibid. 41-65.

13

E.g. App. 2, no. 50.

14

Mv. 49. 62.

15

Cf. App. 2, no. 38, 40, 41.

16

E.g. Mv. 46. 19-21.

17

Sihalavatthu 62.

DN 3:191. Cf. also Chap. 3: 45 note 03.

11

Gunasinghe (1960): 51, Wijēsēkara (1974): 455, Hettiāratchi (1988): 238-239.

6

Paranavitana rendered the term ‘das’ and its variant forms both as ‘serf’ (App. 2 nos. 38) and ‘slave’ (App. 2 no. 50), while Wickramasinghe renders them mostly as ‘serf’ and in one case as ‘servant’ (App. 2 no. 37 (l. 53)). 7

Sangundasan is read as “monks’ servants” (App. 2 no. 37) while the same scholar (Wickramasinghe) renders veherdasun as ‘vihāra serfs’ (App. 2 no. 39). The ownership of slaves/ serfs by the temple would

97

I am not capable of assessing the linguistic value of these arguments but, since they are vital for this study, to validate the existence of manumission records, the relevant arguments of debating scholars are mentioned. Yet, I would add my arguments, where appropriate, in an attempt to find the reading that provides a sensible meaning to all vaharala records when applied.

Vahal: The next prominent term in this concern is vahal occurring only in epigraphic records from about late 11th /early 12th century AD. While Wickramasinghe reads this term also as ‘serf’ Paranavitana always read it as ‘slave’.1 This difficulty in attributing one type of servile status to vahal could be because, as in the case of most unfree covered by the term dāsa, both slave and serf features are observable among vahal. Features of slave status in vahal are distinct as they are cited as purchased and inherited property2 and for being liable to be disposed of as a material item being listed often among such items (land and draft animals).3 Furthermore, as in the case of dāsa, donations of vahal also accompany land.4 Interestingly, the Lāhugala record reports that the vahal mentioned received paravēni (hereditary) land,5 this information deduces that these vahal were bonded to the service of the temple concerned for generations through such grants, a feature linked with serfs.6

Paranavitāna, was the first to interpret the term vaharala in its variant forms along with the associated words and verbs when editing the Veśsagiriya inscription (1941).12 He argues that the term vaharala (and its variants) was the earliest form of vahala meaning ‘slavery’ and is identical to the modern Sinhalese term vahal (‘slave’). He also states that the term vahal derived from Skt. vrsala (pāli: vasala –‘slave’) and argues that ‘vrsala took the form of vaharala in the sixth century through the intermediate forms varsala and varahala.’13 And the verb cidavi (or variant forms as cadeva, sidavi, sadava, sadeva), which either follows or precedes the term vaharala or its variant forms, he reads as ‘discontinued,’ ‘ceased to be’ or ‘caused to be broken’ or ‘caused to be made free from slavery.’ Thus he renders the clause ‘cidavi vaharala’ as ‘freed from slavery’ and vaharala vata kata14 as ‘for the maintenance of slaves’ as appropriate.15 He later (1962) argues that alamalavaharala, and sayamala-vaharala in epigraphic records from Periyakadu-vihāra, Galkätiyāgama, and Ambagaśväva refer to ‘slavery enforced by others’ and ‘self-imposed slavery’ respectively.16 All existing manumission records fit into this reading sensibly except the very fragmentary record from Panama, of which the remaining text does not help us to comprehend its context to judge the reliability of the given reading (ie. vaharala as temple).17

Furthermore, the allotment of land challenges the ‘slave’ status, as it apparently does not seem to tally with the ideology of slavery. For instance, Obēsēkara maintains that ‘total lack of ownership of soil is the hall-mark of the traditional slave and a slave is someone who has no paravēni (hereditary) right.’7 Thus, dāsa or vahal could not be called slaves in the traditional sense8 as they were given or at least attached to lands as, for instance, recorded in the tablet A of Mahinda IV at Mihintale (ll.45-46)9 and Lāhugala record respectively.10 This further supports the suggestion that the status of dāsa and vahal was a mixture of both slave and serf status.

Vaharala etc:

D.J. Wijērathne (1952) was the first to object the interpretation of Paranavitāna on the ground of incorrect etymology, grammar, undue straining of the meaning of verbs associated with vaharala and inappropriateness of the interpretation to the context.18 He thus suggest that the root of ‘vaharala’ is Skt. visāra meaning timber and reads vaharala etc as ‘timber’19 and the verb cidavi or cidavayaha as ‘to cut’ thus rendering ‘cidavi vaharala’ and its variants as ‘cutting timber’. Wijērathne further argues that terms sayamāla and alamāla could be a type of timber- tamarind. Further, he reads the terms ‘siya aġana,’ and ‘daruyāna’ which Paranavitāna has translated as ‘his own wife’ and ‘children’ as ‘worth a hundred’ and ‘logs’ respectively.

On the other hand, the term vaharala and its variant forms such as vaharila, vaherila, vaharalaya, vahala, varala, veherala, vehārala veheralaya, viherila, vihārala occur in Sri Lankan records from fourth –eighth century AD, and the reading of these along with the accompanying verbs and terms is debated by scholars.11 Five different readings based on linguistic arguments are presented in this concern. As I am not a linguist 1 This further leads us to conjecture whether Wickramasinghe considered the term ‘serf’ as a synonym of ‘slave’ and ‘serf’ was his choice of word, because the term vahal he render as ‘serf’ (App. 2, no. 44, 48) is read as ‘slave’ in a similar context by Paranavitāna (App. 2, no. 49, 56). Abeysinghe and Godakumbura follow Paranavitāna in rendering vahal as ‘slaves.’ (App. 2 nos. 43, 51 & 52).

However, Paranavitāna himself convincingly proves at length the appropriateness of reading cidavi vaharala etc as ‘freed from slavery’ based on the same linguistic issues Wijērathne

2

E.g. cf. App. 2 no. 57.

3

E.g. cf. App. 2 nos. 44 -48, 54.

4

E.g. cf. App. 2 nos. 42.

12

EZ 4: 128-136. Also cf. Paranavitāna (1962): 1-11.

5

E.g. cf. App. 2 nos. 43.

13

EZ 4: 134-135. Cf. EZ 5:42-47 for more detail.

6 Cf. Chap. 4: 60-61 more on hereditary rights of lands given to dāsa and vahal.

14 So far no objection on SP’s rendering of vata kata - ‘for the maintenance of’.

7

15

Obēsēkara (1967): 16.

SP at this point mentions that the meanings of sayamāla and alamāla are not clear.

8 An individual who has no land on his/ her own, him/ herself being similar to a material item that can be bought, sold, given away or even caste out when of no use.

16

9

Dias (1991): 94, cf. App. 2 no. 3. Cf. also the photograph of the record in Dias (1991): 237, of which the ending ‘la’ of vahara is not very clear.

Cf. App. 2 no. 39.

10

Paranavitāna (1962): 1-11.

17

Cf. App. 2 no. 43.

18

Wijērathne (1952): 103-117.

19

Ibid. (1952): 103-117.

11

Cf. App. 2 nos. 2-36 for the transliteration and translation of the records that contain these terms.

98

used in criticising the reading.1 Paranavitāna also shows that Wijērathne’s alternative translation based on the new root he suggested for vaharala (i.e. visāra-timber) is not only redundant but also wrong because such a term – visārameaning timber does not exist in Sanskrit.2 Further, no scholar until now has accepted Wijērathne’s reading of vaharala as timber.3 In such circumstances it seems futile to examine the extent of application of Wijērathne’s reading on vaharala records.

particular phrases (ie, na kena or naya namaha as ‘having settled the debt [s/he had] incurred’ and sayamala as ‘selfimposed’) in an attempt to apply Karunārathne’s readings to Periyakadu-vihāra, Galkätiyāgama and Ambagasveva records. Thus the records Periyakadu-vihāra and Ambagasveva and those which only contain na kena in Galkätiyāgama record may read as ‘…having settled the debt [due from him] he caused to make a small vihāra (temple)…’ But there do not seem to be a logical or sensible reason to mention settling of debt in a record that advertise the meritorious deed of constructing a vihāra. Furthermore, the brevity, resulting from including only the essential detail which is a clear feature of manumission records of the island seen above, is evident even in these inscriptions. Also, the reading would become more problematic in the records that contain saymala: …na kena cadeva sayamala vaharala for it would be ‘…..having settled the debt [due from him] he caused to make self-imposed small vihāra.’ Accordingly, the said records provide a more sensible meaning if we read them as ‘…..having settled the debt [due from him] he caused the cessation of [his] slavery’ and ‘…having settled the debt [due from him] he caused the cessation of [his] self-imposed slavery’. Thus Karunārathna’s reading is not only incomplete but also does not give satisfactory sense when applied to all records.

According to W.S. Karunārathne’s (1984) argument vihārala means vihāra (monastery/temple) together with pleonastic suffix ‘la’ and he reads it as ‘a small building or an attachment of a monastery’4 and the verb kerava as ‘to make.’ He further argues that the verb cidavi comes from a different root ‘cada’ meaning ‘to make’ and considers cadava and kerava as synonymous. Thus he translates ‘kerava vaharala’ and cadavi/cidavi vaharala as ‘caused a vihāra to be made’ referring to the records in Mulgirigala and Uttimaduwa vihāra.5 He further mentions that he accepts Wijērathne’s interpretation of siya aġana, and daruyāna: ‘worth hundred’ and ‘of wood.’ His main point seems to be based on the verb kerava that accompanies the term vaharala etc in the records he edited. He supports his theory stating that Paranavitāna later (1956)6 admitted a mistaken reading of the sign for ‘ä’ as the nasal sign thus reading sidãva as siňdava. Furthermore, Karunārathne links sidãva with modern saduva eventually suggesting a different root for cidava. But, the given reference in this concern does not show that Paranavitāna has made such a confession. Karunārathne also seems to be unaware that the ‘mistaken reading’ he attributes to Paranavitāna has done little or no change to Paranavitāna’s argument regarding the root of cidava. As Paranavitāna reads another set of vaharala records (1962) with the verb cidavi maintaining the same meaning though not in the same wording as before, cadeva …. vaharala is read as ‘caused the cessation of ....slavery.’7 Besides, kerava could be a variation of kara that appears in Paluhangamuva record,8 and it could be another verb that accompanied vaharala. Thus, the Uttimaduwa record could also be read as ‘[caused to] carry out slavery’ rather than ‘caused to make a small vihāra.’9 On the other hand, Karunārathne does not refer to all vaharala records, specifically to those from Periyakaduvihāra, Galkätiyāgama and Ambagasveva10 and consequently does not provide a reading for na kena or naya namaha or sayamala that appear in these records.

However, N. Mudiyansē (1990) accepts that the term vehārala and its variant forms denote ‘slavery’ and the verb ‘cidavi’ etc denote ‘freed from.’11 Moreover, M. Dias (1991) renders the phrase vaharala cidavi as ‘made free from compulsory service in the monastery,’12 but does not provide any explanation for such interpretation at this point. Also she refers to the verb karava and translates kara vaharala as ‘executed the compulsory service in the monastery’.13 She later (2001) states that the root of vaharala is vahara (‘monastery/temple’ in pāli) and not vahal as suggested by Paranavitāna and continues that vaharala cidavi signifies freeing from some special bond or ‘compulsory service,’ in a monastery in quest of merit.14 Notably, however, a ‘slave’ is compelled to serve his/her master and ‘slavery’ is a compulsory service, thus the phrase ‘freeing from compulsory service’ is similar to the idea of ‘freeing from slavery.’ Besides, there is no term, phrase or even space (for a lost word) that may convey the meaning ‘compulsory service’ when the term vaharala etc is read as ‘monastery’. Thus, there is no reason why this confused rendering must not be understood as ‘freed/ cessation from slavery’. Moreover, Rev. M. Wimalakitti maintained that ‘cidavi vaharala’ refers to ‘alms distributed by ticket’ but does not elaborate his interpretation.15 S. Ranawella (1991) editing the Nuvaraväva inscription16 argues that Paranavitāna’s notion that the term vaharala derived from Sanskrit vrsala (Pāli vasala) is incorrect, as vrsala and vasala are not identical in meaning. Also he mentions that these terms were not used in contemporary literary sources of the island. He points to the

In this situation we use Paranavitāna’s readings for these 1

EZ 5: 35-62.

2

EZ 5: 62-65.

3 E.g. Ranawella (1991) in EZ 6: 170 rejects Wijērathne’s argument. Cf. infra 100 for Ranawella’s reading. 4

EZ 7: 117.

11

Mudiyansē (1990): 111& 129-130.

12

Dias (1991): 33-34, 71, 80, 82, 83, 86, 87, 92,95-99.

5

EZ 7: 117-119. Also cf. Dias (1991): 118-119. Cf. App. 2 nos. 33 & 34. 6

Paranavitāna (1956): 38.

7

Paranavitāna (1962): 1-11.

8

Dias (1991): 87. Cf. App. 2 no. 29.

14

EZ 8: 102-105.

9

Cf. App. 2, note 42.

15

Wimalakitti (1957): 127.

16

EZ 6: 168-172.

10

13 The reason why Dias mentions ‘in the monastery’ in all cases could be because almost all these records come from monastic settings, except a handful which is unspecified regarding their settings.

Cf. App. 2, nos. 18-20.

99

earliest inscription from the second century AD from Iukvëva, which refers to two male and female slaves as dāsa and dāsi respectively1 but not as vaharala etc. Furthermore, by referring to the paragraph in the Samantapāsādika,2 Ranawella mentions that the verb used in this text to denote manumission was Bhujiśsa, but not cidavi. He considers that vaharala etc., contains two parts: vahara and la. The former part for him is synonymous to vihāra (monastery/temple) and ‘la’ resembles laha ((meal) ticket). However, he too agrees that cidavi or cidavayaha denotes ‘cause to be broken.’ Thus according to his rendering, the clause cidavi vaharala reads ‘monastic tickets to be issued’ or ‘monastic tickets to be broken.’3 But, Ranawella does not disclose how the terms or phrases such as siya aġana, daruyāna, darayāna, daruya, dariyāna, na kena, naya namaha and sayamala that accompany cidavi vaharala must be read in his proposed context. As in the case of Karunārathne, I shall examine to what extent SR’s reading would provide a sensible meaning when applied to the other vaharala records that carry the above mentioned terms and phrases which will be read using Paranavitāna’s readings (ie. siya aġana -‘my wife’; daruyāna, darayāna (m/f pl), daruya (m/f sing.), dariyāna (f.pl)- ‘children’, ‘child’).4 Thus …siya agana vaharala cidavi…in the first record in the Vessagiriya inscription5 may read as ‘I …caused my wife to issue monastic tickets…’ and the second and third records of the same inscription may appear as ‘I….. caused my children/child to issue monastic tickets…’. But, if these individuals concerned wanted their wife, children or child to get the merit of the deed it seems strange not to mention the wife, children/child as the doer(s) of the meritorious deed. This oddness is further clear when Ranawella’s reading is applied to ‘… Da[lana] anakani Abi Mihida[la] seme (da)rayana c[i]divi vaharalaya...’ in Murutāwa record:6 ‘…under the order of Dalana, Abi Mihidala caused all children to issue monastic tickets.…’ Why would one bother to cause ‘all children’ issue monastic tickets when he could get the full merit of the deed by doing it himself? Furthermore, a problem, similar to that occurred when Karunārathne’s reading was applied in conjunction with Paranavitāna’s reading to translate na kena, naya namaha and sayamala, occurs when Ranawella’s reading is applied to the records that bear these same phrases. ‘…having settled the debt [due from him] caused to issue monastic tickets….’ As in the above case, why would one need to mention about paying his debts when recording the meritorious deed of issuing monastic tickets.7 The records that contain …na kena cadeva sayamala vaharala…in Galkätiyagama inscription is equally, if not more, problematic as when Karunārathne’s reading was applied to it: ‘…having settled the debt [due from him] caused to issue self-imposed monastic tickets.…’ These examples show that Ranawella’s reading does not provide a sensible meaning when applied to all vaharala records.

1

IC 2.2: 245-246. Cf. App. 2 no. 1.

2

Moreover, Ranawella’s argument regarding the absence of bhujiśsa in these records may not necessarily lead us to deny them as manumission records. Bhujiśsa is a Pāli verb used by the scholarly monk Buddhagosha in his commentary on vinaya, and its absence in these records is comprehensible as the scribes and the audience of manumission records may not have been well-versed in Pāli. Thus, these records may have used a verb commonly used in the society of the time in this concern.8 Regarding the usage of the term vaharala in the place of dāsa the notion maintained by J. Uduwara (1991),9 in his commentary on vaharala to the Kotakanda Äthkanda vihāra inscription is interesting. He maintained that by about fifth century ‘slavery’ could have been a well-established institution in Buddhist temples and the term vaharala, as ‘slave’, could be ‘a euphemistic term.’ He rightly continues that just as the terms, kappiyakāra and ārāmika were used to circumvent Buddha’s non-approbation of the acceptance of dāsa and other workers by temples, as shown in Buddhagosha’s writings,10 in manumissions the ethically approved term vaharala, known to masses, may have been used to conceal the existence of dāsa in temples. Consequently, most of the interpretations or arguments concerning the term vaharala etc., other than that of Paranavitāna, cannot be applied to all vaharala records as certain accompanying verbs and terms are ignored. But the arguments of Paranavitāna could be applied to almost all such records and as Abeysinghe11 rightly states Paranavitāna’s arguments ‘are very strong and capable of holding their own.’ Thus, Paranavitāna’s reading vaharala as ‘slaves’ and cidavi vaharala etc as ‘freed from slavery’ stands aloft of all other interpretations and is adopted in this study. Nonetheless, it is difficult to deduce the nature of these ‘slaves’ as the records are extremely brief and most are fragmentary, yet, some records reveal the existence of debt ‘slaves’/bondsmen,12 and voluntary ‘slaves’13 suggesting that just as dāsa, vaharala too can mean not only ‘slavery’ but also bondage.

Mindi: Mindi or midi is another term that appears in Sri Lankan epigraphic records and is translated as ‘female slave.’ Though rare, this occurs in two inscriptions published in the volumes of EZ. In the first case14 M.D.Z. Wickramasinghe, the editor of the record mentions that it cannot be understood but cites Müller’s and Gunasēkara’s readings ‘slave’ and ‘female slaves’ respectively in a footnote.15 In the second case it occurs as mangul mindiyan, which Paranavitāna and Gunasēkara read as 8 Notably all these records are in old Sinhalese language written in later or transitional Brahmi script. 9 EZ 6: 120-125. Cf. App. 2 no. 4. Although Ranawella and Uduwara’s translations of the inscriptions and commentaries appear in the same volume part I (Uduwara) and II (Ranawella) published in 1991 they do not refer to each other’s work.

The same paragraph quoted by SP in his reply to Wijerathne’s criticism: EZ 5: 60-61.

10

Psudāni 404. Cf. also 28 note 116.

3

EZ 6: 170.

11

Abeysinghe (1991): 133-134 in EZ 6, no.27. App. 2 nos. 18-20.

4

For na kena, naya namaha & sayamala cf. supra 99.

12

5

Cf. App. 2, no. 12.

13

App. 2 nos. 22-24.

6

Cf. App. 2, no. 11.

14

EZ 1, no.7 (l.20): 75-113.

Cf. also supra 99.

15

EZ 1, no.7: 109, note 9.

7

100

‘female slaves’, and Paranavitāna further states that the term mindi in Sinhalese literature also denotes this.1 Geiger also mentions that ‘in Sinhalese the word for female slave is midī which derives from Skt. P. munditā “shaved”, suggesting that in former times a female ‘slave’ was not allowed to wear long hair, but had to shave her head when she was taken into a family.’2 Considering the general acceptance of this reading by scholars, it is acceptable that the term mindi denotes ‘female slaves’ whatever its origin.

Ārāmika and kappiyakāraka: Another analogous complication arises when reading the terms ārāmika and kappiyakāraka, limited only to literary sources, as ‘slaves.’ Though the context in which these terms occur, in the locally composed Pāli text Samantapāsādikā, implies that their meanings differ, Geiger pursuasively maintained the opposite.3 Chanana discussing slavery in Buddhist monasteries (in ancient India) shares the view of Geiger that the status of ārāmika and kappiyakāraka could have been similar.4 This controversy invites us to re-examine whether ārāmika and kappiyakāraka were ethical terms simply used to circumvent the prohibition of accepting dāsa and other workers by Buddhist temples and monks and what group(s) of workers in temples were covered by these terms and whether they are similar.5 The Pāpancasudāni confesses that although it is improper for monks to accept ‘slaves’, monks could accept them when offered as kappiyakāraka or ārāmika.’6 In this context kappiyakārakas and ārāmikas were those dedicated to monks as offerings, implying that they were the property of the donor – i.e. ‘slaves’.7 Accordingly, both these groups include ‘slaves’ given to temples supporting Geiger’s notion. Rāhula in this concern states that kappiyakāraka are laymen who accept the obligation to provide monks with what they need and ārāmikas are attendants and servants of the monastery8 suggesting that every person called thus was not necessarily un-free. Further, a passage in Samantapāsādikā signals that even ‘slaves’ belonging to a temple were called ārāmikas9 apparently to justify their acceptance to the temples on ethical grounds. However, Samantapāsādikā further assures the ‘slave’ status of ārāmikas or at least of ārāmikadāsas offered to monks. The account mentions that: There are in monasteries slaves called monasteryslaves (ārāmika-dāsa) granted by kings; it is not

proper to admit them to the order. If they are manumitted it is proper to admit them to the order.10 The ban is from vinaya rules, which forbade ‘slaves’ from entering the order of monks unless manumitted, since ‘slaves’ are a property of another. However, if these ārāmika-dāsa were free workers and not ‘slaves’ it would have been redundant to obtain manumission. The same source further states that if a poor man becomes a kappiyakāraka willingly due to poverty in order to gain subsistence by working for monks, such a person could be admitted to the order without manumission because he was not given as a ‘slave.’11 Thus the status of a person donated as a kappiyakāraka to a temple was similar to that of ārāmika-dāsa - ‘slave.’ Thus, it is clear that a range of workers from ‘slaves’ to free wage workers in temples were called ārāmikas and kappiyakārakas, perhaps as an ethical cover to enable temples and monks to accept and possess ‘slaves’ and other necessary workforce.12 To sum up, the terms mentioned above do not refer to just one type of servitude, but to several such as ‘slavery’ and bondage (enforced or voluntary) and some of these terms have evolved out of ethical concerns, when ‘slave’- holding included Buddhist temples/monks. Interestingly, the group kappiyakāraka even included free wage-workers in Temples.

Atimai: K/cōvia, nalluva, pallava castes in Jaffna were grouped under the name atimai/ adimai which is translated into English as ‘slaves.’13 Pfaffenberger doubts whether ‘slave’ is a proper translation of the word atimai since their conditions do not always tally with the conventions of the Roman law (ie. slave is unfree and that condition is under the full submission to the state) though the Dutch seem to have considered these individuals as such.14 He further mentions that just as the atimai in South India those in Jaffna may have had the sanction of deserting a cruel master and take refuge in Vanni jungles in severe circumstances and live ‘virtually undetected.’15 He argues that the sanction of desertion as a measure against cruel treatment suggest good rapport between atimai ‘slaves’ and their vellala masters.16 But, the detail that, these atimai, having deserted their cruel masters, had to live ‘virtually undetected’ suggests that this was not a legal sanction but, one that is tolerated by the society

1

EZ 4, no. 33. (l. 15): 256 & 260 note 4.

2

Geiger (1960): 36.

3

Cv. Tr. 1: 16, note 4.

10

4

Chanana (1960): 84.

5

Cf. also Gunawardana (1979): 97-98.

11 Ibid.177 and the compendium of Law of the Kändyan period state that those come to serve in the monastery out of poverty were not considered as slaves (NN 8). Cf. Also Smp. 1001.

6

Psudāni 404: ‘Dāsidāsavasēnēva tēsam patiġgahānam nā vattati kappiyakārakam dammi ārāmikam dammīti evam vutte te pana vattati.’

7

Smp. 1001.

12

The case of the king Aġgabōdhi IV giving his relatives as ārāmikas (Mv. 46. 14) should be taken as just another example showing monarchs offering themselves or relatives as ‘slaves’ to monks / to temples in return of merit. Cf. Chap. 1: 13-14 for more such cases.

An account in the Vinaya indicates the beginning of the custom of donating ārāmikas to monks. According to this a prince saw a monk supervising a levelling of soil and offered him 500 ārāmikas, who settled down with their families near the monastery and began to work for their new master (Vinaya 3: 248).

13

Hocart, (1950): 7.

14

Pfaffenberger (1982): 41.

8

Rāhula (1956): 147.

15

Ibid. (1982): 41.

Smp. 683, cf. Chap. 4: 50 for detail.

16

Ibid. (1982): 41.

9

101

as a recourse for these ‘slaves’ to escape extremely severe treatment and also this suggests the possibility that they could have been re-enslaved once detected. If it was a legal permission available to these ‘slaves’ they may not have had to live undetected in jungles having escaped harsh treatment. Moreover, slaves deserting cruel masters and re-enslaving the deserters when detected were not uncommon happenings even in ancient Greece and these slave deserters certainly lived undetected where there do not seem to be any formal or informal sanction available to them. Furthermore, atimai cannot be mistaken for those who had to provide services to high caste vellalas under caste obligation, because those who had such dues were clearly distinguished from atimai as they were called kutimai/ kudimai. What could be true regarding the status of atimai, therefore, is that they may have been a ‘servile’ group who enjoyed mild treatment at the hand of their masters and society, just as other servile groups (discussed above) lived on the island, as opposed to the status of slaves described in the conventions of Roman law.

102

Appendix 2:

(4) The rock inscription at Kotakanda Ätkanda vihāra (fifth/ sixth century AD)7

Sri Lankan epigraphic records citing terms denoting ‘slave’ and manumissions.1

Translation: Hail! Maravila Visa, the carpenter gave hundred kahavana and freed two persons namely, Gabataki of Vakigala and …mahamadi – from ‘slavery.’ May the great fruit [of this action be for the benefit of all beings].

(1) Ilukveva inscription (second century AD)2

Transliteration: 1. Sidam vaduka Maravila visa siyaka ka2 –havini diya de vaherila cidi3 –vi ico vakigala gabataki ico 4 mahamadi – (i)ca mahapala sa(va)

Translation: …..also given to the cetiya were the ‘slave’ Anula and the ‘slave’ Kāla. Transliteration: …Citiya dinē dāsa Anulā dina dāsa Kālaca.

(5) Nuvaraväva rock inscription (fifth/ sixth century AD)8

(2) The second rock inscription from Ridi Vihāra: Kurunegala (fourth –centuries AD)3 Translation: Samanala of Pata(ga)la freed [himself] from ‘slavery’4…… may the merit be achieved by all beings. Transliteration: 1. 2.

Patagalayaha Samanalaha cidavi viharala savasatanata pati.

Translation: Hail! Kitayi of Mayuva, having donated hundred kahavana to Gavarisa Rajamaha Vihāra at Pacinatissa-pabbata, freed [himself] from ‘slavery.’9 May the merit be to all beings. Transliteration: 1. Si Pajinatisa-pava Gavarisa ra2. ji mahavahera Mayuva Kitayi 3. sayaka (ka)havana di vahara4. la cidavaya pala savasa5. tanata vaya vaya.

(3) A rock inscription from Panama in Panama Pattu (fifth century AD) 5

(6) Rock inscription from Kōngala in Panama Pattu (fifth-sixth centuries AD)10

Translation: The great king Tisa [(gave)] sixteen kahavana to the great royal monastery of Jetajaya pava…..

Translation: Chief Kalana who resides at Cetiyagara deposited (fifteen kahavana) and gave the interest, which would accrue from it, (for the purpose of preaching the doctrine.) gave fifty kahapana for the maintenance of ‘slavery.’11 May the merit be shared by all beings.

Transliteration: 1. …….va Jetajaya pava raja maha vaharala6 hataya 2. ……….vana…….ta Tisa maha raja (….) solasaya kahava…. 3. ……. 1 Words and phrases particularly relevant to this study are underlined. All translations are extracted from the appropriate edited works mentioned, unless other wise stated 2

Transliteration: 1. cetiyagiri vasanaya nayama Kalanahi (pasarasa) 2. (va)yana buyakotu vadiyakotu dini panasa 3. kahavana vaharala kotu dina sava satatahi 4. pati.

EZ 8: 65= EZ 6: 124.

3 Dias (1991): 80. There are three short records altogether but only this one refers to manumission of slaves. Written in later Brāhmi script and in old Sinhalese language. 4

Dias (1991) reads cidavi vaharala and its variant forms as ‘made free from the compulsory service in the monastery’. Cf. App. 1: 99. Similar renderings applied by the editor to records infra nos. 7, 9, 10.ii, 1517.ii, 25, 27, 28.ii-iii, 30, 31. 5 Dias (1991): 94. Written in later Brāhmi script and in old Sinhalese language. 6 The record is fragmentary and whether the term vahara could be read with la is not very clear.

7 EZ 6: 121-124. Written in Brāhmi script and old Sinhalese language. Ed. & tr. by Uduwara. 8 EZ. 6: 168-172. Written in same script and language as the former. Ed. & tr. by Ranawella. 9 Ranawella, reads cidavi vaharala etc as ‘caused monastic tickets to be issued’. Cf. App. 1: 99-100. The editor applies same reading to record no. 8 in this appendix. 10

11

Dias (1991): 94. Written in later Brāhmi script and in old Sinhalese.

Dias reads vaharala kotu as ‘for the purpose of the compulsory service in the monastery.’

103

(9) A slab inscription from Anuradhapura (fifth/ sixth century AD) 3

(7) Rock inscriptions from Dambulla (fifth-sixth centuries AD)1 I Translation: (Dasi….. la), brother of Mahapalihathala…..(gave) fifty……and freed [himself] from ‘slavery.’ Transliteration: 1 Mahapalihathala malana 2 (Dasi….la) panasa (di) (ca) dava vaha 3 ralaya.

Translation: Hail! Mayuvakitaya [of the] Vari (sa) .. ji Maha Vihāra Pajinatisapavata gave hundred kahavana and freed [himself] from ‘slavery.’ [May] the merit [of this be shared by] all beings. Transliteration: 1 2 3 4 5

II Translation: (Pahanaka) ………. freed [himself ?] from ‘slavery.’ May the merit be achieved by all beings. Transliteration: 1 (Pahanaka) ……… 2 ………sadava vaharala eka ……..; 3 sava satanata pati

(10) Rock inscription from Situlpavuva in Hambantota. 4

III Translation: ………radanalaka……. freed [himself] from ‘slavery.’ [May the merit be achieved by all beings]. Transliteration: 1 …………radanalaka…..; 2 ………vaharala(ya) 2 (sava satanata pati).

(8) Dangollagama rock inscription (fifth/ sixth century AD) 2 Translation: [I] Samana, the bricklayer [who] lives in Vilaya, gave hundred kahavana to the Raja-maha-Vihāra at Ganahavala and freed [himself] from ‘slavery.’

S[i] Pajinatisapavata Vari (sa) .. –(ji)-maha-vahara Mayuvakitaya sayaka kahavana(a) di vahara–la cidavaya pala savasa–ta(nata) …. …. ……..

I : (fifth-sixth centuries AD) Translation: Prosperity, twenty kahavana were given for the maintenance of ‘slavery’5 (this) Citala pava [monastery]. May the merit be shared by all beings. Transliteration: 1. Siddham (l) ma Citala pavama visitiya kahavana dina 2 ………ralaya pavataya m(e) Citala pavama 3 pala sava satanata. II: (sixth century AD). Translation: Ladhayana Tamakakapa freed [himself] from ‘slavery’ [in the monastery] (on the rock). [May the merit shared by] all beings. Transliteration: 1. Ladahaya Tamakakapahi 2. ..cadavi vaharala (pabata) 3. sava satanata.

Transliteration: 1 Vilayaha vasana huluvadu Samana Ganahavala rajamaha 2 Vaharata sayaka kahavana di cidivi vaharala

3 Dias (1991): 33. Written in later Brāhmi script and old Sinhalese language.

1

Dias (1991): 97-98. A collection of ten records written in later Brāhmi script and in old Sinhalese language of fifth / sixth century AD. 2

EZ 6: 173. Ed. & tr. by Ranawella.

4 Ibid. 92. There are five records altogether of which three do not refer to slaves. Same script and language as the former. 5 Dias’s reading of [vaha]ralaya pavataya m(e), is ‘maintenance of the compulsory service in (this) …monastery’.

104

II

(11) The rock inscription from Murutawa, (508-516 AD). 1 Translation: May Siri Sagiboyi be victorious! In accordance with an order of Dalana, the commander-in-chief, Abi Mihidala freed all children from ‘slavery.’ May the fruit of this (action) be shared by all the beings. Transliteration: 1 Sirisagiboyi jiya Senevi 2 Da[lana] anakani Abi Mihi3 -da[la] seme (da)rayana c[i]divi 4 vaharalaya m[e]hi 5 pala sava-[satanata] pati

(12) Vessagiriya inscription (c. AD 526-552) 2 Translation: I I, Puyagonula, the bricklayer of Latakatala, caused my wife to be freed from ‘slavery’ in the royal monastery of BoyaOpulavana-Kasapa-gari. [May] the fruit of this [action be] for the benefit of all beings. II Hail! I, Boyagonula, the bricklayer residing in Durusava, caused [my] children to be freed from ‘slavery.’ May the fruit [of this action] be for the benefit of all beings. May there be Buddhahood as desired. III Hail I, Patisalala, residing at Abayagamaya, caused [my] child to be freed from ‘slavery.’ [May] the fruit [of this action be] for the benefit of all beings. May there be Buddhahood as desired. IV Sahasavarala Dalameya and Sakanakana Vesiminiya Aba gave a hundred kahavana to the Kasabagiriye monastery and freed [themselves] from ‘slavery.’ May the fruit of this [action] be for the benefit of all beings. Transliteration:

1 Si Durusava vasana uluvadu Boya-gonulami 2 daruyana cidavi veherala pala 3 sava-satanata vayavaya risi Budu-bava vayavaya. III 1 2 3 IV

Si Abagamayahi vasana Patisalalami daru–ya cidavi veherala pala sava-satanata risi Budu-bava veyava.

1 Sahasavarala Dalameya Sakanakana 2 vesiminiya Aba Kasaba-giriye va3 -hara sayaka kahavana di vaharaliya cidava4 -yaha maha pala sava-satanata.

(13) Nilagama rock inscription (c. AD 537)3 Translation: Hail! Dated on the new-moon first day in the month of Vesaka in the eighth year of the raising of the umbrella [of dominion] by his Majesty, the great king Budasa Dali-Mugalana Apaya. By Gala-Araki Buyudeviya a hundred [kahavana] were granted to the great royal monastery Tisa-arami at Nilagama and [he] had himself freed from ‘slavery.’ And Buyiperi Saba gave a hundred and freed himself from ‘slavery.’ And Hilisela Sivigonahi gave a hundred and freed himself from ‘slavery.’ And Bada Aba gave a hundred and freed himself from ‘slavery.’ And ..davi Aba gave a hundred and freed himself from ‘slavery.’ And Cadiboya gave a hundred and freed himself from ‘slavery.’ And …sivi Aba gave a hundred and freed himself from ‘slavery.’ And by me, Baeli Siva, a hundred was [given and [I] freed [myself] from ‘slavery’] Transliteration: 1 Siddham [ II* ] Puviha Mapurumu-Budasa DaliMugala[na] –maha-raji-a2 –payihi cata lagi atama-avanaka- vasini Vesa[ka]cada(hi) [a]mave[si]3 [po]hoyi davasi Nilagama Tisa-arami raji-mahavaharata siya diyi vaherila 4 cidivi Gala-araki Buyudeviyayihi ica siya di veherila cidivi Buyiperi Saba ica 5 siya di viherila cidivi hilisela Sivigonahi ica siya di viherila cidivi Bada Aba ica siya di 6 viherila cidivi .. dava Aba ica siya di viherila cidivi Cadiboya Aba ica siya di viherila cidivi 7 … sivi Aba ica siya di viherila cidivi Baeli Sivi G[o]nayi [ma]ica

I 1 Latakalata (hi) oluvadu Puyagonu2 lami B(o)ya-opulavana-kasapi-ga3 –ri-raja-maha-vahere siya-agana vahara4 –la cidavi ma-pala sava-satanata.

1 EZ 5: 27-29. Same script and the language as the former. Ed. & tr. by Paranavitāna. 2 EZ 4: 128-136. Script transitional Brāhmi but the language is old Singhalese of the sixth century AD. Ed. & tr. by Paranavitāna.

3

105

EZ 4: 285-295. Ed. & tr. by Paranavitāna.

(14) Kudārathmale rock inscription (c. AD 571-604) 1

IV Translation: ……….. [freed] …….from ‘slavery.’ May the merit of this action be shared by all beings.

Translation: On the eleventh day of the fortnight of the waxing moon in the month of Himati [first month of the winter season] during the fourth year of the raising of the umbrella of the dominion by the great king (Sirisaga) boyi Abayi, . . . . the arakalayi of Kakhagamiya gave a hundred kahavana and freed Friar Sidhatha from ‘slavery.’ The merit (of this action is given) to all beings.

Transliteration: 1. ……….pahi 2. ……….vahari(la) 3. (sa)vasatanata peti

Transliteration: 1 [Ma]ha . .(ka ba) . . . .[Sirisaga] boyi A2 –bayi- maharajaha [ca]ta lagi cati3 -ri-vana vasi Himati-cada pu4 ne-masi ekadasu-paka dasi 5 Kakkha-gami[ya]ha arakala6 –yi puvijayi Sidhatha siyaka 7 kahavani di cidavi vaharala7 –ya pala sava-satanata

(16) Rock inscriptions from Dambulla (sixth century AD) 4 I Translation: (Prosperity) ………..[n the reign] of the great king Mugalan ……gave hundred kahavana to Sanga [of this monastery] and (freed) ……(from ‘slavery’). [May] the merit of this action is given to all beings.

(15) Rock inscriptions from Kumbukkandana in Mātale (sixth century AD) 2 I Translation: ……………samana…….la…….freed ‘slavery.’

[himself

?]

from

II Translation: Nagama who resides at Hatagama freed [himself] from ‘slavery.’

Transliteration: 1. …………….. 2 …….Samana3….la……. 3 cidava vaharala. II Translation: Magarasala of Gavala freed [himself] from ‘slavery.’ May the Buddhahood [be achieved] by the fruit of this action. Transliteration: 1 Gavala (sa) magarasala sadava(i) vahara2 –laya maha palani budu…….vayavaya. III (sixth and seventh centuries AD) Translation: …………..[freed] …..from ‘slavery.’ May all beings [achieve] the Buddhahood according to their wishes [by the fruit of this merit]. Transliteration: 1. ………vahara (la) (cidavi) 2 Satana(ta) risi Buduya….va vaya vaya

Transliteration: 1. (Siddham) Mugalana maharaja 2. …………sagi ……..saya 3. –ka kahavana (di …cadava vaharala), 4 …….pala sava sata…….pati.

Transliteration: 1. Hatagama …. hi vasana Nagamaha sada2. va (va)hara(la) III Translation: ………who resides at …………freed [himself ?] from ‘slavery.’ Transliteration: 1. ………..vasana 2 ………sada va 3. harala ……..sa…… IV Translation: …………………… freed …….from ‘slavery.’ Transliteration: 1. ………………. 2 …….. 3 ……….sadava vaharala

1 EZ 5: 30-34. Written in Later Brāhmi script and old Sinhalese language. Ed. & tr. by Paranavitāna. 2

Dias (1991): 86. All these four records written in later Brāhmi script and in old Sinhalese language.

3 Dias reads this as ‘monk’ but I am not sure whether this is a full or part of a name. Also it is hard to say due to the fragmentary nature of the record, whether this was a self-purchase of freedom or another bought his/her freedom.

4 Dias (1991): 95-96. There are fourteen records from Dambulla but most of it is fragmentary, of which only the above-cited records refers to ‘slavery.’ All of these records are written in later Brāhmi script and old Sinhalese language.

106

V Translation: ……………………gana gave hundred kahavana and freed ….. from ‘slavery.’ Transliteration: 1. …………… 2. …………… 3. …….ganaha sayaka kahava4. –na di sadava vaharala.

I Translation: 1. Ramapihi, who resides at ….ragama freed [himself] from ‘slavery;’2 2. ……residing….. 3. ……residing…….. Transliteration: 1 ……..ragama vasana Rampihi cidava vaha(rala) 2. …vasana……. 3 vasana……maha……sa…….. II Translation: Dala (si)valamaha……..residing at Karatava [freed himself] from ‘slavery.’ May the merit be achieved by all beings. ma…who resides at …hiya…….freed [himself?] from ‘slavery’ having given the merit to all beings….. Transliteration: 1 Karatava vasana Dala(si) vahala (ma) havasaniyana 2 (cidivi) vaharalaya pala sava satanata vaya vaya 3 ….hi…. maha vasaniya cidivi vaherala pala sava sata na di.

Translation: Naga residing at Talahaya settled the debt that he4 had incurred and caused the cessation of [his] ‘slavery’ in the royal monastery of Ekadora. Transliteration: 1 Talahaya vasana Naga 2 tamaha vasa naya namaha 3 Ekadora-raja-maha-vahara c[i]4 -dava vaharalaya

I Translation: Samana Gana, a resident of Kahabaya, having settled the debt [due from him], caused the cessation of [his] ‘slavery.’ May the fruit of this action be for [the good] of all beings. Transliteration: 1 Kahabaya pataya Samana 2 Gana na kena sadeva vehera3 -laya maha pala sava-sa4 -tanata vayavaya

(17) Rock inscriptions from Mullēgama in Puttalama (sixth century AD).1

(18) Periyakadu-vihāra inscription (c. sixth century AD)3

(19) Inscription from Galkätiyāgama (c. sixth century AD) 5

II Translation: Samana Gana of Dapula-derana, having settled the debt [due from him], caused the cessation of [his] self-imposed ‘slavery.’ The merit [of this action is given] to all beings. Transliteration: 1 Dapula-derana Sama2 -na Gana na [ke]na cadeva 3 sayamala vahara4 -la pala sava-sa5 –tanata III Translation: Dasagapaya, a resident of Kahapuya, having settled the debt [due from him], caused the cessation of his ‘slavery.’ The merit [of this] is given to all beings. Transliteration: 1 Kahapuya pataya Dasa[ga]pa2 -ya na kena sade[va] vahara[la] 3 pala sava-satanata IV Translation: Daya, residing at Kahapuya, having settled the debt [due from him], caused the cessation of [his] self-imposed ‘slavery.’ The merit [of this] is given to all beings. Transliteration: 1 Kahapuya vasana Daya [ne ke-] 2 -na cadeva sayamala vaha3 -rala pala sava-satanata V Translation: Rayana Gana, residing at [Ga]ragamaya, having settled the debt [due from him], caused the cessation of [his] ‘slavery.’ The fruit of this is given to all beings.

1 Dias (1991): 99. Written in later Brāhmi script and in old Sinhalese language of the fifth / sixth century AD. 2

Dias leaves the term vaharala un-translated in this record.

3

Paranavitāna (1962): 1-3.

4 Pāli: Nāga cf. Paranavitāna (1962): 3 note 12. Nāga is a male name. Female version is Nāgā as in the Sihalavatthu 62.

5

107

Paranavitāna (1962): 3-8.

Transliteration: 1 [Ga]ragamaya 2 vasana Raya3 -na Gana na kena 4 ci[davi vaha]rala 5 [pa]la sa [vasata]nata

(22) Records from Galkätiyegama, Divigan-dahē Kōrale, Hiriyāla Hatpattu in Kurunegala (sixth century AD) I

(20) Inscription in Ambagasväva (c. sixth century AD)1 I Translation: Kasapa of Dekenea-ereya having completed a hundred journeys on account of the debt binding his feet to the royal monastery of Mayagara, and having thus settled that debt, caused the cessation of [his] ‘slavery,’ Mayadava, the trustee of the monastery having conducted the [ceremony of] debtdriving. Transliteration: 1 Dekena-ereya Kasapa Pasa Mayagara-raja2 maha-vaharata paya-vasa-nayata ya3 -na saya di e na kena sadeva vaharala 4 Mayadava vaharaladana naya-narada pavatavaya II Translation: Hail! Kasapa Pasa of Dekena-ereya, having settled the debt by which this [personage] was subjected to the royal monastery of Mayagara, caused the cessation of [his] ‘slavery.’ Transliteration: 1 Si Dekena-ereya Kasapa 2 Pasa Mayagara raja-maha3 vahare mayala vasa na [k]e[na] si4 -deva vaharala

Translation: Dapula (Di)rana, Samana and Gananana, freed [themselves] from self imposed ‘slavery.’4 [May] the merit [be] to all beings. Transliteration: 1 Dapula (Di)rana Samana Gananana cadiva 2 sayamala vaharala pala sava satanata. II Translation: .. .. .. .. .. na residing at Kihapuya freed [himself] from self imposed ‘slavery.’ [may the merit be] to all beings. Transliteration: 1 Kihapuya vasana .. .. .. .. .. na cadiva saya2 mala vaharala sava satanata.

(23) Two records from Maraluvāva Mahagalboda Māgoda Kōrale Vä-davilli Hatpattu, in Kurunegala (sixth century AD). I Translation: ……………..from self-imposed ‘slavery.’ .. .. .. .. ..

(21) Record from Rājangane Mi-oyen-egoda Korale, Vanni Hatpattu, in Kurunegala (sixth century AD)2 Translation: ………. residing at Vilagama ……….self imposed ‘sl[avery’]……..Patayana [freed]…………..from ‘slavery’ imposed by another. . May this merit [be shared by] all beings3

Transliteration: .. .. .. .. .. cayamala5 vaharala…….. II Translation: ……………freed from self-imposed ‘slavery.’ Transliteration: .. .. .. .. …cadavi sayamala vaharala

Transliteration: 1 Vilagama vasana .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 2 sayamala va. .. .. Patayana sa .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 3 alamala vahirala pala sava satanata

1

Paranavitāna (1962): 8-11.

2

These records nos. 21-24 appear in Wijaerathne- (1952): 116-117. He translates sayamala vahirala as ‘tamarind timber.’ Cf. App. 1: 98-99 on Wijerathne’s reading of cidavi vaharala. 3 Wijerathne translates sayamala vahirala as ‘tamarind timber.’ But he does not translate this particular record. I read alamala vaharala as ‘slavery imposed by another’ opposed to sayamala vaharala as ‘self imposed slavery’ as mentioned by Paranavitāna (1962): 1-11.

4 Wijerathne reads cadiva sayamala vaharala as ‘Tamarind timber [was] caused to be cut’. The same reading is applied to the other records read by him: nos. 22.ii, 23, 24. 5 As Wijerathne (1952): 117 note 55 mentions ‘c’ in cayamala could be a false restoration for ‘s’.

108

Transliteration:

(24) A record from Nuvarakanda, Devamädi Kōrale, Devamädi Hatpattu, in Kurunegala (sixth century AD)

1 2 3 4

Translation: 1 Lagasana Vijaya-gana residing at Madaravilaya 2 freed [himself] from self-imposed ‘slavery.’1

Talahapava vasana Naga, (Ta)mada vasana Panamaha Ekadora raja maha vahara (ca)dava vaharala.

(28) Fragmentary rock inscriptions from Sangamu Vihāra (sixth –seventh centuries AD)6

Transliteration: 1 Madaravilayaha vasana Lagasana Vijaya-gana 2 cidivi sayamila vahirala.

I Translation: ……….made …..(free) from ‘slavery.’7 May the merit be achieved by all beings.

(25) A slab inscription from Sässeruva (fifth-seventh centuries AD) 2

Transliteration: 1 …………….... 2 (dava) vaharala, 3 pala sava satanata.

Translation: Paha……(tu)vala of …….dagama freed [himself] from ‘slavery.’ Transliteration:

II Translation: (The minister ) Cara, the Lord ……..[freed……..]from ‘slavery.’

1 ……dagama Paha……(tu)vala cidavi viherila, 2 kavi……tanadava ……ka….araha.

Transliteration: Mahamalagama lada Caramata maha pata …….(vaha)rala.

of

Mahamalagama

III Translation: …….. of (..………..nayanivi), gave hundred kahavana and freed ……from ‘slavery.’ All…….

(26) A fragmentary rock inscription from Rajangane (sixth –seventh centuries AD) 3

Transliteration: (..………..nayanivi) ……………,sayaka kaha(va) ……di cidavi vaharala sava……

Translation: (For) maintaining ‘slavery’…….. Transliteration: Viherila vata ( ta) . . . . . . .

(29) Rock inscriptions from Paluhangamuva in Kurunegala (sixth –seventh centuries AD)8

(27) A rock inscription from Periyakadu Vihāra (sixth –seventh centuries AD) 4

I Translation: …………ba [caused to] carry out ‘slavery.’9

Translation: Naga5 a resident of Talahapava and Panamaha of Tamada freed [himself] from ‘slavery’ in the Ekadora Raja Maha Vehera.

Transliteration: ……….ba kara vaharala II Translation: ……..patini of Utara……..[caused to] carry out ‘slavery.’ Transliteration: Utara………patini (gana) kara vaharala.

1

Sayamila here could either be a variation of or an error of the scribe for sayamala. 2 Dias (1991): 71. Written in transitional Brāhmi script and old Sinhalese language. 3

Ibid. 43. Written in later Brāhmi script and old Sinhalese language. Dias reads viherila vata as maintaining compulsory service in the monastery.’ And she applies same reading to vaharala vata katu in infra no.32. 4 Ibid. 82. Written in transitional Brāhmi script and old Sinhalese language. 5

Cf. supra 107 note 04.

6

Ibid. 83. Same script and language as former.

7

Dias does not translate vaharala in this record.

8

Dias (1991): 87. Written in later Brāhmi script and old Sinhalese language. 9 Dias reads kara vaharala in these three records as ‘executed the compulsory service in the monastery.’ This expression may be similar to donating slaves to the monastery concerned, or providing funds for the maintenance of slaves in it.

109

III Translation: Jarata-gana of Vatadada [caused to] carry out ‘slavery.’ Transliteration: Vatadada Jarata-gana kara vaharala.

(33) Mulgirigala Vihāra rock inscription in Hambantota (seventh century AD) 4 Translation: 5 1 Hidila-Salihi freed [himself] from ‘slavery.’ 2 Padapagana of Pohopava freed [himself] from ‘slavery.’ Transliteration:

(30)

1 Hidila salihi cidavi vaharala. 2 Pohopava Padapagana cadavi vaharala.

A fragmentary rock inscription from Kasagal Vihāra in Kurunegala (sixth–seventh centuries AD) 1 Translation: ……….kasaba……….of……….pahana…..from ‘slavery.’

(abaka)…….freed

Transliteration: 1 ……….pahana (a) baka (sa) 2 kasabavi ………cidavaya 2 vaharala

(34) Uttimaduwa inscription (seventh century AD)6 Translation: Sagabada who had obtained (the village of) Badala [caused to] carry out ‘slavery.’ Transliteration: 1. Badala lada Sagabadaha kerava 2. (vi)harala

(31) A rock inscription from Talāgama in Colombo (sixth–seventh centuries AD) 2

(35) The Medagama Vihāra inscriptions (seventh-eighth centuries AD) 7

Translation: The minister named Aba residing at Gapa…….parala……freed ….from ‘slavery.’

Rock: I Translation: I, Mihidala Si, caused my daughters to be freed from ‘slavery.’

Transliteration: 1. Gapa……..parala vasana mata Aba(ha) 2. …………cadavi vaharala.

Transliteration: Mihidala Simi dariyana sidava veheralaya. II Translation: The ‘slave’ of Kada Madabi .. .. .. .. .. ..

(32) Slab inscription from Mihintale, Anurādapura (sixth–seventh centuries AD)3

Transliteration: Kada Madabiyana veherala . . . . . .

Translation: (Jayapa….pura ma)……….gave for the purpose of maintaining ‘slavery.’ May the merit [of this action] be achieved by all beings. Transliteration: 1. (jayapa…..pura ma) ……………. 2. vaharala vata katu dina (gupaha kala) ………. 3. (gamaya danakada) mahapala 4. sava satanata.

4 EZ 7: 118-119 = Dias (1991): 34. Same script and language as in the former. 5 Dias (1991): 34 reads cidavi vaharala in each record as ‘made free from compulsory service in the monastery.’ But S. Karunarathne in EZ 7: 118-119, reads them as: 1. ‘Hidila made a vahara on the rock’. 2. ‘Padapagana pf Pohopava made a vaharala’. Cf. also App. 1: 99. 6 EZ 7: 117-118. Later Brāhmi and old Sinhalese. ed & tr. by S. Karunarathne.

1

Dias (1991): 87. Written in later Brāhmi script and Old Sinhalese language. 2

Ibid. 90. Written in later Brāhmi and old Sinhalese language.

3 Ibid. 90. There are three records inscribed in this slab but only the present one deals with slaves or compulsory service. Same script and language as in the former.

7 This inscription is edited as ‘seven Sinhalese inscriptions’ in the EZ 4: 144 ed. & tr. by Paranavitāna. But the other inscriptions were found in different places, and even their content differs from one another. Among this group only one other fragmentary inscription (half a line) refers to ‘slavery,’ written in transitional Brāhmi script and old Sinhalese language.

110

On a step:1

5. 6.

Translation: Paravanakala Salaganaka freed [himself] from ‘slavery’…..

sayaka kahava[na]da pa– la sava-satanata.

II

Transliteration:

1. Gutakadaraha vasana Pa(lama) dama Apama A2. –pahaya-gara-vaharata vaharala vata kata e3. –ka-sayaka kahavana daya pala sava-(satanata).

1. Salaganaka Paravanakala cidavi vahàra…….

III

(36) The inscriptions near the Burrows’ Pavillion.2 (seventh-eighth centuries AD)

1. 2.

Translation:

3.

Maha-daragalaha vasana Pajana Adasana Vasadavayama Apa–haya-gara-vaharata vahala vata kata dajahasa kahavana da pala sava-sa(tanata).

I IV

I, Sadeva Ganaya, the brick-layer, residing in the village of Marayuvahahapa and I , Apa .. va .. .. Apa, gave one hundred kahavana for maintaining ‘slaves’ at the Apahayagara monastery. The merit [is given] to all beings.

1. 2. 3.

II

VII

I, Pa(lama)dama Apa, residing at Gutakadara, gave one hundred kahavana to the Apahayagara monastery for the maintenance of ‘slaves.’ The merit [is given] to all beings.

1. 2. 3. 4.

III We, Pajana, Adasana, and Vasadavaya, residing in Mahadaragala, gave two thousand kahavana to the Apahayagara monastery for the maintenance of ‘slaves.’ The merit [is given] to all beings.

1. 2. 3.

I, Gana Apa of Madararayana, gave one hundred hunakahavana to the Apayagara monastery for the maintenance of ‘slaves.’ The merit [is given] to all beings.3

I, Gana Apa of Lava-arana, gave one hundred kahavana to the Apahayagara monastery for the maintenance of ‘slaves.’ The merit [is given] to all beings. VIII We, Paya-vāpara, Vahana, Adasana, Varayana, and Ganaya of Nadanagumu gave one hundred kahavana to the Apahagara monastery for the maintenance of ‘slaves.’ The merit of this [action is given] to all beings.

I Marayuvahahapa- gamayaha va–sana ulavadha Sadeva Ganayama ca Apa .. va .. .. Apama ca Apahayagara-vaha[ra] vaharala va[ta] kata eka-

1

Nadanagumu Paya-vāpara Vahana Adasana Va–rayana Ganayama Apahagara-vaharata varala va–ta kata eka-sayaka kahavana da maha pa[la] savasatanata

(37) Anurādhapura slab inscription of Kassapa V (c. 929-939 AD)4

VII

Transliteration:

Lava-arana Gana Apama Apaha–ya-gara-vaharata vaharala va–ta kata eka-sayaka kavahana da pala sava-satanata

VIII

IV

1. 2. 3. 4.

Madararayana Gana Apama Apayagara-vahara–ta vaharala vata kata eka saya huna-kavana da pala sava –satanata

Translation: (l. 49-50) … At the expiration of every year, 1000 [akas] of gold [shall be given] to [meet] the expenses of their robes; the two payalas [sowing extent of land] in Veligamu for their servants and the men thereof as serfs. (l.53) when there is a surplus [in the temple revenue] after defraying the expenses connected with temple decorations, offerings, repairs, and the wages of monks’ servants.5 Transliteration: (l.49-50) …satar akak ran isa havurudu nimiyata sivur milayat ran dahasak isa mehekaruvant’ Veligamu depyala isa mehi bad minisun meheyat isa … (l.53) …ituruvak deyin sagun dasan vata kam navam puja situvam kot vediyak eta ….

2 EZ 4: 136-141. Written in form of ancient Sinhalese script and language. Ed. & tr. by Paranavitāna.

4 EZ 1, no.4: 41-57. Contains a long text of 56 lines, but only the lines that contain/suggest the meaning ‘slave’ is noted here. The inscription is mainly about the rules and regulations for the administration of monastic property. All records in the vols. 1 & 2 in EZ are ed. & tr. by Wickramasinghe.

3 The fifth and the sixth records do not mention the term vaharala or any of its forms. But the individuals offer money to the monastery and express the desire to share the merit.

5 The editor reads this as ‘servants’ perhaps due to ethical concerns or because the term ‘slaves’ / ‘serfs’ does not match the context based on ethical concerns.

Dias (1991): 82. In the second record only the term vaharala could be deciphered. Same script and language as in the former.

111

(ll.45-46)…….kamiyak veherdasun jivelkot dunuvakmut atvehera bad tuvak tanhi ukas pamunu patta kara kumabur arub ay no valandiya yutu Salb B: (l.20) ……vatmidi suvisi janaku isa eknat pa bagin isa…….

(38) Kaludiyapokuna slab inscription, no. 430 (c. 950-953 AD)1 Translation: (l.30-32) Their lordships who, without reason, deprive the hired labourers and serfs of their nimi and maintenance lands (divel) and ……are not to live in this dwelling place. (l.34) ….neat cattle and buffaloes, serfs and men [belonging to this temple], shall not cultivate ukas and pamunu land from other villages.

(40) Puliyankulam slab-inscription (C/8) of Uda mahaya (tenth/ early 11th century AD)4 Translation: (ll.19) ….protection of villages, lands, serfs, and people [belonging to the monastery]…..

Transliteration: (l.30-32) ..nu isā nokam b[ä]la-dasnat [nimi] divel [valahana] vat-himiyanud ….me avasä novasanu…. (l.34-35) .. geri mivun das minisun ukas pamunu govikam nokaranu...

Transliteration: (ll. 19) …gam bim das minisun rakmat….

(39) The two tablets of Mahinda IV at Mihintale (c. 975-991)2

(41) Medirigiri slab inscription of Mahinda VI (11th /12th century AD)5

Translation: Slab A: (ll. 7-9) [thus] inrespect of the great community of monks living in the Vihāra, as wells as in respect of the employés, the serfs, [their respective] duties, and the receipts and disbursements, his majesty passed these [following] regulations. (ll.41-42) From the householders who live on the vihāra lands, ground rent shall be levied in a fitting manner on behalf of the vihāra, but not from the vihāra serfs and employés. (l. 43) The property of well-conducted serfs shall not be appropriated by the employees,… (ll.45-46) Unless it be a property given as ‘a living’ to the employés and to the serfs of the vihāra no paddy fields, orchards, & etc. belonging to At-vehera shall be held by them on mortgages or as gifts or on leases. Salb B: (l.20) ……to each of the female slaves worked in the paddy pounding hall and/or alms hall3 one paya [of land];……

Translation: (l.30) ..Taxes shall not be levied from villages and lands which are obliged to pay a share of harvest without taking the service of the temple serfs…… (l.32) …..harvest of tenants in hospital lands and property of well conducted serfs [of hospital] shall be considered as belonging to the hospital6…. Transliteration: (l.30) ……..veherdasun mehe no genä [karavuvara bad gambim badu no ganna i]sā…. (l.32) ….vedhalgambimä kudīn satu vī sudasun vat vedhal satusē tabanu [isā]…….

(42) The slab inscription marked D/8 of Queen Līlāvathi (late 11th /early 12th century AD)7

Transliteration: Slab A: (ll.7-9) ……me vehera vasana mahabiksang himiyant isa kamiyant isa dasnat isa katayutu isa labanu diyayutu se isa vivarunen ek se kot me sirit tabana ladi… (ll.41-42) ..veher dasun ha kamiyanmuth veher bima hun kudin gen bim sovas nisiseyin veherat gatayutu (l. 43)……..sudasun vat veheratmut kamiyan nogatayutu me vehe

Translation: (ll.23-25) [The Queen] granted …., one yāla from kilimnā, 30 serfs and 150 [heads of] oxen and buffaloes…, Transliteration: (ll.23-25) ……Kilimnā-viyalin yālak hā vahal tisak hā elasarak mi-sarakin yelasik…..

1 EZ 3, no.27: 260-269. The record declares rules and regulations for the administration of lands belonging to the temple concerned. Ed. tr. by Paranavitāna.

4 EZ 1 no. 15: 182-190. This is a slab inscription of 44 lines, and it declares rules for general maintenance and protection of monastic property and continuation of monastic duties.

2

EZ 1, no.7: 75-113. Two long texts of 58 lines each inscribed in the obverse and reverse in a slab. Slab A-about rules and regulations in the monastery and Slab B-about emoluments of servants.

5

3

Wickramasinghe does not translate mindi, but reads vat as ‘hired’ thus gives vatmindi as ‘hired mindi servants.’ But Wimalakitti (1957): 42 referring to vathal: (hal-‘hall’) paddy pounding halls and vataraka or vatanhalgeya: alms halls, vatavideniya: lands given to women work in these halls, midi: female slaves, argues that vatmidi were female slaves who worked in paddy pounding halls/alms halls. Cf. also Chap. 4: 55 note 03.

EZ 6, no. 8: 39-58. Ed. & tr. by Paranavitāna.

6

This is my rendering. The editor of the record interprets sudasun vat’ as ‘individual ownership’ Cf. EZ 6: 56 note 9. Such a meaning does not seem to fit EZ 1, no. 7(A l.43): 93. Cf. supra record no. 39. 7 EZ 1 no. 14: 176-182. These are among the other donations made by the queen Līlāvathi.

112

(43) The Lāhugala inscription (c. 1153-1186 AD)1 Translation: (ll.15-17) Fields measuring a total (sowing extent) of two yālas from …neriya and Ran(n) Pattu, measuring one yāla (of sowing extent) each were given away to ‘slaves’ as heritable lands. Transliteration: (ll.15-17) ….vahalu[nta..] –neriyehi yahala hā Ran(n) pattu yahala hā deyāla pamunu kota dunneyi.

(46) Kālinga-park gal-āsana inscription (c. 1189-1196 AD)5 Translation: (l.2)….also giving them [people of Lanka] titles, divel-lands,6 serfs, cattle, permanent grants, heritages, gold, gems, clothes, ornaments, and such [other types of ] wealth he [Nissankamalla] relieved them from suffering7… Transliteration: (l.2) …nam gam vahal sarak pamunu parapuru ran ruvan vasthrābharanādī bohō vastu dī suvapatkaravā…..

(47) Rankot dāgaba gal-āsana inscription (c. 1189-1196 AD)8

(44) Polonnaruwa galpota slab inscription (c. 1187-1196 AD)2 Translation: (A l.19) …..provided them [people of Lanka]with ‘livings’, serfs, cattle, permanent grants and inheritance, gold and silver vessels, domestic utensils and other riches …..….. (B l.24)…to the Tooth and Bowl relics he offered his son and daughter, and redeemed them by presenting in their stead [a model of] a dāgaba in solid gold with other valuables.

Translation: (l.2)….also giving them [people of Lanka] titles, divel-lands, serfs, cattle, permanent grants, heritages, gold, gems, clothes, ornaments, and such [other types of ] wealth and made them prosperous…….. Transliteration: (l.2) …nam gam vahal sarak pamunu parapuru ran ruvan vastrābharanādī bohō vastu dī suvapatkaravā…..

Transliteration: (A l.19) ….divel vahal sarak pamunu parapuru ran ridī valan gehila ādī bohō sampat tabā dī… (B l.24)…daladāpātradhātūnvahansēta putanuvanvahansē hā diyaniyanvahansē hā pudā ghanarandāgabak etuluvu dhana pudā galavā….

(45) Polonnaruwa Kālinga forest Gal-āsana inscription (c. 1189-1196 AD)3 Translation: (l.2) ….also giving them [people of Lanka] titles, divel-lands,4 serfs, cattle, permanent grants, heritages, gold, gems, clothes, ornaments, and such [other types of ] wealth and made them prosperous……..

(48) Piriti-dāna-mandapa rock inscription (c. 1189-1196 AD)9 Translation: (l.9) )….also giving them [people of Lanka] divel-lands, serfs, cattle, permanent grants, heritages, gold, gems, clothes, ornaments, and such [other types of ] wealth he enriched them.…….. Transliteration: (l.9) …divel vahal sarak pamunu parapuru ran ruvan vastrābharanādī ne (ka)vastu dī mahajanayā samrddha kota…..

Transliteration: (l.2) …nam gam vahal sarak pamunuparapuru ran ruvan vasthrābharanādī bohō vastu dī suvapatkaravā…..

1

EZ 6, no. 27: 126-134. Register a donation of a village to a monk in the Gadalādeniya monastery and grant of lands to the temple ‘slaves.’ Ed. & tr. by Abeysinghe. 2

EZ 2, no. 17: 98-123. A detailed account of Nissankamalla’s services to his people and his military prowess. 3

EZ 2, no. 19: 125-127. Another repetition of boastful panegyric of Nissankamalla. 4

Land given as payment for service Cf. EZ 2: 127 note 5.

5 EZ 2, no. 21: 130-134. Another repetition of boastful panegyric of Nissankamalla. 6

Land given as payment for service Cf. EZ 2: 127 note 5.

7

From inordinate extractions of fine from former kings (l.1).

8

EZ 2, no. 22: 134--137. Another repetition of boastful panegyric of Nissankamalla. 9 EZ 2, no.29: 165-178. About the donations of the king Nissankamalla to his people.

113

(49) A record of Nissankamalla, found near the Vān Äla, Pollonnaruwa (c. 1189-1196 AD)1 Translation: (B ll.7-23) Whoever engaged as custodian of the treasury, ….should, in case he requires anything in the shape of gold, silver, money, iron, lands, ‘slaves,’ or cattle, take permission [from the proper authorities] and enjoy them having made them his own…. Transliteration: (ll.7-23) Bhandāra ra[ksā] vehi siti[na] yammä kenakun …..tamahata vuvamanā ratran ridī masuran yakada divel vahal sarak ādīvu yammä deyak kiyā ilvā genä e amutu [va]landat….

(52) Girithalē stone seat inscription of Nissankamalla (c. 1189-1196 AD)4 Translation: (l. 2B) …bestowing names, lands, ‘slaves’, cattle, heritable lands, gold, gems clothes and ornaments he [king Nissankamalla] healed [people of Sri Lanka from their sufferings]. Transliteration: (l. 2B) …nam gam vahal sarak pamunu parapuru ran ruvan vasthrābharanādī bohō vastu dī suvapatkaravā…..

(53) Dambulla rock inscription of Nissasnkamalla (c. 1189-1198 AD)5 (50) Katugaha-galgē pillar inscription (c. 1189-1196 AD)2 Translation: (ll.6-10) …We desire that you live possessing money, grain, male and female ‘slaves’…. Transliteration: (ll.6-10) .. dhana-dhānya dāsi-dāsayan äti vä jīvat-vannā kämättamha…

(51) Slab inscription of Nissankamalla of Ramba Vihāra (c. 1189-1196 AD)3 Translation: (l. 9-11) ….lifted taxes for seven years and he [king Nissankamalla] gifted manifold items of wealth such as tenure lands, ‘slaves’, cattle, heritable lands, titles and offices, gold and silver bowls, pearls, gems clothes and ornaments…… Transliteration: (l. 9-11) …..sat auruddakata aya hära divel vahal sarak pamunu parapuru nam tanaturu ran ridīvalan mutu mänik vasthrābharanādī noek vastu dī…..

1

EZ 3, no.11: 149-153. About the donations of the king Nissankamalla to his people. Ed. & tr. by Paranavitāna. 2

EZ 3, no.35: 325-331. This addresses the people in the southern part of the island (Rōhana) and a usual boast of the king Nissankamalla. The same editor as above. 3 EZ 5, no. 43: 430-435. Usual panegyric of Nissankamalla. Ed. & tr. by Godakumbura.

Translation: (l.5) He6 [thereafter] relinquished the revenue for five years in favour of those inhabitants of Lanka …., by gifts of divel lands, serfs, and cattle, by restoring permanent grants and inheritances,… Transliteration: (l.5) … Lankāvāsinta pas havuruddakata aya hera divel vahal sarak pamunu parapuru hā …

(54) Polonnaruwa häta-dāgē portico inscription (c. 1189-1198 AD)7 Translation: (ll.9) …. giving them [people of Lanka] titles, lands, serfs, cattle, heritable grants, gold, gems, clothes, ornaments, and such [other types of ] wealth and made them prosperous…… (ll.17-19) ….To the venerated ‘Tooth-relic’ and the ‘Bowlrelic’ he offered his own son, the sub-king Vīrabāhu and his daughter Sarvāngasundarī and to redeem them he caused a dāgaba of solid gold to be made…... Transliteration: (ll.9) …nam gam (vahal) sarak pamunu parapuru ran ruvan vasthrābharanādī bohō vastu dī suvapatkaravā….. (ll. 17-19) … daladā pāthra Dhāthūnvahansēta urehi dā Vīrabāhu mahapānanvahansē hā Sabbāgasundarīnvahansē hā pudā dedenāvahansē galavanu pinis(ë ghā)naran dāgabak karavā ……..

4 EZ 5, no. 44: 436-442. Usual panegyric of Nissankamalla. The same editor as above. 5 EZ 1 no. 9: 121-135. These are among many other grants to inhabitants by the king Nissankamalla. 6

The king Nissankamalla.

7 EZ 2, no.14: 84-90. Serfs are among the donations to inhabitants by the king Nissankamalla, includes his usual boast and other donations.

114

(58) The Ruvanvelisēya inscription of queen Kalyānawathi (12th /13th centuries AD)4

(55) Polonnaruwa rankot dāgaba inscription (c. 1189-1198)1

Translation: (ll.16-17) …. Pādeniyē pän nagana gänun damālē bälū magulmidian mālākārīn…..

Translation: (C ll.1-4) Gō mahisha dhana dhānya dāsi dāsayan (hā) divel gam….

Transliteration: (ll.16-17) …the women who fill the foot basins with water, auspicious female ‘slaves’5 who looked after the precincts of the stūpa, the garland making women…..

Transliteration: (ll.2-3) He also gave them cattle, buffaloes, money and grain, male and female serfs, divel villages…..

(56) Gadalādeniya rock inscription (12th /13th century AD)2 Translation: (l. 20) maintenance lands, ‘slaves,’ cattle…….and [the sowing extent of]…seed from batgama….nara;… Transliteration: (l. 20) … di(vel vaha)l sarak s……nara bathgamin pidu biju…..

(57) Galapāta Vihāra rock inscription (12th –13th centuries AD)3 Translation: (ll.12-13) ….to serve the monks residing in this temple the following ‘slaves’ [were granted] from among the ‘slaves’ belonged hereditarily to our family, the purchased slaves and those bought paying gold from the funds of this temple… Transliteration: (l.12-13) ….mema viharayehi vedahidinā vahansēvarundēta atpāmehe karana paridden apa anvāyagātavahalin hā ranvahalin hā mē vihārayehi mudunkaraduyen ran dīlā genä lū….

1 EZ 2, no. 23: 137-142. Serfs are among the donations to inhabitants by the king Nissankamalla. 2 EZ 4, no.12: 90-110. A grant to the monastery, the record is fragmentary. Ed. & tr. by Paranavitāna. 3 EZ 4, no.25: 196-212. About the landed property and ‘slaves’ belonged to the monastery.

4

EZ 4, no. 33: 253-260. Records various religious activities.

5

Cf. also EZ 4: 260 note 4.

115

society.8 However, drawing information from Buddhagōsha’s commentaries for a study on Sri Lankan history needs caution in order to distinguish local historical detail from that of India.

Appendix 3:

Sri Lankan literary sources The objective here is to present a brief outline of Sri Lankan literary sources used in this study providing the date, the author, a summary of the content and an estimate of the accuracy of the historical material offered. The literary activities emerged in ancient Sri Lanka after the introduction of Buddhism (i.e. third century BC) and continued until the fall of monarchy (1815).1 Thus historical, political, religious, and medical treatises were composed in Pāli, Sinhalese and also in Sanskrit. Sīhalavaththūpakarana seems to be the oldest literary source composed on the island. This is a collection of 82 Sinhalese folk tales compiled in Pāli by Rev. Dhammanandi possibly in 88-76 BC. Various accounts reported in this source emphasise the importance of doing meritorious activities and also reveal punishments awaiting those who committed religious offences. The climax of the Pāli works on the island occurred with the arrival of the monk Buddhagōsha from India in early fifth century AD who compiled, in Pāli, the commentaries for main Buddhist texts: the five Nikāyas, the Abhidhammapitaka, and the Vinayapitaka.2 The chart in page 119 displays the Buddhist texts and the Pāli commentaries composed by Buddhagōsha. In the fifth century AD Buddhagōsha wrote commentaries on several Buddhist texts as can be seen in the above mentioned chart.3 Although these commentaries contain Indian material to a certain extent, they also reflect the social and political history of the island. There was a considerable body of Sinhalese literary work on the island when Buddhagōsha arrived. In his commentaries he refers to and quotes from works such as the Mūla or Mahāatthakathā,4 a commentary on the dwellers of the Uttara-Vihāra at Anurādhapura, Mahāpaċcāri or ‘Great Raft’5, Kurundiatthakathā.6 Apart from these works, Buddhagōsha often quotes the authority of Porāna.7 Such elements in his commentaries assure the inclusion of material from the local 1

The literary activities continued even after this but this study only concentrates on the monarchical period.

2 Godakumbura (1955): 3. Norman (1978): 43, points out that Buddhagōsha himself explains, in the Smp, that the reason for writing in Pāli was to enable foreign monks to read his works.

Vimāna stories are a set of Buddhist discourses containing 85 stories with an objective to show that the human world offers a number of opportunities for performing meritorious acts and to refute the view that there is no existence after the present life and that there is no resultant effect to any action. Vimāna stories used in the present study are commentaries written on these stories. Besides these, the island also possessed a series of Vamsa (lit. dynasty) literary works.9 Of these, the most famous among the extant Chronicles is Mahāvamsa written in Pāli verse in four instalments, an important source for the present study. The first 37 chapters covering the history of the island up to the end of the reign of Mahāsēna (325-352 AD) were composed in the sixth century AD by one Rev. Mahānāma of Mahāvihāra.10 In the 12th century AD, soon after the demise of Parākramabāhu I (AD 1153-1186), Rev. Dhammakitti continued the chronicle contributing 40 chapters, of which 18 were devoted to the life of the late king. The third phase of the Chronicle was compiled by an anonymous monk in the 14th century AD after the reign of Parākramabāhu IV of Kurunegala. Five out of the 11 chapters were dedicated to the life of Parākramabāhu II (12361271 AD) and four of the rest to his father and son Vijayabāhu II and IV. Rev. Tibbotuvāwē Sumangala wrote the last eight chapters during the reign of Kithsiri Rājasingha (AD 17461780). The last two chapters, containing a synopsis of the life and a panegyric of this king, cover more than half of the author’s labour.11 Although the entire work was originally called Mahāvamsa, in the European edition by Geiger this name is ascribed only to the first part of the chronicle and the rest is called Cūlavamsa, though it preserves the consecutive numeration of the original chapters. As noted above, the chronicle was written by thēravāda monks and the aim was to compose religious and political history of the island and sheds very little light on social history including ‘slavery.’ Saddharmaratnāvaliya is the most important prose work of the Dambadeniya period (13th century AD) written by Rev. Dēvarakshita Jayabāhu Dhammakitti of Gadalādeniya. This is based on the pāli Dhammapadattakathā written circa fifth century AD in Sri Lanka and is used by a number of scholars as an important source of information of the island in the fifth and the 13th centuries AD.12 Villgammula Sangarāja (early 14th century AD) who edited Mahābōdhivamsa of Rev. Upatiśsa also compiled

3

Some consider Samaňtapāsādikā was the most important work of Buddhagōsha. But his first work was Visuddhimaġgha Cf. Malalasēkara (1994): 82. Besides these scholarly labours, commentaries on three books of the Kuddhakanikāya – Kuddhakapātha, Sūttanipātha and Dhammapada- are also ascribed to Buddhagōsha. [Malalasēkara (1994): 95].

4

This is also called Atthakatha of dwellers of Mahāvihara (name of the leading monastery of Thēravāda Buddhist sect during the Anurādhapura period.) at Anurādhapura.

5

So named because it was composed on a raft somewhere in the island.

6

Also called Kurundi, since it was composed in Kurundavelū vihāra.

7

Malalasēkara mentions that ‘the Porānas merely refers to teachers whose expositions were not necessarily embodied in commentaries but handed down in various schools by oral tradition, sometimes with mnemonic verses to help the memory, and that Buddhagōsha refers to such traditional explanations as the anonymous Porānas.’ (1994): 92, note 1).

8

Áriyapāla (1956): 18.

9 There are many other vamsa literary works such as Dīpavamsa (fourth century AD), Thūpavamsa (13th century AD), Dhāthuvamsa and Mahābōdivamsa (tenth century AD) but their content is largely political and religious. 10

Malalasēkara (1994): 143. According to Malalasēkara Mahāvamsatīka were written before AD 670 which refers to several lost historical sources, implying that the island had a rich literary tradition by the time Mahāvamsatīka were compiled. Cf. ibid. (1994): 133-134 for more.

11

12

Perēra (1961): 32-33. Also cf. Gombrich (1995): 29-30.

Cf. Áriyapāla (1956): 29-33, where he deals with the doubts which question the validity of Sdlkya as a source that provides information about the island in the fifth & the 13th century AD.

116

Simhalabhōdivamsaya. In general this chronicle was about the history of the sacred Bō-Tree.1 Saddharmālankāraya is a compilation of Indian and Sri Lankan Buddhist legends in Sinhalese by the author of Saddharmaratnāvaliya in the 14th century AD, and the present work repeats certain accounts in Saddharmaratnāvaliya. Furthermore, it also cites accounts mentioned in Sīhalavaththūpakarana in a different version.2 Rasavāhini (compiled in the Gampola period c. mid to late 14th century AD) is a collection of 103 stories written in Pāli prose interspersed with verse. The work has two sections. The first part contains 40 accounts connected with India and the second part contains 63 accounts dealing with incidents in Sri Lanka. This was written by Rev. Vēdēha of the Vanavāsa school.3 The work is generally attributed to the 14th century AD. But the sources of the work seem much older. The scholars have generally agreed that Rasavāhini is based on Sahaśsavathūpakarana.4 Anāgatavamsaya or Metēbudusirita (the life of the future Buddha Maitrēya) is a Sinahlese work based on the Pāli Anāgatavamsa and Buddhavamsa, composed by Parākkrama Mahāthēra at the request of king Parākramabāhu IV of Kurunegala (1303-1333). Rājāvaliya or ‘the lineage of kings’ mirrors the political history rather than a religious or social history of the island. This records political events, and it appears to have attempted to produce a continuous history of the rulers of Ceylon up to Vimaladharmasūriya II, and was composed in Sinhalese in 17th century.5 This work is considered to be especially useful for the period after 1359.6 Niti-Niganduwa, is a compendium of laws and regulations that prevailed in the ‘last days’ of the Kändyan period (from about late 17th century until the 1815 AD), it mainly focuses on property and inheritance, and dedicates the last two sections of the first chapter to ‘slavery’. Strikingly, none of these literary works except Niti-Niganduwa was devoted to the present social history of the island, with their main interest being to eulogise the religion and the deeds of monarchs who were the patrons of these establishments. Any social detail including that of ‘slaves’ in these works is incidental or has to be filtered through panegyrics of monarchs and eulogies of Buddhism. Furthermore, the sources on the institution of ‘slavery’ in the island are significantly limited to certain periods. It can be noted that certain accounts are repeated in two or three

1

Rāhula (1956): introd. 41.

2

For e.g. the account of Nakula that occurs in ch. 56 of Sīhalavatthū also occurs in the Sdlkya 564-567 in Saddhātiśsa ed. (1934).

3

Rāhula (1956): introd. 35.

4

Ibid. introd. 36.

literary sources. For instance, some of the stories in Sīhalavatthupakārana appear in Saddharmālankāraya and also in Rasavāhini with the intention of glorifying meritorious deeds done by various individuals. Moreover, although some of these stories may reflect contemporary incidents, most cases referring to ‘slavery’ or ‘slaves’ are datable to the time of Saddātissa (first century BC). Thus probably, many similar cases that happened in times anterior or contemporary to the compilation of these sources were not recorded, as they did not appeal to the writers whose objective was not to compile social history but to encourage people to perform meritorious deeds. Moreover, even epigraphic records attempt to glorify political or religious services of the monarchs who set them up. Luckily, some detail about the society of the Kändyan period is available from few Englishmen who happened to be in the island during this time. But even such records require cautious observation to comprehend reality avoiding racial and religious prejudices. One of the important sources in this concern is Robert Knox who was taken prisoner in 1660 and was kept in Kandy for almost 20 years, after he reached the island as a shipwrecked sailor.7 It is important to investigate the reliability of his evidence, i.e. whether it is first hand or second hand, or speculative. Thus, it is necessary to see where he was detained, with whom he had close contacts, and how he lived during his detention. According to K. W. Goonewardena,8 Knox’s writing itself hints that he and the other ‘white’ captives were thrown into close contact with low caste people or ‘slaves’.9 He writes that there were ‘slaves’ of foreign origin in the island. He continues that, at Eladattha, where he lived from 1670 to1679, he had to be cautious to protect his property from thieves because among his neighbours there were ‘many Thieves of outlandish people that are either slaves to great men or inhabitants, whereas the natural born Cingulay so much abhors Thevere..’10 (my italics). Possibly, the reference to ‘outlandish people’ was Indians reduced to ‘slavery’ or their descendants. Moreover, Knox mentions that he was ‘too small’ to have any acquaintance or discourse with the Great men at the Court.11 This remark again reflects the lower social status applied to him by the locals. Knox himself admits that English men, for being ‘beef-eaters’ and for not washing having been at stool were considered unclean and abominable by Sinhalese, presumably, of all social ranks.12 It is possible that Knox and his fellow English captives lived among the communities of low caste people and ‘slaves’ in Lagundeniya because those entrusted to look after Knox and other Englishmen were palanquin-bearers of the king and those who looked after the king’s cattle.13 He also refers to the poverty of the people amongst whom he was quartered14 7

Knox introd. 7.

8

Goonewardena (1958): 39-52.

9

Ibid. (1958): 42.

10

Knox Autobiography 91/93.

11

Knox 172.

12

Knox 67.

5

Rājāvaliya also has a few provisional versions titled after the district where they were composed, for example Vanni-Rajavaliya (Godakumbura (1955): 127-128). 6

Referring to the variety of sources used by the author of Rājāvaliya Godakumbura (1961): 79 points out that it ‘resembles a modern PhD thesis.’ Cf. also ibid. 83 for an account of the plagiarised title Simhala Rājāvaliya by a missionary. The author appears to be distorting the history of Sri Lanka to eulogise English rule.

13

Knox 143. Those who looked after royal cattle and who were royal palanquin bearers were either slaves or low caste people: Cf. D’Oyly (1928): 16. 14

117

Cf. e.g. Knox 143, 150, 188; Autobiography 86/88.

further assuring that he was among the lowest stratum of the society: ‘slaves’ and low caste people. Thus Knox’s account on the condition of ‘slaves’ in the Kändyan kingdom during his stay appears to be plausible as he lived among them.1 Yālpāna vaipavamālai was composed by the poet (pulavar) Madagal Mailvāķana in 1736 under the patronage of Jan Makkara, the Dutch governor of Yāpāpatuna (Jaffna). Mailvāķana has used brief historical legends and accounts on ancient Jaffna such as ‘Kaailayamalaya’, ‘Wayyapadal’, ‘Pararajashekaran Ula’ and ‘Rāja Mure’. Of these the oldest account goes back only upto 14th or 15th century AD. John D’Oyly, an Englishman, came to the island when part of it was an English colony, among the first batch of civil servants, and later became fluent in Sinhalese. His Diary provides social and political events from 1796-1815 and his work, The constitution of the Kandyan Kingdom, provides a fair picture of the social and judicial set up of Kandyan provinces from 1815, which may reflect some social features of the monarchical times (ie. prior to 1815) in this region. Some of his collected information is from secondary sources such as Sawer’s Digest. Another important source on the Kandyan period is A. C. Lawrie’s Gazetteer of the Central Province containing demographic and social information of villages in the Central Province. Moreover, the primary and secondary material Lawrie collected for two projects that were left unfulfilled are published in three volumes as Kandyan law and History but commonly known as his Manuscripts (Mss). Although there are three volumes, it is the third volume that contains information on ‘slavery’. The evidence, in the Gazetteer and in the Manuscripts, is not confined only to the time after 1815, but also to Saka 1174 (1252 AD)2 and to AD 1685 and to 1714.3 Furthermore, two volumes on Political and statistical account of Ceylon by C. Pridham (1849) devotes only one short chapter of 11 pages to discuss ‘slavery’ on the island, of which a considerable proportion is on ‘slavery’ during the British rule towards abolition i.e. after 1815. He states that his sources include many unpublished data on the island and was aimed at English readers. Finally, it is clear that there is no ancient source dealing solely on social history of the island, let alone ‘slavery’, other than the Niti-Niganduwa. It is at this point that the reports or archived information of Englishmen become vital to study the social set up at least of the Kandyan times, as they also contain detail of Sinhalese society before the English occupancy.

1 But it should be noted that as Goonewardene (1958): 47 pointed out linguistic, geographical and social limits along with his religious and racial pride and prejudice may have led Knox to produce conclusions that contradict his own evidence. This may have been further aggravated by his limited education and setting out a career as a sailor when he was still very young. Thus is not possible to expect him to analyse, compare and collate the evidence in order to provide a balanced interpretation. 2

A Saka year is 78 years behind a Gregorian year.

3

Lawrie Mss 3: 300.

118

Tipitaka1

Suttapitakaya Collection of five discourses.

Vinayapitakaya : collection of Four texts. Commentary: Samantapāsadikā/Vinayattakathā.

Abhidhaŕmapitakaya Collection of seven texts. Commentary: Sammōhavinōdani.

Dighanikāya Commentary: Sumangalavilāsini.

Majjhimanikāya Commentary: Papanċasudāni.

Samyutthanikāya Commentary: Saratthappakāsini.

Anguttharanikāya Commentary: Manōrathapūrani.

Kuddhakanikāya A set of 15 texts, 18 in the Burmese edition. Commentary: Paramatthajōtika

1

The literal meaning of Tipitaka is ‘three baskets’.

119

Appendix 4:

Sri Lankan Inscriptions This appendix furnishes a brief overview of Sri Lankan inscriptions to help the reader understand manumission records of the island within its epigraphic culture. The medium of the records is crucial for their chances of survival. Granite stone surfaces seems to be the main medium of the preserved Sri Lankan inscriptions, and these can thus be categorised as those inscribed on natural rock1 including brows of caves,2 on surfaces incorporated in buildings such as pillars,3 flights of steps,4 stone pavements,5 bricks,6 and door-posts.7 Certain records were engraved on stone slabs, which usually appear to have stood upright apparently as freestanding inscriptions,8 and also on stone seats.9 All stone-seat inscriptions were set by the monarch Niśsankamaĺla, and mention that the monarch himself sat upon them while watching entertainment, or offerings of alms, or when constructing a religious building. These records are also noted for their repetitive content except in some rare cases.10 The available inscriptions reveal that a majority was unearthed among or near ruins of ancient Buddhist temples. Also, the original location of a record is connected with its subject matter, for example, the records found in a temple scenario deal with the monks or the affairs in the particular monastery, whereas some other records found elsewhere deal with more political or secular themes.11 But some records deal with mixed

1 E.g. EZ 1 nos.5, 6, 9; EZ 3 nos. 34; EZ 4 nos. 11-18, 37-38; EZ 5 nos. 2-3, 6,8; EZ 6 nos. 26, 32, 33, 35. 2

E.g. EZ, 1. nos. 2 (i); EZ 5 Ins. nos. 18-19; EZ 6 nos. 40.

3 E.g. EZ 1. nos. 11-13, 17; EZ 2 no. 23; EZ 3 nos. 4-5, 10; EZ 4 nos. 68, 32; EZ 5 nos. 7, 9; EZ 6 nos. 25, 34. 4

E.g. EZ 4 no. 16.

5

E.g. EZ 6 no. 31.

6

E.g. EZ 6 nos. 6 & 30.

7

E.g. EZ 5 no. 41.

themes,12 containing both religious and secular characteristics. Thus the themes of Sri Lankan inscriptions can generally be divided into four categories such as religious themes, secular or political themes, mixed themes, and finally those with themes that are unclear either due to the fragmentary nature or brevity of the record.13 The pie chart illustrates statistics concerning the themes of some available epigraphic records.14 According to the above data a majority of Sri Lankan records deal with religious themes and a little more than half of the remaining records deal with political or secular affairs. There are 29 records that register both religious and secular affairs while those with unclear themes mount to 92 in number. As evident from this the records have largely religious or political character with little or no interest in social issues, specifically slaves, of a particular era. The available few cases also have some religious or political affiliation. The languages and script of these records is also interesting as some records rely on palaeographical evidence for their dating. Most of the earlier records especially those registering manumissions were inscribed in early or transitional Brāhmi (/Old Sinhalese) script and in Old Sinhalese language. There are also inscriptions written in the Sinhalese script of eighth/ ninth century AD but in Sanskrit language15 whereas there are some other records written in Sanskrit language but in Nāgarī16 or Grantha17 script. Moreover, it can be seen from EZ 3. 34 that the use of Sanskrit words in Sinhalese inscriptions was gradually disappearing in the course of time, perhaps with the development of Sinhalese script and language.18 There were also records written in Pāli.19 Two bilingual records engraved in Sinhalese and Tamil were found at Dellegama devale in Anurādhapura (ninth century AD) and in a rock at Miyanakandura (datable after 14th century AD),20 while a trilingual record, in Tamil, Chinese and Persian scripts and languages, (dated AD 1409) was found21 in Galle.22 Epigraphic records vary in length. The records on the brows of caves are limited either to short single or double lines. A majority of rock inscriptions range from single line to 13 lines1 12 Most records of Niśsankamaĺla contain administrative affairs, military services, and services to his people and to Buddhism. 13 E.g. EZ 3 no. 8. This particular inscription is very fragmentary and Paranavitana, the editor of the record mentions that it is hard to trace its content. Cf. also EZ 4 no. 27 which is incomplete, creating a similar problem. 14

Cf. Plate 3.

15

E.g. EZ 3 no. 20.

16

E.g. EZ 5 nos. 13 & 15.

17

E.g. EZ 5 no. 14 & EZ 3 no.2.

8

Slabs in which inscriptions were carved appear to have stood upright, and sometimes were built into a wall, e.g. EZ 1 nos. 4, 8, 14; EZ 2 no. 40; EZ 3 nos. 11-12, 43, 36; EZ 4 nos. 3, 9, 10; EZ 5 nos. 11-12; EZ 6 nos. 27, 38. The stone slabs with engraving on both obverse and reverse (EZ 2 nos. 28, 30) and in the two narrow sides e.g. EZ 4 no.3 may surely have stood upright with out being a part of a building. Interestingly, EZ 2 no. 17 was engraved on a massive stone slab mounted horizontally on a brick podium and sheltered by a canopy supported on ten pillars cf. EZ 2 plate 18. 9 All stone-seat records so far found belong to Niśsankamaĺla, e.g. EZ 2 nos. 20-22. 10

18

E.g. EZ 3 no. 31 (ninth century AD), EZ 4 nos. 5, 6, 7 (tenth century AD), all records of Niśsankamaĺla (12th century AD), EZ 3 no. 30 (13th century AD), EZ 3 no. 24 (15th century AD).

19

E.g. EZ 3 no. 2.

20

CT 2: 86-87.

E.g. EZ 2 nos. 18 does not repeat the boastful panegyric of the monarch repeated in almost all his other inscriptions. This record explains the use of the stone seat for the king. This repetitive nature is also shared by his slab (EZ 2 no. 17) and pillar (EZ 2 nos. 18 & 23) records.

But all three records register a donation sent by the Chinese emperor to lord Buddhā (in the Chinese version of the record) to a god (in that of the Tamil) to the light of Islam (in that of the Persian).

11

22

E.g. EZ 3 no. 11; EZ 4 nos. 6, 7, 9, 11; EZ 7 nos. 40, 43.

21

120

EZ 3 no.36.

lines1 there is a few with up to 45 lines. Among rock inscriptions, manumission records stand out due to their brevity with the longest containing only seven lines.2 The records on stone seats embody about four to eight lines of a considerable length running around the four sides of a three feet square stone. The two engravings on bricks of a building had 17 and 18 short lines. Moreover, records inscribed in pillars also show a variation in the number of surfaces that bear writings, and in the length of text in these surfaces. Some such pillars are engraved in three sides while one side is filled with some drawings.3 The longest texts are on stone slabs, varying between 14 and 58 lines. Certain slabs were engraved in both obverse, reverse4 and even in the narrow sides.5

the geographical distribution of manumission records is limited, but also their chronological diffusion, being confined to the fourth to the eighth centuries AD, comparable to epigraphic records in general on the island.

Most of these records, especially the edicts concerning immunities granted to lands and villages belonging to temples and the rules and regulations for the administration of such properties of monasteries, were inscribed under the authority of monarchs. A number of records registering grant of land, cattle and ‘slaves’ were also mainly royal edicts, but some register various donations by people including high dignitaries. The providers of monetary donations to Abhayagiriya monastery for the maintenance of its slaves appear to be ordinary people.6 A notable point is that engraving of all manumission records were initiated either by those who caused the release of ‘slaves,’ or by the ex-‘slaves’ themselves who purchased their own freedom. The geographical distribution of inscriptions in the island is illustrated in the map (3). Accordingly, a majority of inscriptions were found around the locations of powerful kingdoms of the past: Anurādhapura, Polonnaruwa and Kurunēgala.7 But a considerable number of records are also found from southern parts of the island which come under modern districts Hambantota, Moneregala, and Ampara. However, engraving stone records do not seem to be popular in the Kändyan kingdom (17th –18th centuries AD). Perhaps the records were kept on metal plates and/ or in palm leaves which are susceptible to natural or human faculties.8 Furthermore, the geographical diffusion of manumission records shown in Map 2 contrasts with the diffusion of epigraphic records in general on the island (Map 3). Manumission records are a few and mostly found in Anurādhapura and Kurunëgala, though a couple of records were also found from Hambantota. As noted above, not only 1

EZ 4 no. 17 (2).

2

EZ 4 no. 37.

3 Monk’s fan, sickle, crow, dog, sun and moon are the common drawings. But, sketches of box, viper, anvil, dāgaba and, rarely, a standing man holding a club (EZ 3 no. 31) also appear in some records. In most cases the sketches of the crow and the dog accompany a curse on the transgressors of the edict inscribed. These sketches are not limited to pillar records but also occur in some slab, rock and even in copper plate inscriptions. 4

E.g. EZ 3 no. 29.

5

E.g. EZ. 4 no. 3.

6

EZ. 4 no. 16.

7 Modern districts that use these names contain the areas of ancient capitals. Also cf. Wijesekara (1990): 5-6 for a discussion as to how inscriptions helped in understanding the ancient habitation pattern on the island. 8

Cf. Chap. 5: 91.

121

Appendix 5:

Religious and social set up in ancient Sri Lanka This introductory note on the religious and social background on the island in antiquity is vital to grasp the social position and the treatments enjoyed by the servile groups on the island in a wider social context. Buddhism was brought into the island around the third century BC by a group of North Indian monks led by Rev. Mihidu,1 as a friendly royal gift from the Indian Emperor Asoka to his counterpart and friend king Tissa of Sri Lanka.2 Jayaweera points out that Buddhism was not introduced all of a sudden by Rev. Mihidu, but that it was a more gradual process involving lay populations aware of this faith prior to this incident. He further states that the Chronicles ignore such information in order to link the beginning of Buddhism on the island to the emperor Asoka.3 Nonetheless the first to convert to Buddhism, at this juncture, was the king and his royal family. The hereditary nature of monarchy had recently been established, and centralisation was tenuous at this stage. Hence the attempt at consolidating royal power through an ‘alliance’ with the new faith appears to have been a plausible motive for the patronage to Buddhism extended by the king. Such royal sponsorship and prior knowledge of the religion among the public may have contributed towards transforming the islanders by the first century BC, while consolidating the place of Buddhism as a ‘national’ religion. Such conjunctures established a strong connection between the politics and religion of the island. The public expected their kings to be practising Buddhists and to reign with piety (dähamen).4 The pious (dähami) conduct and reign of a king was associated with the prosperity of the kingdom and of its subjects while the reverse was linked with disasters.5 Although we cannot guarantee that all monarchs who reigned on the island adjusted themselves according to the Buddhist values, historical sources inform us that a majority of monarchs did so and were eager to display their pious (dähami) conduct in numerous ways such as by offering material support to sanga, the extension of which was offering one’s own self as a ‘slave’ 1 There were five monks in the group, namely Itthia, Uttala, Sambala, Bhaddasala and the novice Suaman and one lay devotee called Bhanduka who was admitted to the order of sanga (Buddhist monks) the day after the group arrived on the island. The leading monk Rev. Mihidu was a son of the emperor Asoka himself. Cf. Adikāram (1946): 49 for detail. 2 Adikāram (1946): 50 mentions that the Dhamma gift of the Indian Emperor Asoka was a returning courtesy to the Sri Lankan monarch Tissa who has sent three precious jewels as gifts to the Indian Emperor Ashoka in a previous occasion. The Dhamma gift was sent to the Sri Lankan counterpart with the message informing Ashoka’s conversion to Buddhism along with an invitation to Tissa to do the same. Cf. Smp 74-76, and also cf. Jayaweera (1986): 13-14. 3

Jayaweera (1986): 29-30.

to sanga.6 Moreover, Buddhist monks were instructed by the Buddha to obey and support only pious (dähami) rulers.7 The support of the sanga may have led to earn that of the public, who were unanimously Buddhist. It could probably be such social demands that compelled even the South Indian conquerors to follow Buddhist precepts to remain in power.8 Significantly, even the English had to agree to provide for the well-being of Buddhism and sanga in the agreement they signed with the Kandyan chiefs.9 The resources that assisted the general public towards learning about Buddhist teachings that were associated with political and social affairs are also worth probing. The Jātaka stories were attached to Buddhist hearts from very ancient times and they contained accounts of dähami rulers. Buddhist monks used (and are using even now) such Jātaka stories to highlight and to explain the consequences of good and bad actions to lay devotees. Thus, Buddhist teachings that recommended good social and political conduct may have come to the knowledge of the general Buddhist public through religious sermons.10 The next interesting issue that require attention is the social structure of the island, which naturally shows a variation in the course of its historical epochs. Although the caste based social formation allegedly seeped into Sri Lanka with Indian influences, it developed on the island accommodating local interests. The commentaries on Buddhist texts such as Manōrathapūrani,11 Paramatthajōtikā,12 and Sumangalavilāsini,13 composed on the island in the fifth century AD, give a fair picture of the social gradation of the time. According to Manōrathapūrani the social gradation was khattiya (royals), brāhmana (religious leaders of Hinduism), gahapati (those with abode or householders) and hina-jaccakula (low castes).14 Of these the first three groups apparently ranked as high castes. Paramatthajōtikā also distinguishes high and low castes.15 The gahapatis appear to have formed the majority engaged in occupations ranging from agriculture to trade and some crafts.16 De Silva17 mentions that gahapatis engaged in agriculture, trade and crafts, without specifying the latter. However, Sumangalavilāsini and Sammōhavinōdani

6 Cf. Deerananda (2004): 387, 391-392 for a discussion on this idea with examples. Cf. supra Chap. 1: 13-14 on offering oneself to sanga & Chap. 4: 49-51 for examples showing various offerings to sanga by monarchs. 7

Vamsattappakasini II: 683: Deerananda (2004): 388.

8

Ibid. 389-390.

9

Dharmadasa (2004): 257-260.

10

Deerananda (2004): 396- 397 & note 108.

11

Mpūrani 185-186.

12

The commentary on the Suttanipāta, - Pjōtika 195, 214.

13 Svini 3, 930. The above-mentioned three works were compiled by Buddhagosha in his sojourn in the island in the fifth century AD. 14

Mpūrani 185-186.

15

Pjōtika 195.

4

Buddha has specified in the Dīga & the Anguttara-nikāyas the qualities a better/ pious (dähami) ruler and a regime must possess. E.g. DN. I (1976): 224, 225; II (1976): 68, 157, 163 & AN. II (1977): 135, 149, 205, 211. Cf. also Deerananda (2004): 386 and note 66 & 387 – 428 for a detailed discussion on the features a dähami ruler must possess. 5

Deerananda (2004): 387.

16

Karunātilaka (1983): 133-134 & ibid. (1988): 14. Liyanagamage (1982): 60.

17 De Silva (1928): 62. Cf. also Kosambi (1985): 277 on gahapatis in Buddhist jātakas.

122

differentiate crafts as superior and inferior.1 This implies that the inferior crafts were assigned to low caste people, and Paramatthajōtika2 supports this notion. But, interestingly, there does not seem to be a sharp distinction between the castes during this time (the fifth century AD). Paramatthajōthikā, for instance, recalls a case where both high and low castes shared the same bathing place and even the pillar installed in this place to rub the bathers’ backs.3 Furthermore, Karunātilaka, referring to the caste and social changes in historical Sri Lanka between the third and fifth centuries AD, shows that the caste distinction during this epoch was not very rigid.4 He continues while referring to evidence from the first century AD in Sīhalavatthūpakarana, Rasavāhini and Saddharmalankaraya5 that the contacts even with the lowest caste (candālas) by consuming food and contracting marriage did not seem to pollute higher castes as it was believed to do in India or in the Kandyan times. Meegaskumbura, regarding the beginning and evolvement of caste system in Sinhalese society, suggests that early immigrants from India may have settled as occupational based clans with agriculture as a common profession which later, with increasing South Indian influences, evolved as castes seeing the climax in the Kändyan period.6 Accordingly, the time prior to the fifth century AD could be seen as the time anterior to the evolution from clans to castes. The change in the nomenclature of gahapati7 to govikula8 1 While weavers, pottery -makers, leather-workers and the barbers were considered inferior crafts, accountants and scribes and seal-bearers were considered superior crafts in Svinōdani- (commentary on Vibhanga) 288 and Svini 3, 930. 2

Pjōtika 214.

3

Ibid. 195.

4

Karunatilaka (1988): 25 & also ibid. (1983): 137-138.

5

Sihalavatthū, 7: 29, Rsv. 2: 117 & Sdlkya 560-568. These sources refer to the love story between the king Dutugamunu’s son Saliya and the candāla woman, Ashōkamālā. The king having failed to change the mind of his son gave his consent for his son’s marriage with this woman after his Brahmana chaplain examined the auspicious marks in the woman’s body. Rsv further states that the king accepted a meal prepared by Ashōkamālā, and Sihalavatthū refers to a statement of the king, who was charmed by Ashōkamālā’s beauty and behaviour, to his son that he himself would have married her if the prince did not and that ‘the caste and clan are immaterial when the desire is born.’ As Karunatilaka (1983): 138, rightly argues based on these details that these sources publicized such events because no pollution was attached to a king marrying a candāla woman and that there was no strong social consciousness concerning the differences between candālas and the rest of the society, though they were treated with some contempt. 6 Prof. Meegaskumbura pointed this out during an informal discussion on caste with me on the 2003.3.3.

(perhaps opposed to hina kula -low castes) could have been a result of this gradual transformation from clans to castes. The first appearance of govikula as a powerful group is in the twelfth century AD, when the monarch Niśsankamaĺla (11871196 AD) created a barrier between kingship and govikula people.9 Niśsankamaĺla, being of Kalinga descent and having experienced the caste system in his native India, seems to have created a division between govikula and khattiya (the royal clan). This could be a politically motivated scheme to shield his throne, rather than a social measure. The advanced stage in the division of castes, separation of the four castes10 that have been mixed, is reported to have occurred in the reign of the queen Kalyānawathi (1202-1208 AD) the consort of Niśsankamaĺla.11 Thus the implication is that there was no crystallized distinction between social groups (or castes for that matter) until the fifth century AD. Apparently, even Niśsankamaĺla’s reforms on caste only deprived those of the govikula caste from ascending to the throne and otherwise allowed some elasticity among the rest of the castes. Although we do not know how long the four castes separated in the reign of Kalyanawati existed, Mahāvamsa remarks, referring to the destruction caused by the usurper Māgha, again of Kalinga descent (in 1213 - 1234 AD), that he confused the ‘four unmixed castes.’12 We should not take this statement seriously, as rightly pointed out by Liyanagamage.13 The ‘unmixture’ may be a reference to good social and religious beliefs of Sinhalese, which Māgha disturbed by introducing Hinduism, a false belief, in the eyes of the composer. Further, Māgha took “villages and fields, houses and gardens, slaves, cattle, buffaloes and whatever else belonged to the Sinhalese and he delivered them to Keralas [Tamils].”14 The term mahajana (general public) in the context15 may be referring to rich high caste Sinhalese16 who possessed the above-cited items of wealth, in short, the royalty and the aristocracy who could be a threat to Māgha’s power. In other words, Māgha seemingly crushed the power of leading Sinhalese by making them poor and powerless as low caste people, to preserve his power. Thus, although it is difficult to demarcate stages of development of the caste system, evidence clearly shows a transition from flexible social groups that prevailed prior to the fifth century AD and perhaps even until the time of Niśsankamaĺla, to a caste-based society reaching the zenith in the Kändyan period, where a mere touch by a low caste man sufficed to pollute the dignity of a high caste female. In

9

EZ 2, (ll. 12-24): 162-164.

10 The four castes may have been khattiya, Brahmana, govikula, and hinakula. 11

Mv. 80. 41.

12

Mv. 80. 75-79.

7

Gahapati class disappears from literary sources after the fifth century AD. Yet this does not seem to be a mere change in nomenclature because a change can also be seen in the content of gahapathi and govikula. While the former contained some of the artisans the latter does not contain any artisan and all artisans were pushed to hina kula.

13 Liyanagamage (1968): 111. Liyanagamage considers Geiger’s translation ‘brought great confusion into the four sharply divided castes’ exaggerates the division. 14

Mv. 80.75-79.

8

Among these two main divisions, i.e. high and low castes, there were subdivisions. In the govikulas, for instance, the highest subdivisions were radala and mudali, who were wealthy. Also every govikula person was not necessarily a farmer and some had their lands worked by others. However, all those who held offices in the royal court were of high castes [Roberts (1982): 46, 59]. Those of hinakula too were subdivided according to occupation and some of them also had land and cultivated them in addition to pursuing their craft.

15

Mv. 80.75-79. The term mahajana is rendered as ‘Sīhala’ by Liyanagamage (1968): 111 in the above quoted passage, perhaps adopted from Geiger (1930) tr. Cv.2: 133.

16 Liyanagamage (1968): 120-121. Although Niśsankamaĺla also refers to govikula (EZ 2, no. 17 (l. C 15), it is difficult to understand what he is trying to say in this regard as the sentence is fragmentary.

123

support of this, Lawrie’s1 archive tells us of a case where a high caste woman kills her infant daughter in the presence of the king Rajasinghe2 because a low caste man took the baby in his arms. Ievers also quotes a reply of a man to the question of what he would do if one of his women married a low caste man: ‘In the Kändyan times we should have killed her at once, but now, hump! Well: I don’t know what else we could do with her either.’3 While these restrictions applied strictly to women of high caste forbidding any contact with low caste men, it was not considered pollution for high caste men to have intercourse even with the lowest caste women, provided they did not eat their food or bring them home.4 The reason for the strict practice of the caste system, as suggested above, could be due to strong South Indian influence in the social and political order.5

though there seem to have been a fourth caste which the Dutch called as chiandos10 ‘at one time’ which Pfaffenberger identifies with cāntars.11 Nalluvas and pallavas, the most important castes among atimai due to their high number, were considered as ‘untouchables’ in caste status.12 Moreover, both ‘untouchable’ men and women in Jaffna were traditionally banned to cover the upper part of their body, wear earrings, to be objects of Brahman officiated life-cycle rites, to buy lands, to live in concrete homes, to cremate their dead, to enter temples or homes of vellalas (not to mention that of brahmans), to insult vellalas and brahmans or to use roads when the people of these two high castes were using them.13 All these limitations were designed to demarcate the ‘untouchables’ from that of the ‘touchables’. However the cōviar were not considered as ‘untouchables’ and were ranked not far from the vellalas if the brahmans were placed above the vellalas and not far from the brahmans if one placed them after the vellalas.14

The caste system predominated the social set-up perhaps more vehemently in the Tamil-speaking northern provinces, especially in Jaffna under strong influences of the South Indians at least from the 13th century AD onwards. Even within this social stratification based on caste the concept of pollution was strongly observed.6 Just as in the Kändyan kingdom in Jaffna too the majority of the population consisted of the highest caste, vellāla, which is often identified with Sinhalese givigama caste both by the Tamils and Sinhalese.7 The position of vellālas can be understood from the information of one Tamil as reported by A. M. Hocart: A vellāla lived as,

The distinction between the vellalas and the brahmans which is another superior caste in the Jaffna society is also interesting. Though the brahmans rank higher than the vellalas in the religious domain ‘on grounds of greater purity’ they rank inferior to vellalas in a secular sense.15 Moreover, Banks further reports that brahmans serving in the temples of Jaffna, save for very few, did not own the temple properties in which they serve, but they were merely waged servants of the vellalas, who managed the temples either as a committee or as descendants of the temple founder.16 Nonetheless, though dominant in numbers, political power and wealth, vellalas showed formal respect to brahmans as due to a superior.17 The following chart explains the estimated population of the castes of Jaffna along with their traditional occupation, social demarcation and the atimai/ kutimai status. In the following chart brahmans were, thus, given kutimai status and the reason for giving the vellalas the same ranking could be because some poor vellalas served as farmers of wealthy of the same group or because they were given the highest possible ranking available as opposed to atimai.

a feudal lord with all his vassals round about him. He had therefore slaves and vassals to serve him on all occasions, and these slaves and vassals represented different castes who served him in such capacity whenever occasion demanded. The vassals were called kudimai and the slaves adimai.8 Accordingly, kudimai / kutimai were not slaves but were individuals obliged to provide duties pertaining to their caste which apparently was professionally based. During the precolonial times these included the skilled workers such as goldsmiths, blacksmiths, carpenters, temple carvers, coppersmiths, potters, masons and also people of other castes such as washermen, barbers and paraiyars.9 The nalluvas, pallavas, and the k/cōviar seem to be the most important groups (castes) classed under atimai or ‘slaves’ 1

Gazetteer 531.

2 There were five kings who became king under the name Rājasinghe from 1635-1815. We do not know to which king this reference could be applied since Lawrie collected his material from various sources and periods. Further, Knox, (66, 67) detained in Kandy during Rajasinghe I, refers to sharp caste distinctions. 3

Ievers (1899): 92, citing Diary of A.O. Bordie for July 1851.

4

Knox 66.

10

Banks (1957): 441 from Pfaffenberger (1982): 40.

11

Pfaffenberger (1982): 40

12

Ibid. (1982): 40-41.

13

Ibid. (1982): 52.

5

As Ragavan (1953): 205 observes, pollution of the dignity of high castes by mere consumption of food from a low caste person, bears close resemblance to Indian caste system. 6

Banks (1960): 63.

7

Banks (1960): 64.

8

Hocart (1950): 7.

9 Banks (1957): 439 from Pfaffenberger (1982): 38. For more on the duties of kutimai cf. ibid. 40.

14 Banks (1960): 66, also cf. Pfaffenberger (1982): 57-58. For more on the complexities on the concept of pollution in regard to caste demarcation in Jaffna cf. Pfaffenberger (1982): 49-55 & 57-59. Banks (1960): 66-68. 15

Banks (1960): 67.

16

Ibid. (1960): 67.

17

Ibid. (1960): 67-68.

124

Untouchables

Touchable castes

Table: II

The castes of Jaffna1

Tamil name

English name

Traditional occupation

Atimai/ Kutimai

Pirāman Saiva Kurukkal

Brahman Saiva priest

kutimai kutimai

Vellāla

---

kutimai

50.0

Pantaram

kutimai

1.0

Cirpacari

Garland maker ---

Temple priest Temple priest for non Brahman shrines Landholder, farmer Temple helper

Proportion of Jaffna’s Tamil population2 0.7 0.2*

Temple sculptor

kutimai

0.5*

Kōviyar

‘Slave’

atimai

7.0

Tattar Karaiyar

Goldsmith ---

kutimai kutimai

0.6 10.0

Taccar Kollar Nattuvar

Carpenter Blacksmith Musician

kutimai kutimai kutimai

2.0 0.4 0.2

Kaikular Cantar

Weaver Oil monger

kutimai kutimai

0.5* 0.5*

Kucuvar Mukkuvar Vannar

Potter --Dhoby

Domestic labour Goldsmith Deep sea fisher Carpenter Blacksmith Auspicious music Weaver Sesame oil maker Potter Lagoon fisher Washerman

kutimai kutimai kutimai

0.5* 2.0* 1.5

kutimai

atimai

0.9 9.0

atimai

9.0

kutimai

0.8*

Ampattar

Barber

Pallava

‘Slave’

Nalluva

‘Slave’

Paraiyar

----

Barber Predial labour Predial labour Drummer

1 The original source for the data in the first five columns is Pfaffenberger (1982): Table I, from K. David (1974) ‘And never the twain shall meet? Mediating the structural approach to Caste ranking.’ 43-80 in Structural approaches to South Indian Studies. H. M. Buck & G. Yocum, edd. (Chambersburg, PA). 2 Source: Banks (1957) figure 1 n.p. ‘This figure is based on a survey of village headmen. Banks’ figures are incomplete’. From Pfaffenberger (1982) table II. Figures marked with asterisks reflect Pfaffenberger’s estimate.’

125

Map: 1 Chief Climatic zones, ancient capitals and the boundary of the Kandyan kingdom of Sri Lanka

126

Map: 2 Geographical locations of manumission records (so far) found in ancient Sri Lanka in a modern district map.

127

The manumission records denoted by numbers in map 2: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Kudārathmalē rock inscription. Four manumission inscriptions from the monastery of Vessagiriya (rock) Nīlagama (manumission) rock inscription. The single lined rock inscription from Mädagama vihāra in Kurunëgala. Murutāwa rock inscription. Daňgoĺlagama rock inscription. Nuwaravëwa rock inscription. Rock inscription at Kotakaňda Ätkaňda Vihāra. Inscriptions from Rājāňganē, Vaňni Hat-pattū, Kurunëgala. Inscriptions from Gaĺkätiyēgama, Hiriyāla Hatpattū, Kurunëgala. Inscriptions from Maraluväva Mahagalboda Vä-davilli Hatpattū, Kurunëgala. An inscription from Nuvarakanda, Devamädi Hat-pattu, Kurunägala. Muĺgirigala vihāra rock inscription, Hambaňtota. A slab inscription from Anurādhapura. A slab inscription from Sässēruva, Kurunëgala. A rock inscription from Ridī Vihāra, Kurunëgala. A rock inscription from Periyaňkadu vihāra. Fragmentary rock inscription from Saňgamu vihāra. Rock inscriptions from Kumbukkaňdana in Mātalē. Fragmentary rock inscription from Kasagaĺ vihāra, Kurunëgala. A rock inscription from Talāgama in Colombo. Rock inscriptions from Situĺpavuva in Hambaňtota. Rock inscriptions from Dambuĺla. A rock inscription from Muĺlēgama in Puttalama. Two Inscriptions in Ambagaśväva.

128

Map: 3 The spread of ancient Sri Lankan inscriptions in a modern district map

129

Plate 1 Figure 1

The cost of full and conditional freedom of adult slaves according to the Delphic manumission records (201-1 BC)1

900 800

Average prices in drachmae

700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0

201-153BC 153-100BC 100-53BC

53-1BC

Full freedom male

405

532

641

827

Con. freedom male

396

422

300

433

Full freedom female

390

440

500

485

Con. freedom female

337

372

367

383

Approximate dates

1

Source: Hopkins (1978): 161, Table III. 4. Hopkins parenthesise the price charged (300 drachmae) for conditional manumission of male slaves.

130

Plate 2 Figure 2

The average manumission prices paid by slaves at Delphi (201-1 BC)1

690 640

Average price in drachmae

590 540 490 440 390 340 290 240 190 140 90 40 201-153BC 153-100BC 100-53BC

1

53-1BC

Rough ratios

Adult male

403

510

566

641

100

Adult female

376

428

470

437

80

Boys

235

276

319

330

55

Girls

160

244

287

333

50

Rough ratios

100

125

140 150 Approximate dates

Source: Hopkins (1978): 159 table III. 3.

131

Plate 3: Figure 3: The general themes of records published in the eight vols of Epigraphia Zeylanica, Epigraphical Notes 1-18 and in the Inscriptions of Ceylon vols. 1-2.

Unclear cases (92) 14% Mixed themes (29) cases 4%

Religious themes (409) cases 63%

Secular themes (124) cases 19%

132

Wallbank, M., (1983) ‘Leases of sacred properties in Attica: Pts, 1-4’ Hesperia 52: 100-135; 176- 199; 200206; 207-231.

Bibliography 1. Ancient Greece

------------ (1984) ‘Leases of sacred properties in Attica. Pt. 5’ Hesperia 53: 361-368.

Primary sources: Alder, A., ed. (1931) Lexicographi Graeci: Suidae Lexicon 12.2 (D-Q) (Stuttgart).

Willets, R. F., (1967) The Law code of Gortyn (Berlin).

Secondary sources:

Bowra, C. M., ed. (1964) Pindar (London).

Alcock, S. E., (2002) Archaeologies of the Greek past: landscape, monuments and memories (Cambridge).

Dilts, M. R., ed. (1986) Scholia Demosthenica (Leipzig). -------------- ed. (1992) Scholia in Aeschinem (Leipzig). Edwards. M., ed. (1995) Greek orators: IV - Andocides (Wiltshire). Jacoby, F., ed. (1930 & 1956) Die Fragmente der Griechischen Historiker (Berlin). Keaney, J. J., ed. (1991) Harpocration: lexeis of the ten orators (Amsterdam). Koster, W. J. W., ed. (1969) Scholia in Aristophantem I² in Equites (Amsterdam).

Epigraphic sources: Austin, M. M., (1981) The Hellenistic world from Alexandria to the Roman conquest (Cambridge). Bagnall, R. S., & P. Derow (1981) Greek Historical Documents: The Hellenistic period (California).

Ampolo, C., (1992) ‘The economics of the sanctuaries in Southern Italy and Sicily’ 25- 28 in T. Linders & B. Alroth edd. Economics of cult in the ancient Greek World (Uppsala). Andreades, A. M., (1933) A history of Greek public finance 1(New York, tr. by C.M. Brown, 1979 used). Antonaccio C. M., (1995) An archaeology of Ancestors: tomb cults and hero cults in early Greece (Lanham, Maryland). Ardaillon, E., (1897) Les mines du Laurion dans l'antiquité (Paris). Beard, M., & Henderson, J., (1997) ‘With this body I thee worship: sacred prostitution in antiquity’ Gender & History 9.3: 480-503. Bent, J. T., (1885) 'On the mines of Siphnos' JHS 6:195198. Bile, M. (1981) ‘Le vocabulaire des structures sociale dans les lois de Gortyn,’ Verbum 4:11-45.

Bielman, A., (1994) Retour à la liberté (Athènes). Cameron, A., (1939) ‘Inscriptions relating to sacral manumission and confession’ HThR 32.3:143-179. Darmezin, L., (1999) Les affranchissements par consécration: en Béotie et dans le monde grec hellénistique (Nancy).

Birgalias, N., (2002) ‘Helotage and Spartan social organisation’ 249-266 in A. Powel & S. Hodkinson edd. Sparta beyond the mirage (London). Blawatsky, T., (1974) ‘Über den Sklavenmarkt am Aktion’ Klio 56: 497-500.

Fornara, C. W., (1983) Archaic times to the end of the Peloponnesian war (Cambridge, 2nd ed.).

Boardman, J., (1967) Excavations in Chios 1952-1955: Greek Emporio (London).

Petsas, Ph. M., Hatzopoulos, M. B., et al. edd. (2000) Inscriptions du sanctuaire de la Mère des Dieux Autochtone de Leukopétra, Macédoine (Athens).

Bömer, F., (1960) Untersuchungen über die Religion der Sklaven in Griechenland und Rom. 2 (Wiesbaden).

Reilly, L. C., (1978) Slaves in ancient Greece: slaves from Greek manumission inscriptions (Chicago). Tataki, A. B., (1988) Ancient Beroea: Prosopography and society (Athens).

Brandt, H., (1992) Gesellschaft und Wirtschaft Pamphyliens und Pisidiens im Altertum (Bonn). Bradely, K., (1994) Slavery and society at Rome (Cambridge). Bremmer, J. N., (1994) Greek Religion (Oxford).

133

Bruneau, Ph. (1970) Recherches sur les cultes de Délos à l’époque Hellénistique et à l’époque impériale (Paris).

Deonna, W., (1938) ‘Notes d’archéologie Délienne’ BCH 62: 209-235.

Brunet, M., (1990) ‘Contribution à l’histoire rurale de Délos aux époques classique et Hellénistique’ BCH 114: 669-682.

De Ste. Croix, G. E. M., (1957) review: W. L. Westermann’s Slave systems of Greek and Roman antiquity (1955: Philadelphia) in CR 7 ns (71 cont.s): 5459.

Burford, A., (1993) Land and labour in Greek world (Baltimore, London). Burkert, W., (1977) Greek Religion as tr. by J. Raffan in 1985 (Cambridge). --------------- (1983) Homo necans: the anthropology of ancient Greek sacrificial ritual and myth (Berkeley). Bush, M. L., (1996) ‘Introduction’ 1-17 in M. L. Bush ed. Serfdom and slavery (London). Cambiano, G., (1987) 'Aristotle and anonymous opponents of slavery' 28-52 in M.I Finley ed. Classical slavery (London). Cartledge, P., (1980) ‘Euphron and the dou=loi again’ LCM 5.9 (Nov.): 209-211. --------- (1985) ‘Rebels and “Sambos” in Classical Greece. A comparative view’ HPTh 6: 16-46. --------- (1988) ‘Serfdom in Classical Greece’ 33-41 in L. J. Archer ed. Slaves and other forms of unfree labour (London, New York). --------- (2002) Sparta and Laconia: a regional history 1300-362 BC (London, 2nd ed.). Coarelli, F., (1982) “ ‘L’agora des Italiens’ a Delo: il mercato degli schiavi?” Opuscula Intsituti Romani Finlandiae 2:119-139. Conophagos, C. E., (1980) Le Laurium antique (Athens). Conzelmann, H., (1967) ‘Korinth und die Mädchen der Aphrodite’ Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen aus dem Jahre 1967 (Göttingen). Corsten, T., (2002) review: Grainger J. D. The league of Aitolians (1999: Leiden) & Sholten, J. B., The politics of plunder (2000: Berkley, Los Angeles) in JHS 122: 184186.

------------ (1972) The origins of the Peloponnesian war (London). ------------ (1981) The class struggle in the ancient world (London). Dignas, B., (1998) Finances of sanctuaries in Hellenistic and Roman Asia minor, Thesis submitted to the University of Oxford for D.Phil. ----------- (2002) Economy of the sacred in Hellenistic and Roman Asia Minor (Oxford). Ducat, J., (1978) ‘Aspects de l’hilotisme’ AncSoc 9: 546. ---------- (1990) Les Hilotes (Athènes). ---------- (1994) Les Pénestes de Thessalie (Besançon). Ducrey, P., (1968) Le traitement des prisonniers de guerre dans la Grèce antique (Paris). Ehrenberg, V., (1951) The people of Aristophanes: a sociology of Attic comedy (Oxford, 2nd ed.). Engels, D., (1980) ‘The problem of female infanticide in the Greco-Roman world’ CPh 75: 112-120. ----------- (1984) ‘The use of demography in ancient history’ CQ 34.2: 386-393. Engerman, S. L., (1996) ‘Slavery serfdom and other forms of coerced labour: similarities and differences’ 1841 in M. L. Bush ed. Serfdom and slavery (London). Feen, R. H., (1983) ‘Abortion and exposure in ancient Greece, assessing the status of the fetus and “new born” from classical sources’ Philosophy and medicine 13: 283-300. Finley, M. I., (1960) ‘Servile status of ancient Greece’ RIDA 3. 7: 165-189.

Davies, J. K., (1971) Athenian propertied families, 600300 BC (Oxford).

----------- (1968) Aspects of antiquity: discoveries and controversies (London).

--------------- (1981) Wealth and the power of wealth in Classical Athens (New York).

---------- (1980) Ancient slavery and modern ideology (London).

Davies, O., (1979) Roman mines in Europe (New York).

----------- (1981) Economy and society in ancient Greece edd. B. D. Shaw & R. P. Saller (London).

Debord, P., (1982) Aspects sociaux et économiques de la vie religieuse dans l’Anatolie Graeco-Romaine (Leiden).

----------- (1985) Ancient economy (London, 2nd ed).

134

Fisher, N. R. E., (1995) Slavery in Classical Greece Rev. ed. with corrections (London).

Gomme, A. W., (1933) Population of Athens in fifth or fourth century Athens (Oxford).

Forbes, R. J., (1963) Studies in ancient technology 7 (Leiden).

Grace, E., (1973) 'Status distinction in the Draconian law' Eirene 9: 5-30.

Foucart, P. F., (1873) Des associations religieuses chez les Grecs (Paris).

Grainger, l. D., (1999) The league of the Aitolians (Leiden, Boston, Köln).

Foxhall, L., (1992) ‘The control of the Attic landscape’ 155-159 in B. Wells ed. Agriculture in ancient Greece (Stockholm).

Hansen, M. H., (1991) The Athenian democary in the age of Demosthenes (Blackwell).

Francisis, A. De., (1972) Stato e società in Locri Epizefiri (L’archivio dell’ Olympieion locrese) (Naples).

----------------- (1997) ‘Po/lij as the generic term for state’ 9-15 in T. H. Nielsen ed. Yet more studies in the ancient Greek polis (Stuttgart).

Fuks, A., (1984) Social conflicts in ancient Greece (Leiden).

---------------- (1998) Polis and city-state: an ancient concept and its modern equivalent (Copenhagen).

Gabbert, J. J., (1986) ‘Piracy in the early Hellenistic Period: a career open to talent’ G&R 33: 156-163.

---------------- (2002) ‘Was the polis a state or a stateless society’ 17-47 in T. H. Nielsen ed., Even more studies in the ancient Greek polis (Stuttgart).

Gagarin, M., (1996) ‘The torture of slaves in Athenian law’ CPh 91: 1-18. Gallant, T. W., (1991) Risk and survival in ancient Greece: reconstructing the rural domestic economy (Cambridge). Garlan, Y., (1975) War in the ancient world: a social history (London). -------- (1987) ‘War, piracy and slavery in the Greek world’ 7-21, in M. I. Finley ed. Classical slavery (London). -------- (1988) Slavery in ancient Greece tr. by J. Lloyd (Ithaca, London, rev. & exp. ed.). Garland, R., (1990a) The Greek way of life (London). -------------- (1990b) ‘Priests and power in Classical Athens’ 73-91 in M. Beard & J. North edd. Pagan Priests (London). Germain, L. R., (1969) ‘Aspects du droit d’exposition en Grèce’ Revue Historique de droit Français et étranger 177-197. Gernet, L., (1955) ‘Observations sur la loi de Gortyne’ 51-59 in Droit et société dans la Grèce ancienne (Paris). Glotz, G., (1906) Étude sociale et juridique sur l’antiquité grecque (Paris). ------ (1926) Ancient Greece at work (London). Golden, M., (1981) ‘Demography and the exposure of girls at Athens’ Phonex 35.4: 316-331. ----- (1992) ‘The uses of cross-cultural comparison in ancient social history’ EMC 36, ns.11: 309-331.

Hanson, V. D., (1992) ‘Thucydides and the desertion of Attic slaves during the Decelean War’ CA 11.2: 210-228. Harris, W. V., (1982) ‘The theoretical possibility of extensive infanticide in the Graeco-Roman world’ CQ 32.1: 114-116. Harris, E. M., (2002) ‘Did Solon abolish debt bondage?’ CQ 52.2: 415-430. Harrison, A. R. W., (1968) The law of Athens: family and property (Oxford). Heilmeyer, W. D., G. Zimmer & G. Schneider, (1987) ‘Die Bronzegiesserei unter der Werkstatt des Phidias in Olympia’, AA 239-299. Healy, J. F., (1978) Mining and metallurgy in the Greek and Roman world (London). Hervagault, M. P., & M. M. Mactoux (1974) ‘Esclaves et société d’après Démosthène’ 57-102 in Actes colloque 1972 sur l’esclavage. Hodkinson, S., (1992) ‘Sharecropping and Sparta’s economic exploitation of the helots’ 123-139 in J. M. Sanders ed. Philolakon (London). ---------------(1997) ‘Servile and free dependants of the Classical Spartan “oikos” ’ 45-71 in M. Moggi & G. Cordiano edd. Schiavi e dipendenti nell’ Ambito dell’ oikos e della familia (Pisa). -------------- (2000) Property and wealth in Classical Sparta (London). -------------- (2003) ‘Spartiates, helots and the direction of the agrarian economy: towards an understanding of helotage in comparative perspective’ 248-286 in N. Luraghi & S. E. Alcock edd. The helots and their

135

masters: the history and sociology of a system of exploitation (Washington DC, Cambridge & Mass.) Hopkins, K., (1978) ‘Between slavery and freedom: on freeing slaves at Delphi’ 133-168 Conquerors and slaves (Cambridge). Humphry, W., J. P. Oleson & A. N. Sherwood (1998) Greek and Roman technology (London, New York). Hunt, P., (1998) Slaves, warfare and ideology in the Greek historians (Cambridge). Hunter, V., (1992) ‘Constructing the body of the citizens: corporal punishment in Classical Athens’ EMC 36 n.s.11: 271-291. Ingalls, W., (2002) ‘Demography and dowries: perspectives on female infanticide in Classical Greece’ Phoenix 56. 3-4: 246-254. Isager, S., (1992) ‘Sacred animals in Classical and Hellenistic Greece’ 15-20 in T. Linders & B. Alroth edd. Economics of cult in the ancient Greek world (Uppsala). Jacob, O., (1928) Les esclaves publics à Athénes (Liége, Paris). Jameson, M. H., (1978) ‘Agriculture and slavery in Classical Athens’ CJ 73: 122-145. ------------ (1992) ‘Agricultural labor in ancient Greece’ 135-146 in B. Wells ed. Agriculture in ancient Greece (Stockholm). Jones, A. H. M., (1957) Athenian democracy (Oxford). Jones, C. P., (1987) 'Stigma: tattooing and branding in Graeco-Roman antiquity' JRS 72: 139-155. Kent, J. H., (1948) ‘Temple estates of Delos, Rheneia and Mykonos’ Hesperia 17: 243- 338. Klein, M. A., (1993) Breaking the chains: slavery, bondage, and emancipation in modern Africa and Asia (London). Klees, H., (1998) Sklavenleben Griechenland (Stuttgart).

im

klassischen

Kleijwegt, M., (2002) ‘Textile manufacturing for a religious market. Artemis and Diana as tycoons of industry’ 81-134 in W. Jongman & M. Kleijwegt edd. After the past (Brill). Lacey, W. K., (1968) The family in Classical Greece (London). Lévy, E., (1974) ‘Les esclaves chez Aristophane’ 29-46 in Actes colloque 1972 sur l’esclavage.

---------- (1997) ‘Libres et non-libres dans le code de Gortyne’ 25-41 in P. Brulé & J. Oulhen edd. Esclavage, guerre, économie en Grèce ancienne (Rennes). Lewis, D. M., (1959) ‘Attic manumissions’ Hesperia 28: 208-238. ---------------- (1966) ‘After the profanation of the mysteries’ 177-191 in E. Badian ed. Ancient society and institutions (Oxford). --------------- (1968) ‘Dedications of philai at Athens’ Hesperia, 37: 368-380. Lewis, S., (2002) The Athenian woman: an iconographic handbook (London). Linders, T., (1972) Studies in the treasure records of Artemis Brauronia found in Athens (Stockholm). ------------ (1992) ‘Sacred finances: some observations’ 9-14 in T. Linders & B. Alroth edd. Economics of cult in the ancient Greek world (Uppsala). Lipsius, J. H., (1905) Das Attische Recht und Rechtsverfahren – mit Benutzung des Attischen Prozesses (Leipizig). Luraghi, N., (2002) ‘Helotic slavery reconsidered’ 227248 in A. Powell & S. Hodkinson edd. Sparta beyond the mirage (London). MacDonald, B. R., (1984) ‘lhstei/a and lh/izomai in Thucydides and IG 1³ 41, 67 and 75’ AJPh 105: 7784. MacDowell, D. M., (1963) Athenian homicide law in the age of the orators (Manchester). ------------- (1986) Spartan law (Edinburgh). Mactoux, M. M., (1988) ‘Lois de Solon sur les esclaves et formation d’une société esclavagiste’ 331-354 in T. Yuge & M. Doi edd. Forms of control and subordination in antiquity (Leiden). Meiggs, R., & Lewis, D., (1988) A selection of Greek historical inscriptions to the end of the fifth century BC (Oxford, rev. ed.). Mendelsohn, I., (1949) Slavery in the Near East (New York). Miller, S. G., (1977) ‘Excavations at Nemea, 1976’ Hesperia 46: 1-26. Millett, P., (1991) Lending and borrowing in ancient Athens (Cambridge). Mirhady, D. C., (2000) ‘The Athenian rationale for torture’ 53-74 in V. Hunter & J. Edmondson edd. Law and social status in Classical Athens (Oxford).

136

Morgan, C., (1953) ‘Investigations at Corinth, 1953- a tavern of Aphrodite’ Hesperia 22: 131-140.

------------------- (1991) The Greek state at war 5 (Berkeley, Los Angeles, Oxford).

Morris, I., (2001) ‘Remaining invisible’ 193-220 in S. R. Joshel & S. Murnagen edd. Women and slaves in Graeco-Roman culture (London, New York).

Randall, R. H., (1953) 'The Erechtheum workmen' AJA 57: 199-210.

Morrow, G. R., (1937) ‘The murder of slaves in attic law’ CPh 37: 210-227. Motomura, R., (1988) ‘The practice of exposing infants and its effects on the development of slavery in the ancient world’ 410-415 in T. Yuge & M. Doi edd. Forms of control and subordination in antiquity (Leiden). Oliva, P., (1971) Sparta and her social problems (Prague). Ormerod, H. A., (1924) Piracy in the ancient world (Baltimore). Osborne, R., (1985) Demos: The discovery of Classical Attica (Cambridge).

Reid, A., (1983) ‘ “Closed” and “Open” slave systems in pre-colonial Southeast Asia’ 156-177 in A. Reid ed. Slavery bondage and dependency in Southeast Asia (New York). Ricl, M., (1993) ‘Konsekracije robova u Makedoniji u doba rimskog carstva’ (résumé en français) ‘Consécration d’ ésclaves en Macédoine sous l’empire’ ZAnt 43:143-144. -------- (1995) ‘Les katagrafai\ du sanctuaire d’Apollon Lairbenos’ Arkeoloji Dergisi 3: 167-195. Rihll, T., (1996) ‘The origin and establishment of ancient Greek slavery’ 89-111 in M. l. Bush ed. Serfdom and slavery (London).

-------------- (1987) Classical landscape with figures (London).

Risberg, C., (1992) ‘Metal-working in Greek sanctuaries’ 33-40 in T. Linders & B. Alroth edd. Economics of cult in the ancient Greek world (Uppsala).

-------------- (1988) ‘Social and economic implications of the leasing of land and property in Classical and Hellenistic Greece’ Chiron 18: 279-323.

Rolley, C., (1973) ‘Bronzes géométriques et orientaux à Délos’ 491-524 in Études Délieenes BCH supp. 1 (Paris).

------------ (1992) ‘ “Is it a farm?” The definition of agricultural sites and settlements in ancient Greece’ 2127 in B. Wells ed. Agriculture in ancient Greece (Stockholm).

----------- (1979) Museum of Delphi: bronzes (Athens).

-------------- (1995) ‘The economics and politics of slavery at Athens’ 27-43 in A. Powell ed. The Greek world (London, New York). -------------- (2000) ‘Religion, Imperial politics and the offering of freedom to slaves’ 75-92 in V. Hunter & J. Edmondson edd. Law and social status in Classical Athens (Oxford).

Rostoker, W., & Gebhard, E. R., (1980) ‘The sanctuary of Poseidon at Isthmia: techniques of metal manufacture’ Hesperia 49: 347-363. Rousselle, R., (2001) ‘ “If it is a girl cast it out:” infanticide/exposure in ancient Greece’ Journal of psychohistory 28.3: 303-333. Sallares, R., (1991) The ecology of ancient Greece (London). Salmon, J., (1997) Wealthy Corinth (Oxford).

Perdrizet, P., (1910) ‘Scaptésylé’ Klio 10: 1-27. Perotti, E., (1974) ‘Esclaves XWRIS OIKOUNTES’ 46-56 in Actes colloque 1972 sur l’esclavage (Paris). Plassart, A., (1913) ‘Les Archers d’Athènes’ REG 26: 151-213. Pomeroy, S. B., (1993) ‘Infanticide in Hellenistic Greece’ 207-222, in A. Cameron & A. Kuhrt edd. Images in women in Antiquity (London, rev. ed.). Pritchett, W. K., (1953) ‘The Attic Stelai part I’ Hesperia 22: 225-299. ------------------- (1956) ‘The Attic Stelai part II’ Hesperia 25: 178-317.

Samuel, A. E., (1965) ‘The role of Paramone clauses in ancient documents’ JJP 15: 221-311. Sargent, R. L., (1925) The size of the slave population at Athens during the fifth and fourth centuries BC (Urbana). Sartre, M., (1995) L’Asie mineure et l’Anatolie d’Alexandre à Dioclétien (Paris). Scholten, J. B., (2000) The politics of plunder: Aitolians and their koinon in the early Hellenistic era, 279-217 BC (Berkely, Los Angeles, London). Schumacher, L., (2001) Sklaverei in der Antike: Alltag und Schicksal der unfreien (München).

137

Shipley (2000) The Greek world: after Alexander 323-30 BC (London).

Westermann, W. L., (1945) ‘Between slavery and freedom’ AHR 50.2: 213-227.

Sinclair, R. M., (1988) Democracy and participation in Athens (Cambridge).

------------------- (1946) ‘Two studies in Athenian manumission’ JNES 5: 92-104.

Singor, H. W., (1993) ‘Spartan and land lots and helot rents’ 31-60 in H. Sancisi, Weerdenburg et al edd. De Agricultura (Amsterdam).

------------------- (1947) ‘Athenaeus and the slaves of Athens’ HSCPh special vol: 451-470.

Sokolowski, F., (1954) ‘The real meaning of sacral manumission’ HThR 47: 173-181. Souza, P. de., (1993) Piracy in the ancient world-Thesis presented for the degree of PhD to the university of London. --------------- (1999) Piracy in the Graeco-Roman world (Cambridge). Strong, R. A., (1997) The most shameful practice: temple prostitution in the ancient Greek world (A dissertation submitted to the university of California). Talbert, R., (1989) ‘The role of the helots in the class struggle at Sparta’ Historia 38: 22-40. Tarn, W. W., (1952) Hellenistic civilization (London, 3rd ed.). Thompson, F. H., (2003) The archaeology of Greek and Roman slavery, (London). Thür, G., (1977) Beweisführung vor den Schwurgerichtshöfen Athens: Die Proklesis zur Basanos (Wien).

------------------- (1955) The slave systems of Greek and Roman antiquity (Philadelphia). Whitehead, D., (1977) The ideology of Athenian metic (Cambridge). ----------------- (1997) ‘oi(=on to\ mna=j lutrou=sqai’ 139-145 in P. Burlé & J. Oulhen edd. Esclavage, guerre, économie en Grèce ancienne (Rennes). Wiedemann, T. E. J., (1981) Greek and Roman slavery (London, New York). ---------------- (1997) ‘Slavery’ in G&R: new survey in classics 19 (Oxford) Will, E., (1955) Korinthiaka: Recherches sur l’histoire et la civilisation de Corinthe des origines aux guerres médiques (Paris). Willetts, R. F., (1955) Aristocratic society in ancient Crete (London). ---------------- (1963) ‘The servile system of ancient Crete, a re-apprisal of the evidence’ 257-271 in V. Varcl & R. F. Willetts edd. Geras (Prague).

Todd, S. C., (1995) The shape of Athenian law (Oxford).

----------- (1977) The civilisation of ancient Crete (London).

Tréheux, J., (1991), ‘Sur la > de l’ indépendance à Délos’ MH 48.4: 248-251.

Wittfogel, K. A., (1970) Oriental despotism (New Haven, London).

Trevett, J., (1992) Apollodorus the son of Pasion (Oxford).

Williams, C & J. Fisher (1972) ‘Corinth 1971: Forum area’ Hesperia 41: 143-184.

Van Wees, H., (2003) ‘Conquerors and serfs: wars of conquest and forced labour in archaic Greece’ 33-80 in N. Luraghi & S. E. Alcock edd. The helots and their masters: the history and sociology of a system of exploitation (Washington DC, Cambridge & Mass.).

------------- (1973) ‘Corinth 1972: the Forum area’ Hesperia 42: 1-44.

Virgilio, B., (1981) Il ‘Tempio stato’ di Pessinunte fra Pergamo e Roma nel II-I secolo AC (Pisa).

------------- (1988) Peasant, citizen and slave (Verso).

Vos, M. F., (1963) Scythian archers in archaic attic vase painting (Groningen).

Zaidman, L. B., & Pantel, P. S., (1989) Religion in the ancient Greek city as tr. by P. Cartledge in 1992 (Cambridge).

Wood, E. M., (1983) 'Agricultural slavery in classical Athens' AJAH 8: 1-47.

Welwei, K. W., (1974) Unfreie im antiken Kriegsdienst 1 (Wiesbaden). Wallon, H., (1988) Histoire de l’esclavage dans l’antiquité (Paris, R. Laffont ed.).

138

-------------- (1973) EZ 6.1 [& nos. 10-23: Veluppillai, no. 2: Karunārathna] (Colombo, ed. & tr.).

Book Review: Zelnick-Abramovitz, R., (2005) Not wholly free: The concept of manumission and the status of manumitted slaves in the ancient Greek world. Mnemosyne Supp. 266 (Leiden) reviewed by D. Kamen: available at http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2005/2005-11-21.html

------------- (1983) IC 2.1 (Colombo). Perēra, L. S., (1949) The institutions of ancient Ceylon from inscriptions 3 vols thesis submitted for PhD to the university of Ceylon. First volume published with supp. notes & bibliography in 2001 by S. Kiribamune & P. Senānāyake (Kandy).

2. Ancient Sri Lanka Primary sources: Beal, S., (1890) Si-Yu-Ki, Buddhist records of the Western world by Hiuen Tsiang (London, tr.).

Uduwara, J., (1991) EZ 6.2 [nos. 25, 32, 33: S. Ranawella, nos. 31, 35: A. S. Hettiarachchi, no. 27: A. Abayasinghe, no. 28: S. Jayawardhana, no. 30: K. Indrapāla, no. 43: M. H. Sirisoma] (Colombo, ed. & tr.). Veluppillai, A., (1971) CTI 1 (Peradeniya, ed.& tr.).

Epigraphic sources:

-------- (1972) CTI 2 (Peradeniya, ed.& tr.). Dias, M., ed. & tr. (1991) EN (Colombo). Warnasuriya, W. A. M., (1943) ‘Inscriptional evidence bearing in the nature of religious endowments in ancient Ceylon part II’ UCR 1.2: 74-82.

-------- ed. (2001) EZ.8 (Colombo) -------- ed. (2001) IC: S. Paranavitāna. 2. 2 (Colombo). Gunasēkara, B., (1887) ‘Three Sinhalese inscriptions: Text, transliteration, translation and notes’ JRASCB 10.34: 83-105.

Wickramasinghe, M. de Z., (1904 -1912) EZ 1 (Oxford, ed. & tr.). --------------------- (1912- 1927) EZ 2 (Oxford, ed. & tr.).

Karunārathna, S., ed. & tr. (1984) EZ 7 (Colombo).

--------------------- (1928) EZ 3.1 (Oxford, ed. & tr.).

Mudiyansē, N., (1990) ‘Inscriptions of Sri Lanka’ 107132 in

Wijērathne, D.J., (1952) ‘Interpretation of vaharala, etc. in Sinhalese inscriptions’ UCR 10: 103-117.

N. Wijesēkara ed. Archaeological centenary volume 2: Inscription (Colombo).

Wijesekara, N., ed. (1990) Archaeological department centenary volume: inscriptions (Colombo)

Paranavitāna, S., (1924-1928) ‘Epigraphical summary’ CJS (G. archaeology) 1 nos. 350-375: 165-173.

Wimalakitthi, M., Rev. (1957) Ys,df,aLk ix.%yh I (lit. ‘Epigraphical collection’) (Moratuwa).

-------------- (1928-1933) ‘Epigraphical summary’ CJS (G. archaeology) 2 ins. nos.375-422: 17-29; nos.423542: 99-128; ins. nos. 543-760:175.

Secondary sources: Adikaram, E. W., (1946) Early history of Buddhism in Ceylon (Colombo).

-------------- (1929-1933) EZ 3.2-4 [& nos. 3 & 23-25: H. W. Codrington] (Oxford, ed. & tr.).

Amaravansa, K., rev. (1959) ,laosj fi,a,sms (lit. ‘Inscriptions of Ceylon’) (Colombo).

--------------- (1934-1943) EZ 4 [& nos. 2-4 & 35: H. W. Codrington, no. 39: B.Ch. Chhabra (Oxford, ed. & tr.).

Ariyapāla, M. B., (1956) Society in medieval Ceylon (Colombo, Kandy).

-------------- & C. E. Godakumbura, (1955-1965) EZ 5 [& no.11: S. Karunārathne] (Colombo, ed. & tr.). -------------- (1956) Sigiri graffitti (Colombo).

Arsarathnam, S., (1958) Dutch power in Ceylon 16581687 (Amsterdam).

-------------- (1960) ‘Lankātilaka rock inscription’ UCR 18.1 &2: 1-45.

Aung-Twin, M., (1984) ‘Hierarchy and order in precolonial Burma’ JSEAS 15.2 (1984): 224-232.

-------------- (1962) ‘Some Sinhalese inscriptions of c. sixth century’ UCR 20.1: 1-11.

Banks, M., (1957) The social organisation of Jaffna Tamils of North Ceylon, with special reference to kinship, marriage and inheritance, PhD Thesis submitted to Cambridge University.

-------------- (1970) IC 1 (Colombo).

139

------------- (1960) ‘Caste in Jaffna’ 61-77 in E. R. Leach ed. Aspects of caste in South India, Ceylon and NorthWest Pakistan (Cambridge). Basnāyake, H. T., (1986) Sri Lankan monastic architecture (Delhi). Chanana, D., (1960) Slavery in ancient India (New Delhi). Caplan, L., (1980) ‘Power and status in South Asian slavery’ 169-194, in J. L. Watson ed. Asian and African systems of slavery (Los Angeles, California). Chakravarthi, U., (1985) ‘Of Dāsas and Karmakāras: servile labour in ancient India’ 35-75 in U. Patnaik & M. Dingwaney edd. Chains of servitude (London). Codrington, H. W., (1938) Ancient land tenure and revenue in Ceylon (Colombo).

Geiger, W., (1960) Culture of Ceylon in medieval times (Wiesbaden). Gilbert, W. H., (1953) ‘The Sinhalese caste system of central and southern Ceylon’ CHJ 2 (3-4) 295-366. Gnawimala, K., Rev. (1942) The ancient documents of Saparagamuwa (Colombo). Godakumbura, C. E., (1955) Sinhalese literature (Colombo). ------------------------- (1961) ‘Historical writings in Sinhalese’ 72-86 in C. H. Philips ed. Historians of India, Pakistan and Ceylon (London). Gombrich, R. F., (1995) Buddhist precept and practice: traditional Buddhism in the rural highlands of Ceylon (London). Goonewardena, K. W., (1958) ‘Some comments on Robert Knox and his writings on Ceylon’ UCR 16: 3952.

Cook, E. K., (1951) Ceylon (London, 2nd ed.). Deerananda, H., (2004) rdcHFgh, rdcH iy wd.u (lit, ‘Governance, government and religion’) (Warakapola). Devarājah, L., (1988) The Kandyan kingdom of Sri Lanka 1707-1782 (Colombo). De Silva, C. R., (1977) ‘The rise and fall of the kingdom of Sitāwaka (1521-1593)’ CJHSS 7.1: 1-43. De Silva, H., (1961) ‘ úfoaYSh idys;H lD;s’ (lit. ‘Foreign literary sources’) 28-33 in A. Liyanagamagē ed. Anurādhapura yugaya (Kelaniya). De Silva , W. A, (1928) ‘A contribution to the study of economic and social organization in Ceylon in early times’ JRASCB 31.81: 62-77. Dharmadasa, K. N. O., (2004) ‘uykqjr rdcOdksfhys wjidk wjOsfhys mej;s cd;sl iy wd.usl ixl,am’ (lit. The national and religious concepts that prevailed during the last phase of the Kandyan kingdom’) 249-264 in D. Amarasekara, H. Deerananda & R. Dassanayaka edd. Induwara: A. D. P. Kalansooriya felicitation volume (Warakapola). Dolapihilla, P., (1959) In the days of Sri Wickramarajasingha, last king of Kandy (Maharagama). D’Oyly, J., (1928) A sketch of the Kandyan kingdom (Dehiwala). Evers, H.D., (1972) Monks, priests and peasants: a study of Buddhism and social structure in central Ceylon (Leiden). Farmer, B.H., (1957) ‘Ceylon’ 745-786 in O. H. K. Spate ed. India and Pakistan: a general and regional geography 2nd ed. (London).

Gunawardana, R. A. H, L., (1979) Robe and plough: monasticism and economic interest in early medieval Sri Lanka (Arizona). Gunasinghe, P.A.T., (1960) ‘Slavery in Ceylon during Anurādhapura kingdom’ CHJ 10.1-4: 47-59. Heyley, F. A., (1923) A treatise on the laws and customs of the Sinhalese (including the portions still surviving under the name, Kandyan law) with appendices containing Simon Sawers memoranda (Colombo). Hettiāractchi, S. B., (1988) Social and cultural history of ancient Sri Lanka (Delhi). Hocart, A. M., (1950) Caste: a comparative study (New York). Ilangasinghe, M., (1983) ‘Kingship and lineage in the Buddhist monastic order in medieval Sri Lanka’ Kalyāni 2: 166-176. Ievers, R. W., (1899) Manual of the north central province (Colombo). Jayaweera, A. M. S., (1986) ,xldfõ rdcH iy wd.u (lit. ‘Government and religion in Sri Lanka’) (Kelaniya). Karunātilaka, P. V. B., (1983) ‘Early Sri Lankan societysome reflections on caste, social groups and ranking’ SLJH 9.1& 2: 108-143. -------------------- (1988) ‘Caste and social change in ancient Sri Lanka- the growth of the caste system in the early Anurādhapura period: A study based on the Buddhist commentaries.’ SSR no. 4: 1-30.

140

Kosambi, D. D., (1975) The culture and civilization of ancient India in historical outline (London).

Pridham, C., (1849) An historical, political and statistical account of Ceylon 1 & 2 (London).

---------------- (1985) An introduction to the study of Indian history (London, 2nd rev. ed.).

Rāhula, W., Rev. (1943) ‘Inscriptional evidence bearing on the nature of religious endowment in ancient Ceylon’ part. II UCR 1.2: 74-83.

Kulasēkara, K. M. P., (1984-1985) ‘The caste system and the British administration in the Kandyan provinces of Sri Lanka 1815-1832’ Kalyāni, 3 & 4: 205-230.

--------------- (1956) History of Buddhism in Ceylon: The Anurādhapura period (Colombo).

Lehman, F. K., (1984) ‘Freedom and bondage in traditional Burma and Thailand’ JSEAS 15.2: 233-244.

Ragavan, M. D., (1953) ‘Sinhalese social system- a sociological review’ SZ 27.1: 197-211.

Liyanagamagē, A., (1968) The decline of Polonnaruwa and the rise of Dambadeniya c. 1180-1270 AD (Colombo).

Roberts, M., (1982) Caste conflict & elite formation-the rise of a karāva elite in Sri Lanka, 1500-1931 (Cambridge, London, New York).

------------ (1982) ‘The influence of caste on the Buddhist Sanga in ancient and early medieval Sri Lanka' Kalyāni 1.1 & 2: 48-83.

Selvanayagam, S., (1966) ‘Market gardening in the Jaffna region: a study of the Inuvil-Thavady villages’ CJHSS 9.1: 172-176.

Malalasēkara, G. P., (1994) The pāli literature of Ceylon (Kandy, rept. of 1928 ed.).

Senanayaka,

Mettānanda, T., (1994) ‘Robert Knox’s Historical relation and the position of women in Kandyan society’ SLJH 20.1& 2: 106-132. Misra, S. P., (1961) Labour problems in ancient and medieval India (Calcutta, Allahabad, Patna). Navarathnam, C. S., (1958) Tamils and Ceylon (Jaffna).

P., (2004) ‘Yz%,xldfõ merKs wNsf,aLkj, wka;rA.; uqo,a iïnkaaO mrs;Hd. ms