Show Summary Details

Page of

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Latin American History. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 23 February 2024

Indigenous Slavery in the Atlanticfree

Indigenous Slavery in the Atlanticfree

  • Miller Shores WrightMiller Shores WrightHistory Department, Old Dominion University


The capture, enslavement, and exchange of Indigenous peoples of the Americas predates contact between Indigenous Americans, Europeans, and Africans. Indigenous Americans incorporated captives into diverse communities in culturally specific ways that varied along a spectrum from chattel slaves to adopted kin. Upon contact with Europeans and Africans, the demand for Indigenous captives increased vertiginously to satisfy Europeans seeking laborers to exploit as workers and as a means to realize profits in Atlantic markets. Alongside European demands for captives, Indigenous peoples pursued captives to sell to Europeans or adopt to replace loved ones lost to disease, warfare, and slavery. The variation and persistence of Indigenous slavery in the Atlantic was shaped by the adaptation of various culturally specific Indigenous forms of captivity in North and South America toward commodified forms of bondage that had been developed on Atlantic islands and the West coast of Africa. In numerous locales in the Americas—such as the Caribbean, Mexico, Brazil, and Carolina—Indigenous slavery came to define labor relations between Europeans and Indigenous peoples after contact only to be replaced by the importation of millions of enslaved Africans.

As the importation of enslaved Africans increased, Indigenous slavery became a labor strategy employed in borderlands between colonial and Indigenous communities. Colonists who could not secure the capital or access to merchants necessary to import enslaved Africans often turned to Indigenous slavery for their physical, domestic, and sexual labor needs. Indigenous communities exchanged captives for European commodities. This allowed for further acquisition of captives deep into the interior of the Americas through the exchange of European commodities or the use of European firearms in captive raids. Colonists frequently employed Indigenous slavery as a colonial strategy in competition with the desires of European imperial policies. With the monopolization of African slavery around Asiento contracts that supplied designated annual numbers of enslaved Africans to Spanish America and elsewhere, European imperial policy came to prioritize merchants who signed those contracts and the taxation, importation, and exportation of enslaved Africans. Colonial metropoles specifically outlawed the enslavement and exchange of Indigenous peoples unless captives were taken under specific conditions: frequently defined in Iberian colonies by “just wars,” ransoms, and accusations of real or imagined cannibalism. Colonists also employed Indigenous slavery as a means of displacement and removal of Indigenous populations, as can be seen in the exportation of Indigenous communities from English colonial possessions in New England, Virginia, and Carolina and in French Louisiana. Colonists and Indigenous slavers quickly learned how to exploit colonial stipulations against the enslavement of Indigenous peoples to blur the sources and nature of captives’ bondage as in Brazil, the Guianas, and New Mexico. The clandestine and illicit nature of Indigenous slavery resulted in the development of variable, adaptable, and persistent forms of Indigenous slavery that in certain forms still can be seen through the exploitation of vulnerable populations that exemplifies modern slavery.


  • History of Brazil
  • History of Latin America and the Oceanic World
  • Indigenous History
  • Slavery and Abolition
  • Colonialism and Imperialism

Indigenous Captivity and Bondage

Indigenous peoples of the Americas practiced forms of bondage and captive exchange before contact with Europeans and Africans. Between 1050 ce and 1150 ce, inhabitants of the Mississippian-period city of Cahokia sacrificed fifty-seven malnourished foreign women of childbearing age and buried them alongside one elite man.1 For example, the use of war captives for human sacrificial ceremonies has been documented among the Inca, Tupi-Guarani, Kalina (Carib), Mayans, Aztecs, Puebloans, Cahokians, Iroquois, and others. Outside of sacrificial ceremonies, captives—mostly women and children—were often taken and kept as sexual partners or adoptive kin in Indigenous America. In the 1590s, Jesuits recorded Indigenous headmen of the Piratininga valley in present-day São Paulo who married enslaved captives.2 Incorporating women into communities as adoptive kin or sexual partners was commonplace among the Iroquois, Kalina (Carib), Tupi-Guarani, Muskogeans, and others. Presenting captives as gifts created alliances between groups, rewarded dependents for services rendered, and assuaged the loss of loved ones. Indigenous peoples across the Americas used captive-taking and -giving as diplomatic and social strategies to strengthen communities and connections between groups.

Many of the first Europeans who arrived in the Americas captured Indigenous people by force. When Cristobal Colon returned to Iberia from his first voyage to the Americas in 1493, he returned with six Indigenous captives who survived the voyage to present to the Spanish monarchs.3 In 1524, sailors on Giovanni de Verrazano’s expedition captured an Indigenous boy somewhere on the North American mid-Atlantic coast.4 Many of the leaders of the first Spanish expeditions in the Americas—Sebastian de Benalcázar, Gonzalo de Salazar, Hernán Cortes, Nuño de Guzman—returned to Spain with enslaved captives and nominal servants.5 Hernando de Soto demanded captives in most Indigenous towns he invaded in his 1539–1543 expedition through the North American Southeast. The inclusion of chains on European expeditions leaves little doubt as to European intentions with Indigenous captives.6

Upon contact with Europeans, Indigenous peoples continued practices of gifting captives and often found that Europeans were willing to exchange metal wares, luxury items, and even firearms for captives. In Southeastern Brazil in 1549, a Jesuit provincial complained that Portuguese colonists were adopting Native captivity practices: “all the men have slave women as concubines, and other free Indians whom they demand as wives for their male slaves, according to the custom of the land, which is to have many women.”7 In 1674, English colonist Henry Woodward was taken to the Westo town of Hickauhaugau on the fall line of the Savannah River and given a “young Indian boy taken from the falls of the river” as a diplomatic gift to establish trade between the Westo and the new Carolina colony.8 The sex of captives gifted depended upon the priorities of those Indigenous groups involved. Female captives were often kept by Indigenous communities to bestow as gifts upon dependents and help repopulate communities. Women were valued highly for their reproductive capacities and sexual, agricultural, and domestic labor. Boys did not offer the same reproductive value as female captives but were prized by Europeans as potential manual laborers, porters, and soldiers.9 With the intent of acquiring capital quickly and claiming possession over invaded lands, acquiring access to labor remained an issue for colonists across the Americas. Portuguese colonist Pero de Magalhães Gândavo described colonists’ labor strategies in Brazil in 1587, stating, “the first thing which they seek to obtain is slaves to work the land and to till their plantations and ranches.”10 European demands for laborers encouraged Indigenous peoples to provide more captives.

From Captive Trades to Indigenous Slave Trades

Captive-taking and exchange with Europeans had unintended consequences among Indigenous communities. Indigenous peoples found European demands for captives to be insatiable. At various points in relationships between Native peoples and Europeans, markets for Indigenous captives began to transition from gifts exchanged in diplomatic negotiations or war captives seized in battles to fungible Atlantic commodities with flexible and contingent exchange values. The incorporation of Indigenous slavery into Atlantic markets coincided with the commodification of enslaved Indigenous captives.11 This process developed in fits and starts, was not unidirectional, and varied depending on contexts. But across the Americas, as Europeans incorporated Indigenous slavery into Atlantic markets, Indigenous captives continued to be commodified in similar ways that enslaved Africans were subjected to—frequently in parallel or competing categories of bondage. For example, enslaved Africans in 16th-century São Paulo were evaluated in colonial wills and inventories at higher values than enslaved Natives but were present on estates in that region at significantly lower numbers than enslaved Natives during the period.12 By 1708, in the North American Southeast, Chickasaw slavers said one Indigenous “slave brings a gun, ammunition, horse, hatchet, and a suit of clothes.”13 As European goods increasingly circulated in Native communities, Indigenous captives increasingly provided access to those goods and in so doing created Indigenous slave trades.

Indigenous slave trades led to violence that escalated and reverberated across the Americas. Some Native communities pursued strategies of acquiring more captives. This involved positioning one’s community geographically or politically to benefit from the captive trade, or to cut rival communities out of the captive trade. Predatory militaristic slaving societies like the Westos, Occaneechis, Shawnees, Chickasaws, Comanches, and others developed strategies to take advantage of Indigenous slave trades.14 Slaving and warfare decimated Indigenous communities and exacerbated the spread of diseases and their effects. Indigenous peoples sought out captives to replace community members lost to disease, warfare, and enemy slave raids—not just to sell to Europeans. The devastation of the Iroquoian Wars of expansion on 17th-century Indigenous communities of the Great Lakes region demonstrates how disease and warfare led the Haudenosaunee to expand, taking captives from enemy communities to replace kinfolk lost to disease and warfare. As a result of the conquest of their neighbors and the taking of captives, scholars estimate that by the middle of the 17th century more than half of the population of the Five Nations Iroquois were adopted outsiders.15 But the Five Nations Iroquois never developed an Indigenous slave trade with Europeans, keeping captives within their own communities to use as diplomatic gifts, adoptees, and slaves. Captive-taking to replace lost loved ones, and the incorporation of outsiders—alongside the migration of those fleeing slave raids—exacerbated the spread of disease across the Americas. Disease, warfare, and slaving fueled local and cross-continental migrations leading to the further fragmentation and coalescence of Indigenous communities. Demographic loss due to disease led some Indigenous communities to turn to captive-taking, and a cycle of disease, warfare, and slavery continued.

The effects of disease, slavery, and overwork led to unsustainable losses among enslaved Indigenous populations. This combination depopulated the Indigenous populations of the Caribbean leading Spanish slavers to search ever further on the mainland in Florida as well as in Central and South America for Indigenous populations to enslave. Disease, violence, and overwork—particularly in the gold mines of Cibao—decimated the Taíno communities of Hispaniola leading Spanish authorities to justify the enslavement of Natives who were ransomed, taken in “just wars,” or accused of cannibalism in the surrounding Caribbean. By 1520, The Spanish enslaved an estimated fifteen thousand to forty thousand Native Lucayos of the Bahamas alone. The European and Indigenous drive to replace enslaved laborers or community members by captive-taking exacerbated the spread of disease, causing the largest demographic disaster in human history.16

This demographic collapse fueled the Indigenous slave trade and subsequently the African slave trade. In 1585, Portuguese colonists in São Paulo requested the governor declare a just war against the “Indians named carijos” so that they could be punished for killing colonists. The colonists argued they needed to take more captives to work the sugar cane plantations because of the loss of “more than two thousand” enslaved people to disease.17 Portuguese colonists directly linked the need for more captives and the justification for wars against them to the loss of enslaved Natives from disease. Increasingly colonists in locales with access to Atlantic merchants found solutions to their labor needs by turning to the importation of enslaved Africans. In 1583, the captaincy of Pernambuco engaged near two thousand enslaved Africans and an estimated four thousand enslaved Natives on sugar plantations. The success of the Brazilian sugar industry in the first two decades of the 17th century financed the transition in Bahia and Pernambuco toward a majority enslaved African population by the middle of the century.18 Where slaveowners had access to capital and Atlantic markets they turned to the purchase of enslaved Africans to replace enslaved Natives across the Americas. The transition from enslaved Natives to enslaved Africans was fueled by the effects of disease, warfare, and captivity on Indigenous populations but was not uniform in its pace or scope in different colonial contexts. In numerous locales in colonial borderlands, Indigenous slavery persisted as a frontier strategy for acquiring laborers in the Americas.

Indigenous Slavery on the Borderlands

As colonists who invested in plantation slavery increasingly transitioned toward the use of enslaved Africans, Indigenous slavery persisted in colonial borderlands and on the peripheries of imperial power. For colonists who did not have access to capital or merchants who sold enslaved Africans, the capture or purchase of enslaved Natives supplied their labor needs. This can be seen with the persistence of Indigenous slavery in Northern Mexico, California, Patagonia, and the Amazon. Colonists on frontier borderlands that did not attract colonial settlers or capital found it profitable and at times diplomatic to purchase Indigenous captives from Native allies. The Spanish royal governor of Chile, Ambrosio O’Higgins, encouraged the purchase of war captives to reward Spanish allies for fighting against their enemies.19 Indigenous peoples who mastered equestrian tactics, like the Comanche of the North American plains and the Mapuche of Patagonia, often captured Spaniards and other Natives along with livestock on long raids into Spanish territories.20 Spanish captives would be used as bargaining chips in negotiations or to replenish Indigenous populations, but Native captives—especially women and children—could be sold to Spaniards. The commandant general of the Interior Provinces of New Spain, Jacobo de Ugarte y Loyola, negotiated a treaty with the Comanche to provide Apache captives under the age of fourteen to the Spanish. Ugarte hoped to encourage the Comanche “to search and capture because of interest in the ransom” for captives.21 This encouraged conflict between the Comanche and the Lipan Apache. Children were targeted because they were easier to incorporate into Spanish households as domestic servants, ranch hands, and day laborers. Adult males would be sold away to work the mines of central Mexico or Bolivia, or as field hands on plantations. Enslaved women worked as domestics in Spanish households and were subjected to sexual violence at a horrific rate. In the Spanish territories that became New Mexico, the unrecognized mestizo children of enslaved Native women made up at least 10 percent of the population who legally married between 1700 and 1846—placing their actual numbers in the population estimated to be around a third.22 Despite the illegality of Indigenous slavery, it persisted in the borderlands where colonial militaries could take Native peoples as war captives or purchase captives through “ransoming” them off of Native captors into the 18th and 19th centuries.

Regional and Colonial Variations on Indigenous Slavery

Indigenous Slave Trades with Iberians

In the Iberian Americas, colonists used the concept of ransom—resgate in Portuguese and rescate in Spanish—to acquire Indigenous captives by buying them from other Native peoples. The colonial legal and moral justification used for this practice was to save the Native person’s soul through baptism instead of leaving them to be executed or sacrificed by their Indigenous captors or kept in captivity forever. In return, those ransomed captives were required to serve colonists who purchased their “liberty” with service for life. In colonial Iberian America, ransomed and enslaved Natives were to be distinguished from slaves taken as war captives. In the invasion of Mexico, Cortes’ soldiers brought iron brands to be applied to Indigenous captives’ faces to denote the difference in enslaved status: R for ransomed slaves (esclavos de rescate) and G for war slaves (esclavos de guerra).23

While the Spanish crown did away with the practice of branding Indigenous captives’ faces, Spanish and Portuguese colonists found it easy enough to abuse the legal justification for ransoming captives. As early as the 1550s, the Jesuit Manuel Nóbrega opposed the ransoming of Indigenous captives in Brazil because it fostered war between Indigenous groups and encouraged colonists to manipulate the legal justifications for slavery.24 In the 17th- and 18th-century Amazon, Portuguese colonists developed expeditionary forces to raid into the interior for Native captives known as ransom expeditions (tropas de resgate). Often made up of majority Native soldiers—many of whom were enslaved—these expeditionary forces were supposed to ransom captives from Indigenous groups in the interior but were effectively slave raids.25 Colonial officials justified the expeditions however they could, employing the legal justifications of war or ransom to achieve their ends.26 Colonial officials often abused the legal system to acquire Indigenous captives and permit Indigenous slavery, at times personally profiting from the Indigenous slave trade.

Since the beginning of Portuguese colonization in Brazil in 1500, Indigenous slave trades developed from colonists capturing Natives on slave raids and exchanging with Native communities for Native captives via resgate (ransom). Slave raids from Bahia and Pernambuco from 1570 to 1600 brought thousands of enslaved Natives to the coasts to labor on the emerging sugar plantations.27 However, as disease and overwork decimated Indigenous populations, sugar planters with sufficient capital increasingly turned to enslaved Africans for their labor demands. Increasingly, Indigenous slavery became a strategy employed by colonists to exploit Indigenous laborers on the frontiers as the Portuguese expanded into the interior of Brazil. After the Dutch invaded the Northeastern Captaincies of Brazil in 1630, Dutch colonial officials claimed that the Portuguese enslaved local Natives and, “as for the slaves from Maranhão, the Portuguese traffic in them, just as they do in Angola.”28 Colonists in 17th-century São Paulo expanded the concepts of ransom and “just war” to justify massive slave raids into the interior of Brazil and the Rio de la Plata that became known as bandeiras. These slaving expeditions, consisting of majority Native combatants, enslaved tens of thousands of Native captives between the 1620s and 1660s despite condemnation by the Jesuits and colonial officials from Spain and Portugal.29 Despite the effective outlawing of Indigenous slavery—numerous times since 1570—Natives would continue to be enslaved as colonists expanded into Minas Gerais, Mato Grosso, Goiás, and beyond in the 18th and 19th centuries.30

Spanish attempts to punish slavers and officials who encouraged slaving accelerated in the 1650s and 1660s.31 While these campaigns against Indigenous slavery resulted in the freeing of thousands of enslaved Natives, hundreds of thousands more Indigenous captives remained in clandestine bondage. In this process, Spanish colonial authorities—like officials elsewhere—created conceptions of race and casta (lineage) to distinguish between constructed categories of people who could be legally enslaved (people of African descent) and those who owed tribute and vassalage but could not be legally bought and sold (Indíos).32 Europeans also created alliances and informal agreements between Indigenous groups like the Kalina (Carib), Kalinago (Caraibe), and Lokono (Arawak) and Afro-Indigenous groups like the Mosoquito of Central America to return runaway enslaved people of African or Indigenous descent.33 Colonial policies discouraged Spaniards from openly participating in the capture, purchase, and sale of Indigenous captives, but they had very little effect on the ability of Native peoples to supply Indigenous captives. In the late 17th and early 18th centuries, Kalina (Carib) and Lokono (Arawak) peoples solidified their position as suppliers of Native captives to English, Dutch, and French colonists in the Guyanas. In southern Chile, the Mapuche supplied war captives to Spanish colonists despite the outlawing of this specific slave trade in 1679, and in Northern Mexico, the Comanche came to dominate the captive trade in the 18th century.34

Indigenous Slave Trades with the English

In the colonial borderlands of Southeastern North America, Indigenous slavers like the Chickasaws, Westos, Creeks, and Yamasees escalated the Native slave trade to new heights in the region at the turn of the 18th century. The Indigenous slave trades with the English in Southeastern North America began with Virginia colonists taking war captives or sporadically trading for Indigenous captives as early as 1622.35 The slave trade expanded when Virginia colonists started exchanging guns and metal wares for Indigenous captives to work expanding tobacco plantations after the end of the third Anglo-Powhatan war in 1646.36 In the 1650s Iroquoian-speakers and other Native communities fleeing Haudenosaunee captive raids in the Great Lakes region migrated south to the Virginia fall line. The Indigenous slave trade escalated in the coming decades as many of the newly arrived groups found it profitable to take captives and exchange them with Virginia colonists for firearms and metal goods. By the 1660s, Indigenous slavers, like the Westo, were traveling as far south as Florida to take Indigenous captives from Spanish missions. This trade expanded with the founding of the Carolina colony in 1670 and a negotiated treaty for captives between the Westo and the colony’s proprietors in 1674.37 In the first forty-five years of the existence of the Carolina colony, between 1670 and 1715, English colonists exported more enslaved Natives than they imported enslaved Africans.38 This strategy demonstrates that Indigenous slavery was not separate from the Atlantic slave trade but often used as a source of capital accumulation for the importation of enslaved Africans.

English colonists also developed slaving practices intended to displace Indigenous peoples from lands they claimed and desired Indigenous peoples to be removed from. In 1645, in the aftermath of the third Anglo-Powhatan War, Virginia colonists sold all Indigenous captives over the age of eleven outside of the colony to prevent their returning to their own peoples and strengthening those groups.39 English colonists in New England enslaved Pequots locally, sold captives to Providence Island in the Caribbean, and exchanged captives for enslaved Africans in the aftermath of the Pequot War of 1636–1638.40 Selling Indigenous captives into the Atlantic was both lucrative and “helped to clear the land by simply removing natives from their homelands.”41 The removal of Native peoples cleared lands for English possession and expansion while also weakening groups who resisted English colonization. Virginia colonists employed this strategy in 1705 against the Nanziatticos when they punished the entire nation for the murder of English settlers with slavery and dispossession. Enslavement was not only about supplying labor for plantation agriculture but also a means to remove and dispossess Indigenous peoples who resisted colonial ambitions.42

Indigenous Slave Trades with the French

The exportation of enslaved Natives from North America to the Caribbean was not restricted to the English. French colonists in New France adapted Indigenous slavery to the Atlantic slave trade and provided Indigenous captives locally and to Martinique, Guadalupe, and Saint Domingue.43 Indigenous slavery began in New France as it did elsewhere in the Americas, as Indigenous captives—mostly women and children—were exchanged as diplomatic gifts and served as domestic laborers and sexual partners among French and Métis (Franco–Native) communities. French officials kept enslaved Natives as domestics and encouraged the taking of captives by Indigenous allies of France. In 1707 and 1708, French colonial officials learned that French traders in Illinois and their Miami and Illinois allies were selling enslaved Natives to English traders in Carolina.44 In 1709, when slavery in New France came under threat, the colonial intendant, Jacques Raudot, clarified the legal status of enslaved Natives and Africans stating they “shall be fully owned as property.” Raudot declared that only Indigenous people of the Panis (Pawnee) nation could be legally enslaved—which subsequently became a catchall term for designating legally enslaved Natives of countless nations.45 In the aftermath of the Natchez War of 1730–1731, the French sold five hundred enslaved Natchez into the Caribbean as punishment for their rebellion against French rule.46 Enslaved Natives and Afro-Natives continued to show up in runaway advertisements for self-liberated peoples in Saint Domingue into the 1770s and 1790s.47 Like the English, French colonists used Indigenous slavery to displace and remove those who opposed their colonial efforts.

Indigenous Slave Trades with the Dutch

While there is some evidence that Dutch colonists exchanged Indigenous diplomatic captives and hostages with the Mohawks and Mahicans in the Hudson River Valley in the 1620s and 1630s, this trade never developed into an Indigenous slave trade.48 In Guiana, however, Dutch and English colonists enslaved Native peoples and coopted Native captive trades from the late 16th century among the Kalina (Carib) and Lokono (Arawak) peoples.49 Dutch traders in the Essequibo, Demerara, and Suriname colonies were successful in establishing diplomatic and trade connections through intermarriage with Kalina groups. Through trade, Kalina groups sought access through these kinship networks to European goods and protection against other Native groups in exchange for Native captives. The Dutch encouraged Kalina slavers to attack upland groups such as the Akawaio supported by the Spanish and the Wayapi supported by the Portuguese.50 With the boom in sugar production in Northern South America and the Caribbean in the early 17th century, Dutch slave traders sold enslaved Natives from the Guianas to English colonists in Barbados. Dutch slavers even tried to create transimperial networks for Native captives between Dutch Suriname and Carolina in the 1680s.51 Despite increased numbers of enslaved Africans imported into the Dutch Guianas in the 18th century, Dutch colonists continued to value enslaved Natives as domestic servants as Carolina colonists had. Hundreds or even thousands of Native captives were seized annually by Kalina peoples in the Orinoco River Valley in the second half of the 18th century.52 In the 1760s, an American living in Dutch Guiana described the Kalinas as having been “corrupted by the Dutch, and excited to make incursions on the interior Indians, for the sake of making prisoners, who afterwards are sold to the inhabitants of the Dutch colonies.”53 Dutch participation in the Indigenous slave trade continued until the trade was outlawed in 1793 and subsequently ceased.54

The Pacific Northwest

In Northwestern North America, an Indigenous slave trade developed in the 19th century alongside the fur trade, similar to what occurred in New France in the 17th century. Demand for Indigenous slaves grew among Native groups in the interior who had suffered population losses due to disease. The fur trade and slave trade developed together in the region as “a cycle of raids for slaves, trade of slaves for furs, and trade for furs to Euroamericans became part of the rivalry” between competing Indigenous traders and groups.55 While the Indigenous slave trade brought Native captives from or to the coasts of the Pacific Northwest, Euro-American companies like the Hudson Bay Company incorporated the Indigenous slave trade into Atlantic markets and patterns of exchange that had become global by the 18th and 19th centuries. As Indigenous slavery was outlawed in one region of the Americas it persisted in others.

Persistence of Indigenous Slavery

One of the most striking features of Indigenous slavery in the Atlantic is its persistence into modern times. Because Indigenous slavery thrived in colonial borderlands far beyond imperial control it also persisted into the age of the nation-state. As nations in the Atlantic began to abolish the racialized enslavement of peoples of African descent, Native slavery persisted on frontiers precisely because of its clandestine nature and the diversity of practices it encompassed. As markets and demands changed, Indigenous slavery adapted alongside those changes. As legal slavery was abolished, the clandestine exploitation of Indigenous peoples continued. In the words of Andrés Reséndez,

Modern incarnations of involuntary servitude and human trafficking are hardly by-products of economic dislocations or the growing inequality of the contemporary world. Such nefarious endeavors have existed for centuries as a substitute for formal slavery and have expanded in times of war, revolution, lack of state control, and globalization . . . .56

The exploitation of vulnerable human beings became the hallmark of the “new slavery” even as racialized slavery was abolished in the Atlantic. Strategies developed and used for the exploitation of Indigenous communities continue into the 21st century in labor relations that proliferate in industries like illegal mining, narcotics production, sex work, and elsewhere. Indigenous slavery developed as an ends and a means of the exploitation of vulnerable Indigenous populations that continues into the 21st century.

Discussion of the Literature

One of the persisting debates surrounding Indigenous slavery regards the terms proposed in describing involuntary bondage, labor, and captivity. Native peoples understood bondage, captivity, and obligatory labor in various ways. This becomes problematic in determining how to describe those practices as they were coopted and incorporated into the Atlantic slave trade. Imminent scholars of Atlantic slavery have dismissed Indigenous slavery as a foundational but separate precursor to the racialized enslavement of people of African descent in the Atlantic slave trade.57 Scholars of Indigenous slavery have discredited these interpretations with the plethora of scholarship on Indigenous slave trades published since the beginning of the 21st century. The first of these works focused on Native communities and endeavored to understand the place of Indigenous captivity and captive trades within Indigenous societies; two brief examples are Daniel K. Richter’s The Ordeal of the Longhouse in North America and Eduardo Viveiros de Castro’s A Inconstância da Alma Selvagem and Carlos Fausto’s Inimigos Fiéis in South America. In both cases scholars focused on captivity and anthropophagy in larger analyses of the social and cultural organizations of Indigenous communities. From these foundations scholars began to focus on the development of Indigenous slave trades with Europeans. In North America, James F. Brooks’s Captives and Cousins focused on the Indigenous slave trade in the Southwest whereas Alan Gallay’s The Indian Slave Trade focused on the Indigenous slave trade in Carolina at the turn of the 18th century. In South America, John Manuel Monteiro focused on Indigenous slavery in São Paulo in Negros da Terra, Nadia Farage explored the effects of the captive trade in the Northern Amazon in As Muralhas dos Sertões, and Jaime Valenzuela Márquez’s work analyzed Native slavery on the southern Chilean border with the Mapuche. Scholars have begun to focus on the direct impacts of Indigenous slavery on specific Indigenous groups as shown in Eric E. Bowne’s and Robbie Ethridge’s examinations of the development of the Westo and Chickasaw as Indigenous slavers, in The Westo Indians and From Chicaza to Chickasaw respectively. Other scholars have taken hemispheric imperial approaches to analyzing the role of Indigenous slavery in Spanish colonization as seen in David J. Weber’s Bárbaros and Andrés Reséndez’s The Other Slavery. The connections between and transitions from Indigenous slavery toward racialized chattel slavery are explored in Theda Perdue’s Slavery and the Evolution of Cherokee Society and Christina Snyder’s Slavery in Indian Country. The development of scholarship on Indigenous slavery and slave trades has exploded across the Americas in the past two decades with nuanced temporal, methodological, and regional analyses that future scholars will build on.

Captivity or Slavery

Scholars continue to debate the correct terminology for the unfree labor regimes used by Natives and colonists that employed Indigenous laborers. Defining these practices becomes particularly difficult during the transition from Native captivity to Indigenous slave trades. Scholars make distinctions between practices of Indigenous captivity—where captives suffered a diverse array of fates from adoption to ritualized torture as “owned people”—to slavery, where captives were bought and sold in hereditary systems of bondage that became increasingly racialized and institutionalized over time. Debates persist over the appropriate definition for captives and their labor, varying between Native captives, slaves, peons, serfs, compulsory or obligatory service, or eschewing European understandings to include Indigenous terms translated as “owned people,” “pets,” or “dogs.”58 In contrast to South American forms of obligatory service and compulsory labor such as the mita labor drafts or yanaconaje peonage of the Inca, commodified slavery marks the entrance of Indigenous slavery into Atlantic markets.59 Neil Whitehead argues that in the South American case, “although forms of captivity and obligatory service were present and prevalent throughout South America, this was not slavery—a better analogy is with feudal serfdom.”60 While it is debatable whether Lokono (Arawak) and Kalina (Carib) exchanges of captives can be compared to serfdom, Whitehead’s argument that large slave trades began with the introduction of Europeans to the Americas and the commodification of captives is one avenue for further debate within the scholarship.

The scholarship on Indigenous slavery poses interesting questions that future researchers should continue to investigate. Alejandra Dubcovsky’s work among the Apalachee testimonies explores how Indigenous understandings of bondage changed Apalachee attitudes toward potential enemies and captors.61 Analyzing how Indigenous peoples developed strategies to profit from enslaving others or avoid enslavement emphasizes the culturally contingent nature of bondage. Examining how slaving led to the creation of new communities and ethnogenesis offers new understandings of the direct and lasting impacts that the Indigenous slave trade had on Indigenous peoples.62 The questions surrounding how, why, and in what contexts colonists transitioned away from the enslavement of Indigenous captives to the enslavement of Africans remain underexplored.63 The role of indigenous slaves as sexual and domestic partners deserves more attention to acknowledge the intersections between race, gender, and sexuality.64 Scholars need to further analyze the experiences of Indigenous women and children in captivity in Indigenous and colonial communities. Achieving a better grasp on how Indigenous peoples, Europeans, and Africans understood the racialization of slavery in the Atlantic can change the understanding of racialized slavery and its legacies across the Atlantic. Further, investigating the links between Indigenous slavery and capitalism and the clandestine nature of Indigenous slavery with the development of “new slavery” offers promising avenues for future research.

Primary Sources

Primary sources for the Indigenous slave trade often rely on the European and American colonial archives. The following is a brief list of examples of archives and published collections of colonial sources. For Spanish America the colonial archive at the Archivo General de Indias, in Sevilla, Spain is the primary repository. For regional archives in colonial Spanish America see: Spanish Archives of New Mexico, Sante Fe, New Mexico; Archivo Nacional de Santiago de Chile; Biblioteca Nacional de México, Mexico, DF; P. K. Yonge Library at the University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida; and the Nettie Lee Benson Latin American Collection at the Benson Library, University of Texas at Austin.

For Portuguese America the primary archives are the Biblioteca Nacional do Brasil, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; Arquivo Nacional do Brasil, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; Arquivo Histórico Ultramarino do Portugal, Lisbon, Portugal; Arquivo do Estado de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil. For published collections for the state and city of São Paulo see Atas da Câmara Municipal de São Paulo,65 and the Inventários e Testamentos, Do Arquivo Estadual do Estado de São Paulo.66

For British America the main archives are the Colonial Office, Public Records Office, Kew, United Kingdom; The British Library, London, United Kingdom; and the Library of Congress, Washington, DC. For more regional archives on Indigenous Slavery in British North America see the South Carolina Department of Archives and History, Columbia, South Carolina; The Georgia Archives, Atlanta, Georgia; and The Library of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia. For regional published collections on British North America see: Journal of the Commons House of Assembly of South Carolina, 1692–1726; Journal of the Grand Council of South Carolina; Records in the British Public Record Office Relating to South Carolina 1663–1684; The Shaftesbury Papers: and Other Records relating to Carolina and the First Settlement on Ashley River prior to the Year 1676; The Early Records of the Town of Providence; Records of the Colony of New Plymouth, in New England; and Minutes of the Council and General Court of Colonial Virginia: 1622–1632, 1670–1676.67

For French archival sources see the Archives Nationales de France, Paris; Archives Nationales d’Outre-Mer, Aix-en-Provence, France; Library and Archives of Canada, Ottawa, Canada; Bibliothèque et Archives Nationales de Québec, Québec, Canada. For published sources on French Canada see The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents.68

Links to Digital Materials

Further Reading

  • Blackhawk, Ned. Violence over the Land: Indians and Empires in the Early American West. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2006.
  • Bossy, Denise I. The Yamasee Indians: From Florida to South Carolina. Lincoln: University of North Carolina Press, 2018.
  • Bowne, Eric E. The Westo Indians: Slave Traders of the Early Colonial South. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 2005.
  • Brooks, James F. Captives and Cousins: Slavery, Kinship, and Community in the Southwest Borderlands. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2011.
  • Dias, Camila Loureiro. “O comércio de Escravos Indígenas na Amazónia visto pelos Regimentos de Entradas e de Tropas de Resgate (Séculos XVII e XVIII).” Revista Territórios & Fronteiras 10, no. 1 (January–July 2017): 238–259.
  • Dubcovsky, Alejandra. “Defying Indian Slavery: Apalachee Voices and Spanish Sources in the Eighteenth-Century Southeast.” William and Mary Quarterly 75, no. 2 (April 2018): 295–322.
  • Ethridge, Robbie. From Chicaza to Chickasaw: The European Invasion and the Transformation of the Mississippian World, 1540–1715. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2010.
  • Ethridge, Robbie, and Sheri M. Shuck-Hall. Mapping the Mississippian Shatter Zone: The Colonial Indian Trade and Regional Instability in the American South. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2009.
  • Fisher, Linford D. “‘Why shall wee have peace to bee made slaves’: Indian Surrenders during and after King Philip’s War.” Ethnohistory 64, no. 1 (January 2017): 91–114.
  • Gallay, Alan. The Indian Slave Trade: The Rise of the English Empire in the American South, 1670–1717. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2002.
  • Goetz, Rebecca Anne. “The Nanziatticos and the Violence of the Archive: Land and Native Enslavement in Colonial Virginia.” Journal of Southern History 85, no. 1 (February 2019): 33–60.
  • Monteiro, John M. Blacks of the Land: Indian Slavery, Settler Society, and the Portuguese Colonial Enterprise in South America. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2018.
  • Reséndez, Andrés. The Other Slavery: The Uncovered Story of Indian Enslavement in America. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2016.
  • Rushforth, Brett. Bonds of Alliance: Indigenous and Atlantic Slaveries in New France. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2012.
  • Schwartz, Stuart B. “Indian Labor and New World Plantations: European Demands and Indian Responses in Northeastern Brazil.” American Historical Review 83, no. 1 (February 1978): 43–79.
  • Snyder, Christina. Slavery in Indian Country: The Changing Face of Captivity in Early America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2010.
  • Stone, Erin Woodruff. Captives of Conquest: Slavery in the Early Modern Spanish Caribbean. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2021.
  • van Deusen, Nancy E. Global Indios: The Indigenous Struggle for Justice in Sixteenth-Century Spain. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2015.
  • Weber, David J. Bárbaros: Spaniards and Their Savages in the Age of Enlightenment. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2005.


  • 1. Stanley H. Ambrose, Jane Buikstra, and Harold W. Krueger, “Status and Gender Differences in Diet at Mound 72, Cahokia, Revealed by Isotopic Analysis of Bone,” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 22, no. 3 (2003, September): 217–226; and Christina Snyder, Slavery in Indian Country: The Changing Face of Captivity in Early America (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2010), 27–28.

  • 2. Padre José d’Anchieta, “Informação dos Casamentos dos índios do Brasil,” Revista do Instituto Histórico e Geográfico do Brasil 8 (1867): 255.

  • 3. Samuel Eliot Morison, Admiral of the Ocean Sea: A Life of Christopher Columbus (Boston: Little, Brown , 1942, 1970), 350–359; and Andrés Reséndez, The Other Slavery: The Uncovered Story of Indian Enslavement in America (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin, Harcourt, 2016), 22–23.

  • 4. Samuel Eliot Morison, The European Discovery of America: The Northern Voyages, a.d. 500–1600 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1971), 206–209.

  • 5. Nancy E. van Deusen analyzes the history of the hundreds of known enslaved Natives taken to Spain in the 16th century and the legal battles fought over their freedom and the legality of Indigenous slavery. Nancy E. van Deusen, Global Indios: The Indigenous Struggle for Justice in Sixteenth-Century Spain (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2015), 67. For a personalized history of a Tocobaga Indigenous woman named Madalena who was enslaved in 1538 and taken to Europe and managed to return to her home in Florida in 1549, see Scott Cave, “Madalena: The Entangled History of One Indigenous Floridian Woman in the Atlantic World,” The Americas 74, no. 2 (April 2017): 171–200. For examples of the history of Natives whose statuses ranged from free to captives taken to England and Britain from the 16th to the 18th century, see Alden T. Vaughan, Transatlantic Encounters: American Indians in Britain, 1500–1776 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2006); and Coll Thrush, Indigenous London: Native Travelers at the Heart of Empire (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2016).

  • 6. Lawrence A. Clayton, Vernon James Knight Jr., and Edward C. Moore, eds., The De Soto Chronicles: The Expedition of Hernando de Soto to North America in 1539–1543, 2 vols. (Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 1993); and Charles Hudson, Knights of Spain, Warriors of the Sun: Hernando de Soto and the South’s Ancient Chiefdoms (Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press, 1997).

  • 7. Manuel da Nóbrega, “Manuel Nóbrega to Simão Rodrigues,” August 9, 1549, in Serafim Leite, Monumenta Brasiliaiae, 5 vols. (Rome: Monumenta Historica Soceiatis Iesu, 1956–1960), 1:119.

  • 8. “Woodwards Westo Discovery,” December 31, 1674, in Langdon Cheves, The Shaftesbury Papers (Charleston: South Carolina Historical Society, 2000), 461.

  • 9. Robbie Ethridge, From Chicaza to Chickasaw: The European Invasion and the Transformation of the Mississippian World, 1540–1715 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2010), 91–92; and Miller Shores Wright, “The Development of Slaving Societies in the Americas: Marginal Native and Colonial Slavers in São Paulo and Carolina, 1614–1715” (PhD diss., Rice University, 2021).

  • 10. Pero de Magalhães Gândavo, “Of Matters Common to the Whole Coast of Brazil,” 1587, in Histories of Brazil, vol. 2, trans. John Batterson Stetson (New York: Cortes Society, 1922), 149–150.

  • 11. Erin Woodruff Stone, Captives and Conquest: Slavery in the Early Modern Spanish Caribbean (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2021).

  • 12. John Manuel Monteiro, Blacks of the Land: Indian Slavery, Settler Society, and the Portuguese Enterprise in South America (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2018).

  • 13. Thomas Nairne, Nairne’s Muskhogean Journals: The 1708 Expedition to the Mississippi River (Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 1988), 47.

  • 14. Robbie Ethridge and Sheri M. Shuck-Hall, eds., Mapping the Mississippian Shatter Zone: The Colonial Indian Slave Trade and Regional Instability in the American South (Lincoln: University of Nebraska, 2009).

  • 15. Daniel K. Richter, The Ordeal of the Longhouse: The People of the Iroquois League in the Era of European Colonization (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1992), 65–66.

  • 16. Reséndez, Other Slavery, 42–45; and Stone, Captives of Conquest, 76–100.

  • 17. Archival Team. April 10, 1585, in Atas da Câmara Municipal de São Paulo, 13 vols. (São Paulo: Publicação Oficial do Arquivo Municipal de São Paulo), 1:276.

  • 18. Stuart Schwartz, “Indian Labor and New World Plantations: European Demands and Indian Responses in Northeastern Brazil,” American Historical Review 83, no. 1 (1978): 57, 72–73.

  • 19. David J. Weber, Bárbaros: Spaniards and Their Savages in the Age of Enlightenment (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2005), 236; and Ambrosio O’Higgins to Agustin de Jáuregui, Santiago, October 18, 1777 in the Archivo Nacional de Santiago de Chile, Capitanía general, 637: 252–254.

  • 20. Weber, Bárbaros, 225–226.

  • 21. Jacobo Ugarte to Juan Baptista de Naza, October 5, 1786, quoted in Weber, Bárbaros, 237, n. 123.

  • 22. Ramón A. Gutiérrez, When Jesus Came, the Corn Mothers Went Away: Marriage, Sexuality, and Power in New Mexico, 1500–1846 (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1991), 174–175.

  • 23. Reséndez, Other Slavery, 62–63; and Stone, Captives of Conquest, 5–7.

  • 24. Alida C. Metcalf, Go-betweens and the Colonization of Brazil, 1500–1600 (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2005), 179.

  • 25. Camila Loureiro Dias, “O comércio de escravos Indígenas na Amazónia visto pelos regimentos de entradas e de tropas de resgate (séculos XVII e XVIII),” in Revista Territórios & Fronteiras 10, no. 1 (January–July 2017): 238–259.

  • 26. Mathias C. Kiemen, “The Indian Policy of Portugal in the Amazon Region, 1614–1693” (PhD diss., Catholic University of America, 1954), 122–123.

  • 27. Alida C. Metcalf, “The Entradas of Bahia in the Sixteenth Century,” Americas 61, no. 3 (January 2005): 373–400; and Schwartz, “Indian Labor,” 50–65.

  • 28. “A Brief Report on the State That Is Composed of the Four Conquered Captaincies, Pernambuco, Itamaracá, Paraíba, and Rio Grande, Situated in the North of Brazil,” in Stuart B. Schwartz, Early Brazil: A Documentary Collection to 1700 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 245.

  • 29. Wright, “Development of Slaving Societies”; and Monteiro, Blacks of the Land, 64–82.

  • 30. Hal Langfur, The Forbidden Lands: Colonial Identity, Frontier Violence, and the Persistence of Brazil’s Eastern Indians, 1750–1830 (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2006).

  • 31. Reséndez, Other Slavery, 128–129.

  • 32. For specific examples of how the creation of race and casta shaped slavery and freedom in colonial Peru, see Karen Graubart, “As Slaves and Not Vassals: Interethnic Claims of Freedom and Unfreedom in Colonial Peru,” Población & Sociedad 27, no. 2 (2020): 30–53; and Rachel Sara O’Toole, Bound Lives: Africans, Indians, and the Making of Race in Colonial Peru (Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2012).

  • 33. Daniel Mendiola, “The Founding and Fracturing of the Mosquito Confederation: Zambos, Tawiras, and New Archival Evidence,” Hispanic American Historical Review 99, no. 4 (2019): 619–647; and Neil Lancelot Whitehead, “Carib Ethnic Soldiering in Venezuela, the Guianas, and the Antilles, 1492–1820,” Ethnohistory 37, no. 4 (1990): 357–385.

  • 34. Reséndez, Other Slavery, 146–147.

  • 35. Kristofer Ray, “Constructing a Discourse of Indigenous Slavery, Freedom and Sovereignty in Anglo-Virginia, 1600–1750,” Native South 10 (2017): 19–39.

  • 36. Rebecca Anne Goetz, “The Nanziatticos and the Violence of the Archive: Land and Native Enslavement in Colonial Virginia,” Journal of Southern History 85, no. 1 (February 2019): 39.

  • 37. Eric E. Bowne, The Westo Indians Slave Traders of the Early Colonial South (Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 2005).

  • 38. Alan Gallay, The Indian Slave Trade: The Rise of the English Empire in the American South, 1670–1717 (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2008), 6–8.

  • 39. Goetz, “Nanziatticos,” 39.

  • 40. Linford D. Fisher, “‘Why shall wee have peace to bee made slaves’: Indian Surrenderers during and after King Philip’s War,” Ethnohistory 64, no. 1 (January 2017): 93. See also Karen Ordahl Kupperman, Providence Island, 1630–1641: The Other Puritan Colony (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993).

  • 41. Fisher, “‘Why shall wee have peace,’” 98.

  • 42. Goetz, “Nanziatticos,” 55–60.

  • 43. Brett Rushforth, Bonds of Alliance: Indigenous and Atlantic Slaveries in New France (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2012).

  • 44. Rushforth, Bonds of Alliance, 163.

  • 45. Raudot, “Ord[onan]ce rendüe su aujet des neigres et des Sauvages nommez Panis,” 1709, quoted in Rushforth, Bonds of Alliance, quotation on 136, see also 165.

  • 46. Daniel H. Usner Jr., Indians, Settlers, and Slaves in a Frontier Exchange Economy: The Lower Mississippi Valley before 1783 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1992), 75.

  • 47. Noel E. Smyth, “The Obfuscation of Native American Presence in the French Atlantic: Natchez Indians in Saint Domingue, 1731–1791,” Ethnohistory 69, no. 3 (July 2022): 265–285.

  • 48. Richter, Ordeal of the Longhouse, 86–91.

  • 49. Carolyn Arena, “Indian Slaves from Guiana in Seventeenth-Century Barbados,” Ethnohistory 64, no. 1 (January 2017): 65–90. Neil Whitehead illustrates how colonial conflicts encouraged tribalization among the Kalina, Kalinago, and Lokono leading to their designations by Spanish, English, Dutch, French, and Portuguese colonists as the ethnic misnomers Carib and Arawak. See Whitehead, “Carib Ethnic Soldiering,” 357–385.

  • 50. Nadia Farage, As Muralhas dos Sertões: Os povos indígenas no Rio Branco e a colonização (São Paulo: Paz e Terra, 1991), 114–117; and Whitehead, “Carib Ethnic Soldiering,” 373–374.

  • 51. Arena, “Indian Slaves from Guiana,” 65–90; and D. Andrew Johnson and Carolyn Arena, “Building Dutch Suriname in English Carolina: Aristocratic Networks, Native Enslavement, and Plantation Provisioning in the Seventeenth-Century Americas,” Journal of Southern History 86, no. 1 (February 2020): 37–74.

  • 52. Neil L. Whitehead, “Indigenous Slavery in South America, 1492–1820,” in The Cambridge World History of Slavery, Volume 3: AD 1420–AD 1804, ed. David Eltis and Stanley L. Engerman (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 248–271, especially 260–263.

  • 53. Edward Bancroft, An Essay on the Natural History of Guiana, in South America (London, 1769), 257, quoted in Whitehead, “Indigenous Salvery in South America,” 261.

  • 54. Farage, Muralhas dos Sertões, 169.

  • 55. Leland Donald, “Slavery in Indigenous North America,” in Eltis and Engerman, Cambridge World History of Slavery, 236.

  • 56. Reséndez, Other Slavery, 320.

  • 57. For examples see Robin Blackburn, The Making of New World Slavery: From the Baroque to the Modern 1492–1800 (New York: Verso, 2010); and Luiz Felipe de Alencastro, O Trato dos Viventes: Formação do Brasil no Atlântico Sul Séculos XVI e XVII (São Paulo: Companhia das Letras, 2000).

  • 58. See Christina Snyder, Slavery in Indian Country, 128; and Ethridge, From Chicaza to Chickasaw, 53–54, 91–92.

  • 59. For explanations of the development of Incan mita labor drafts to obligatory service by Indigenous laborers in Spanish-owned mines see Jeffrey A. Cole, The Potosí Mita, 1573–1700: Compulsory Indian Labor in the Andes (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1985). For an analysis of the transition of the Yanakuna servant class to yanaconaje land tenancy see José Matos Mar, Yanaconaje y reforma agrarian en el Perú: el Caso del valle de Chancay (Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos, 1976) and Alan L. Kolata, Ancient Inca (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2013).

  • 60. Whitehead, “Indigenous Slavery in South America,” 270.

  • 61. Alejandra Dubcovsky, “Defying Indian Slavery: Apalachee Voices and Spanish Sources in the Eighteenth-Century Southeast,” William and Mary Quarterly 75, no. 2 (April 2018): 295–322.

  • 62. Wright, “Development of Slaving Societies,” 31–187. See Nancy E. van Deusen, “Indigenous Slavery from Out on the Edge,” Ethnohistory 67, no. 4 (October 2020): 603–619.

  • 63. D. Andrew Johnson, “Enslave Native Americans and the Making of South Carolina, 1659–1739” (PhD diss.: Rice University, 2019).

  • 64. For an example of this research see Muriel Nazarri, “Transition toward Slavery: Changing Legal Practice regarding Indians in Seventeenth-Century São Paulo,” Americas 49, no. 2 (October 1992): 131–155.

  • 65. Archival Team. Atas da Câmara Municipal de São Paulo, 276.

  • 66. Inventários e Testamentos, Do Arquivo Estadual do Estado de São Paulo, 47 vols. (São Paulo: Typographia Piratininga).

  • 67. A. S. Salley and J. H. Easterby, eds., Journal of the Commons House of Assembly of South Carolina, 1692–1726 (Columbia: Historical Commission of South Carolina, 1907–1946); A. S. Salley, ed., Journal of the Grand Council of South Carolina, 2 vols. (Columbia: Historical Commission of South Carolina, 1907); A. S. Salley and William Noel Sainsbury, eds., Records in the British Public Record Office Relating to South Carolina 1663–1684, 5 vols. (Columbia: Historical Commission of South Carolina, 1928–1947); Langdon Cheves, ed., The Shaftesbury Papers: and Other Records Relating to Carolina and the First Settlement on Ashley River Prior to the Year 1676 (Charleston: South Carolina Historical Society, 2000); Horatio Rogers, ed., The Early Records of the Town of Providence (Providence, RI: Providence Record Commissioners, 1892); Nathaniel B. Shurtleff, ed., Records of the Colony of New Plymouth, in New England (Boston: Press of W. White, 1861); and H. R. McIlwaine, Minutes of the Council and General Court of Colonial Virginia: 1622–1632, 1670–1676 (Richmond, VA: The Colonial Press, 1924).

  • 68. Reuben Gold Thwaites, The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents, 73 vols. (Cleveland, OH: Burrows Bros., 1896–1901).