Final Disertation

Is a Diachronic Comparative Study of Roman Slavery and Transatlantic Slavery a Necessity in the Development of Understanding of Slavery in Rome?

120201806

ARA 3002Word Count: 12,583

120201806

i

Acknowledgements

This dissertation would not have been possible without the help

of numerous people. First and foremost I would like to thank Dr

Jane Webster for her patient guidance as supervisor for this

dissertation, as well as her invaluable advice throughout. I would

also like to thank my friends and family who have supported me

throughout this project.

120201806

ii

Table of Contents Chapter 1: Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1

Chapter 2: History of Comparable Studies ............................................................................................. 5

2.1 Historical Context .......................................................................................................................... 5

2.2 Comparisons in Slavery ................................................................................................................. 5

2.3 The Key Themes in Comparative Studies .................................................................................... 10

2.4 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 11

Chapter 3: Insurrections ....................................................................................................................... 12

3.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 12

3.2. Insurrections .............................................................................................................................. 12

3.3 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 22

Chapter 4: Manumission ....................................................................................................................... 24

4.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 24

4.2 We Will All Be Welcome In Virginia? Manumission in the New World ...................................... 26

4.3. Manumission in Rome ............................................................................................................... 30

4.4. Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 33

Chapter 5 – Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 34

5.1 Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 34

5.2. Areas for Further Study .............................................................................................................. 34

5.3. Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 34

List of References .................................................................................................................................. 36

Primary Sources ................................................................................................................................ 36

Secondary Sources ............................................................................................................................ 37

Images Used .......................................................................................................................................... 41

120201806

iii

Table of Figures

Figure 2.1. Toussaint Louverture; ‘Chef des Noirs Insurgés de Saint Domingue’, by Jean de Beauvais c. 1802. Image Courtesy of Historic Hudson Valley.

7

Figure 3.1. A Newspaper clipping of a reward for the apprehension of a runaway slave Image Courtesy of Liberal Arts

14

Figure 3.2. A map detailing two possible routes Margaret Garner may have taken during her escape. It must be said that this is a modern map and therefore may not represent Garner’s true route Image Courtesy of Google Maps

14

Figure 3.3. ‘The Modern Medea’ (1867) by Thomas Satterwhite Noble based on Garner's story. Image Courtesy of playbillarts.com

15

Figure 3.4.Headline from a Cincinnati newspaper, detailing the arrest of Garner. Image courtesy of playbillarts.com

16

Figure 3.5. A map depicting the terrain of the island of Chios, Greece – Showing mainly mountainous and dense woodland areas Image Courtesy of Google Maps

19

Figure 3.6. Slave housing at the McLeod plantation, Charleston County, South Carolina. Image Courtesy of south-carolina-plantations.com

20

Figure 4.1. An example of an Oxyrhyncus Papyrus Image Courtesy of Spurlock Museum, Illinois.

24

Figure 4.2. Portrait of the Chief Justice John Rutledge Image Courtesy of Encyclopaedia Britannica.

26

Figure 4.3. Deed of Manumission for Francis Drake, May 23, 1791 Image Courtesy of the Library of Virginia

28

Figure 4.4. The Cinerary urn of the freedman Tiberius Claudius Chryseros Image Courtesy of Flick River.

30

120201806

iv

Abstract

The principal aim of this dissertation is to ascertain whether a diachronic comparative approach to

the history of slavery in the Roman world and the transatlantic world adds to the understanding of

slavery in the Roman world. This is achieved by analysing previous literature as well as encompassing

my own comparative research. Beginning with the history of slavery in both the New World and

Rome, this thesis summarises the current state of comparative research within academia. Following

this, this dissertation engages with slave insurrections and the comparable features between both

periods and how this specific feature of slavery highlights the necessity of a diachronic comparison. A

comparative study of manumissions in the slave worlds is then presented, highlighting the key legal

restraints placed upon the process of manumission within the New World and Rome. Finally, this

dissertation provides a comprehensive assessment on the necessity of a diachronic comparative

approach in regards to slavery in Rome and the transatlantic world.

120201806

1

Chapter 1: Introduction

For many years we have been told the Roman past is too unique to compare it with other empires or

republics. Recently some scholars have argued however that when it comes to slavery we can

compare (Webster: 2008, Urbainczyk: 2008, Schiedel: 2011b). This dissertation will aim to assess

through the discussion of manumission and insurrections whether a diachronic comparison with

Rome and the New World is necessary in the understanding of the Roman slave past, I will also

comment on the body of comparative work that is already available.

For quite some time both modern and ancient historians have been eager to compare and scrutinize

ancient and modern slave owning societies. Greek and Roman historians have however, often been

less inclined to follow suit. When they do study the aspect of slavery they almost entirely do so

within Graeco-Roman confines (Webster: 2008: 103). Their reluctance is without question due to a

collective thought that the use of comparative studies undermines the uniqueness of the classical

past and the influences that the Graeco-Roman period has had on the development of the west

(Terrenato: 2005: 62). Terrenato (2002: 1109) divulges further stating that the general consensus

regarding classicity is that it ‘must be reverentially explored and dusted, but it cannot be compared

with, or measured on the same scale as, the rest of the human past’.

Schiedel (2011b:4) also comments on the importance of comparisons between different slave-

owning economies; ‘without comparisons we can never know if particular outcomes were common

or rare, and which variables were endowed with causative agency.’ Therefore, the study of a single

society in history can only result in arbitrary claims about the accumulation of untestable data in

regards to the significance of the data. Oakes (1990: 37-8) introduces crucial criteria for the

comparison of the dichotomy of ‘slave societies’ and ‘societies with slaves’. Rome was undoubtedly

more of a slave society than the majority of societies throughout history however it is less so than

the slave systems of the New World, which potentially could not have existed in ‘any even remotely

comparable form without slavery’ (Oakes: 1990: 38).

There is one particular problem to address when comparing slave systems such as Rome and the

transatlantic world. It is often perceived that the more developed a society, that society’s use of

slaves would be more diverse in terms of jobs. The New World highlights vast race divides were

insisted upon which, unlike in Rome, led to slaves being unable to hold certain higher occupations

that would lead to interaction with Anglo-American people (Miers and Kopytoff: 1979:58).

120201806

2

Aims

1. To assess the impact a comparative approach to Roman slavery would have on the

understanding of slavery in the classical past

2. To critically analyse the approach to Roman slavery

3. To use manumissions and insurrections to identify comparisons relating to Roman slavery

(2nd century BC – 5th century AD) and the Transatlantic slave trade (16th – 19th centuries AD)

Objectives

1. Identify key cultural similarities and differences between classical slavery and historical

slavery in order to assess the impact a comparable study would have on the understanding

of the classical past (A1)

2. To review written comparisons of the Roman slave trade and the transatlantic slave trade in

order to evaluate the pre-existing literature (A2)

3. Assess the quality of written sources to establish an understanding of compatible

comparisons between the Roman slave trade and the Transatlantic slave trade (A3)

4. Compare and contrast the slave insurrections of the Roman slave trade and the Transatlantic

slave trade in order to establish similarities (A3)

5. Identify the legal aspect of slavery to ascertain whether there is a correlation between the

Roman slave trade and the transatlantic slave trade (A3)

6. Assess manumissions during the slave trade of both the Roman era and the Transatlantic era

to understand the cultural, social and economic importance of slavery, through documented

evidence (A1&A3)

In this dissertation I will focus on manumissions and insurrections because they highlight that a

comparable evaluation can aid in the understanding of Roman slavery. Insurrections within slavery

are an important indicator as to the political, social and economic status of the society. The

120201806

3

insurrections of Spartacus in the Roman period (73-71BC) and the rebellion in Haiti (1791 – 1804),

show the similarities between slave revolts in the Roman era and in the transatlantic slave era. An

important factor that this paper will focus on is not only the impact that slave rebellions had on the

society but also the aims and objectives of the slave revolts. Therefore, I will not follow Finley’s

concept that only a true comparison can be had between the American south and the Roman Empire

but also look at the Caribbean and South America because there are comparisons that can be made

in regards to Insurrections (Finley: 1982: 201-211).

Manumission is the act of freeing a slave and this is important in a comparable study because there

were legal constraints implemented to control the amount of slaves being freed. In the study of

Roman manumissions historians are largely interested in gathering numerical data, such as how

many slaves were freed and the rate of manumission (Roth: 2010: 91). Nevertheless, in spite of the

difficulty of assessing the numbers of manumissions it is widely regarded as a feature that is

distinctive with the Roman world (Bradley: 1987: 81). Freedman in Rome were often heavily reliant

on their former masters and laws such as the Lex Aelia Sentia (4AD). The Lex Aelia Sentia not only set

criteria that the slave had to meet but also that the master must adhere to. The widespread

domination of slaves as a primary social relationship made Rome a ‘slave society,’ especially when

slaves and ex-slaves continuously relied upon owners and patrons and facilitated their interaction

with the freeborn population of the Roman Empire (Scheidel: 2010: 2).

Manumission in the transatlantic world is a widely researched area, the southern states in particular

passed laws on the manumission of slaves during the 19th century stating that a slave could only be

freed by their master if they had performed a ‘meritorious service’ (Klebaner: 1955: 443). The legal

obligations of an American slave owner was to support a slave during the slave’s life and it is often

stated that the laws against manumission were in place to ensure these obligations were met. The

previous work on the manumission of slaves in America is vast and due to its relatively modern

history compared to that of Rome, it allows for a thorough in-depth study of the legislation imposed.

The works of historians such as Klebaner (1955) and Handler (1984) have established a critique of

the legal procedures in place but have not looked for a comparative approach within history and I

believe that achieving this is a crucial aspect of my thesis.

Following my in depth research into the area of a comparative study of the transatlantic slave trade

and the slave trade of the romans I have realised that there is only a minority of scholars in the

world who have attempted a direct comparative study. This dissertation will discuss the key

similarities within the Roman slave world and the transatlantic slave world in order to ascertain

whether a comparative approach is a necessity in the continual understanding of slavery in the

120201806

4

classical world. I believe that a complete comparative study is crucial in the development of the

literature and my dissertation will show this through the comparisons of both manumissions and

insurrections.

120201806

5

Chapter 2: History of Comparable Studies

2.1 Historical Context The transportation of slaves across the Atlantic took place from 1501 to 1866, in the space of 365

years and is one of the largest forced migrations in history. The transatlantic slave trade saw the

transportation of 12, 521, 3361 African slaves to the Caribbean, South America and to Northern

America, however the horrendous conditions the enslaved were kept in saw that only 10, 702, 656

disembarked at the end of the voyage (Eltis: 2010). This equates to an estimated loss of 4983 per

year. The transportation of slaves across the Atlantic took place from 1501 to 1866, in the space of

365 years and is one of the largest slave trades in history.

The largest slave trade in history was established in the Roman world, primarily in the Imperial era

(27BC – 476AD). Scheidel (2011a:18) states that the enslavement of individuals in the Roman world

can be regarded as one of the ‘darkest chapters in human history’. The staggering number of slaves

transported by the Romans is astonishing, however these numbers are approximates due to the lack

of definitive evidence such as logging catalogues and ship inventories that are in abundance when

studying the transatlantic slave trade. During the existence of the Roman superpower, from republic

to empire, it is theorised that at least 100 million people were enslaved over a period of a thousand

years (Scheidel: 2011a: 18). This may be a longer period of time than that of the transatlantic slave

trade enslavement in the latter case continued at the same rate over a thousand years, the total

number of slaves would havebeen far smaller than the number enslaved by Rome; some 33, 807,

607.2

2.2 Comparisons in Slavery Slave insurrections were a common features in both the Roman world and the New World and this

similarity will be a common theme within this thesis, chapter three will discuss this further. Keith

Bradley (1989: 126) has argued that the two Sicilian wars and the revolt of Spartacus were not in any

sense political rebellions but rather the result of slaves simply wanting to be free. There is no

evidence that has been discovered thus far that reveals the aims and objectives of the slave

1 This is an imputed figure, please see

Eltis, D., Behrendt, S., Richardson, D. and Klein, H., eds. (2011), Voyages: The Trans-Atlantic Slave

Trade Database, Available HTTP: http://www.slavevoyages.org/

2 This is an imputed figure, calculated by myself using existing figures from the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Database

120201806

6

rebellions in antiquity. The slave rebellions that took place in the classical world, in comparison with

those in the transatlantic world, had contrasting effects. The overt resistance of the slaves on the

sugar plantation in Ilheus, Brazil (1789), saw slaves demand an improvement in their living and

working conditions (Urbaincyzk: 2008: 98), which only has similarities in the ancient Greece, which

saw the slaves on the island of Chios act in the same manner. The slaves of the Ilheus sugar

plantation represented a revolutionary threat but it is one that has no parallel in the Roman world of

slavery (Bradley: 1989: 103).

Furthermore, comparisons that have been drawn between the rebellion of Spartacus and the

uprising in Haiti (1791 – 1804) which is infamous for the leadership and military tactics of Toussaint

Louvertue (Figure 2.1.). The rebellion in Saint Domingue began as a challenge to French imperial

authority but it soon developed into a racial battle and the overarching aim of abolishing slavery

took prominence (Dubois: 2004: 3).

120201806

7

Figure 2.1. Toussaint Louverture; ‘Chef des Noirs Insurgés

de Saint Domingue’, by Jean de Beauvais

c. 1802.

Image Courtesy of Historic Hudson Valley

http://american-

arcadia.hudsonvalley.org/sites/default/files/imagecache/f

ull/sites/default/files/images/toussaint_louverture.jpg

120201806

8

The study of manumission is crucial in the continual development of a diachronic comparative study

of slavery in the New World and Rome. The notion of manumission within a slave world is crucial for

both slave and master, as the hope for freedom can lead to the cooperation and smooth running of

an estate and this theory is established within modern scholarly works (Roth: 2010: 91).

When studying manumission in both slave worlds, an indicator of the similarities between the two

are defined within the legal practices of the societies. Alas, once again the study of the Roman world

faces the familiar stumbling block of the lack of reliable statistics. Although Scheidel (2011a) has

attempted to understand the volume of the slave migration in the Roman world, there is very little

evidence for the number of slaves, freed slaves or the rate of manumission (Mourtisen: 2013: 43). It

is often the way that modern scholars will refer in a fleeting comment to Cicero’s Philippics (8.32) in

order to understand the way in which manumission was achieved, Cicero explaining that a well

behaved slave may expect to be freed after a period of time. The use of Cicero in this manner

illustrates that scholars have struggled due to the lack of solid quantification of manumission in the

Roman world and therefore rely upon the rhetoric of a contemporary source (Mourtisen: 2013: 43).

The nature of slavery removes the person’s freedom and transforms the person into property. It has

been argued however, that the modern attempts to understand the legal doctrine established by the

Romans to define absolute property are in fact misguided in their attempts and often use the legal

precedents of Rome to define the meaning of slavery itself rather than the notion of ‘absolute

property’ (Patterson: 1982: 32). Therefore, not only do the interpretations obscure the information

needed to reinforce a specific theory they also can confuse the point of law by attaching modern

legal and sociological views upon them; through the misinterpretation of the Roman slave law it may

influence consequent Western conceptions of slavery (Patterson: 1982: 32).

The practice of manumission would make no sense if the slave owners freed the slaves that were

crucial to the running of the household and the estate if the freed slave was not expected to

continue their service in the household as a freedman (Mourtisen: 2013: 58). Once a slave had been

freed, and if they decided to leave the household the problem arose that the owner was essentially

losing a vital aspect in the continuation of a reproducing slave population within the house. Children

born into slavery in the Roman world were known as vernae, and they would often be trained to

replace the older slaves, occasionally the elite would replace the freedman with a newly purchased

slave if there were no in-house apprentices available (Mourtisen: 2013: 59). Webster (2010: 8) has

argued that this particular aspect of slavery can be referred to as an ‘internal diaspora’. This

however does allow for a comparison of the New World with the Roman world, as previously

discussed those born into slavery in the Roman world were called ‘vernae’ and in the New World

120201806

9

they were called ‘creoles’. The naming of the slaves in the Americas once again shows strong links

with the Roman world, often slaves were given names upon arrival at market and classical names

were used such as Cato, Flavia, Pompey and Caesar (Cody: 1987).

Despite the agreement in modern scholarly works that manumission was a key component in

reducing slave insurrections, how realistic manumission would have been and how it may have been

achieved is continuously debated (Roth: 2010: 91). Dio (53. 25. 4) claims that slaves may be freed

after twenty years of service, however it is more likely that in smaller houses that manumission

would have been rarer due to the unpredictability of the change of status, whereas the slaves in elite

houses would have more chance of receiving their freedom because the owners had the means to

replace those that were freed (Mourtisen: 2013: 62). Alfoldi (1972: 122) argued that in the Roman

world, slavery was predominantly a transitional period in a person’s life that resulted in slaves

gaining a recognised and ‘if not fully equal’ place in the Roman citizen community. To refer to slavery

as a ‘transitional state’ is a ridiculous notion, as slavery during any part of history is a life of being

dominated and owned, with no prosperity or freedom. I believe the number of insurrections and

slave wars within both the Roman world and transatlantic world proves that the slaves did not view

slavery as a ‘transitional’ period in their lives which resulted in fighting for their freedom.

Manumission in the transatlantic world was also regulated by law but the freeing of slaves had a

different outcome for the slaves themselves compared to those in the Roman world. Freedman in

the transatlantic world were encouraged to leave the area and settle elsewhere, in contrast to other

slave societies such as Muslim countries, and the Roman world where freed slaves became clients to

their former masters (Brunschvig: 1960:30; Bloch 1947:216). Manumission and the slave’s access to

legal freedom within a slave society has long been of interest to the scholars of the transatlantic

slave world. The freeing of slaves in the transatlantic world reflects a fundamental aspect of a slave

society and it has helped in our understanding on how the Anglo- American’s defined a slaves ‘moral

personality’ (Handler &Pohlmann: 1984: 390-391). In seventeenth-century Barbados, as reflective of

other English colonies, there were three means of attaining manumission; legislative and court

actions, deed conveyances, and wills and testaments. Many slaves may have believed that a verbal

assurance from their master guaranteed their freedom but during this period that was not the case,

however in future years more means of manumission were employed (Handler &Pohlmann: 1984:

394).

Webster (2008: 113) argues that; ‘racial and colour prejudice did not necessarily walk hand in hand’

for the Roman slave-owners and this may be a contributing factor in Isaac’s (2006: 32-46) argument

that the Mediterranean world created proto- racism but was not itself inherently racist. During the

120201806

10

sixteenth and eighteenth century, Deetz (1996:224) has argued that it was not racial prejudice that

was used to justify the forced migration but the fact that the African people were not Christian and

were for sale. The ideology of colour prejudice did not emerge until a later date, when the economic

mainstay of plantations was a necessity and therefore it was ideal to fabricate reasoning for the

enslavement of Africans (Webster: 2008: 114). Roman slavery, however, is often not perceived as

racist but racial prejudice was more common than often suggested with Roman Africans often being

subjected to offensive comments aimed towards their appearance (Bauman: 2000: 120-122). Race

was a complex issue in the Americas and Rome as well as views on colour and the two are often

connected, but the development of racial segregation in the southern states of America in the

eighteenth and nineteenth century should not discourage those who study antiquity from engaging

in a comparative study with the New World (Webster: 2008: 114).

2.3 The Key Themes in Comparative Studies

Moses Finely is widely regarded as a pioneer in the field of comparative slavery studies, and is

exceptional in the classical discipline due to his acknowledgement that comparative studies are

fundamental in understanding and re-evaluating the classical past. Patterson (1982: 12) commented

on Finley’s contribution to the field of comparative study; ‘all of us who work on the comparative

study of slavery are in intellectual debt to Sir Moses Finley’. Yet, the respect that has been shown to

Finley’s work has hindered the development of comparative studies. Finley (1982: 201- 211) was of

the opinion that there were only a few ‘genuine’ slave systems in world history; Ancient Athens,

Imperial Rome, nineteenth century United States and Brazil, however many modern scholars have

argued that this is too limiting (Higman: 2001, Bradley: 1994). Patterson (2008: 33) has referred to

the concept of ‘genuine slave societies’ as absurd. Scheidel (2011b) has recently begun comparing

the Roman Empire with the Han Empire and this highlights the changing attitudes towards what can

be compared throughout history. Therefore, ancient historians who are interested in comparative

studies should not focus solely on Finley’s ‘genuine’ slave societies but rather turn to the

archaeology of slavery in areas often overlooked such as; Peru and some Caribbean Islands, where

slavery was an important feature of the local economy but was not essential to its growth (Webster:

2008: 114).

Documentation of the New World slave system reveals the slaves as merely names and numbers and

very few contemporary sources are by those of African descent. A first-hand account of events by a

slave is rare and none survive in antiquity which results in the history of slavery being written by the

master and not by the slave. This may lead to the corruption of the truth as the author aims to

remove himself from any perceived wrongdoing. Therefore, we can only view slaves in both the

120201806

11

classical past and in more recent times through documentation provided by the slave owning class

(Webster: 2008: 114-115). Walter Scheidel (2003:581) argues that a perceived lack of archaeological

evidence has led ancient historians to believe that archaeology cannot be useful in the comparative

field in relation to slavery. Scheidel continues to champion the importance of comparable studies

and has critiqued papers such as Schumacher’s (2001). Schumacher deliberately avoids using the

application of modern theories and models and thus defines slavery in purely Roman term.

Schumacher understands a slave to be ‘a person who is directly subject to total, i.e. unlimited and

lasting, force of a master’ (Schumacher: 2001: 13). The use of such a definition allows Schumacher to

distance his work form contemporary scholars, who define slavery through sociological criteria as; ‘a

condition of natal alienation and general dishonour equivalent with social death’ (Patterson: 1982:

32). Scheidel(2003: 581) does give an explanation for why he believes archaeology is often relegated

to a supporting role alongside the use of textual evidence, and he further comments implying that

the archaeological record can never be seen as pivotal to the field of comparative studies until it can

bring forth new information that is separate from textual evidence. Hall (2000:16) argues that

textual evidence and archaeological evidence must be combined to illuminate the misconceptions

that have plagued ancient historians in regards to the importance of archaeology. Therefore, it is

crucial that the use of both archaeology and textual evidence are used in tandem to further our

understanding of the slave world in both Rome and the New World.

2.4 Conclusion

This thesis will further elaborate on the topics discussed and will establish that a diachronic

comparative study of the transatlantic world and Rome is a necessity in understanding slavery in the

Roman world. The comparative approaches taken by Webster (2005;2008; 2010), Katsari and Del

Lago (2008a; 2008b) and Morris (1994) have begun to explore the potential in comparing the New

World with the Roman world and thus reignited the debate amongst scholars as to whether a fresh

approach is needed in the field of slavery or whether, as Terranato (2002: 1109) ironically remarks,

that classical history is something that must be ‘reverentially explored and dusted, but it cannot be

compared with, or measured on the same scale as, the rest of the human past’. Through research

and careful observations of topics such as manumission, in chapter 4, and insurrections, in chapter 3,

as well as the wider scope of slavery in both the Roman world and the New World I have come to

the conclusion that there is substantial evidence to suggest that a diachronic comparative approach

to slavery in the classical past is a necessity.

120201806

12

Chapter 3: Insurrections

3.1. Introduction

Slave rebellions in the classical world have often been overlooked and sometimes dismissed as

insignificant in regards to the history of Rome. This attitude may be due to the lack of focus on slave

rebellions within the ancient texts, but upon re-examination of sources such as Diodorus and Livy

the ancient sources placed far more importance on slave revolutions and the crucial nature of the

slaves than do many modern scholars. This may be due to the persistence of slavery; slaves may

rebel and fight the counterattacks of Rome for some time but in the end defeat is inevitable and the

Roman world changes very little. This may be the cause of such a blasé attitude to slavery by modern

scholars in comparison to the ancient authors (Urbaincyzk: 2008: 1). Within this chapter I will discuss

the insurrections in both the New World and the Roman world and suggest that comparative

analysis is a necessity for the study of insurrections in Roman contexts.

3.2. Insurrections

‘The evidence, on the contrary, points to the conclusion that discontent and rebelliousness were not

only exceedingly common, but, indeed, characteristic of American Negro slaves’ (Aptheker: 1993:

374).

The transatlantic slave trade saw many rebellions take place during transportation, such as the

Amistad (1839), but the rebellions did not cease after disembarking the ships and arriving in the

colonies of the Caribbean, South America and the New World (Small &Walvin: 1994: 43).

Insurrections were carried out in a multitude of ways, not only in the overt resistance that are

engrained into the historical records but also in a small scale manner too. Covert resistance would

see slaves deliberately work slowly, feign illness or infirmity and even pretend to not understand

their masters’ and overseers, which would slow productivity and infuriate their owners (ibid.). The

resistance to slavery is ‘testimony to the indomitable will of the human spirit’ (Small &Walvin: 1994:

49). The plethora of examples that I shall discuss within this chapter will highlight the fact that

Africans resisted in many ways, even as far as to spit, urinate and pollute their master’s food or even

fight back when being punished physically. There were different reasons for these acts of

insurrection. The possible reasons behind the rebellious acts are that the slaves did not accept the

attempts to control every aspect of their lives by their masters, or the constant domination and even

120201806

13

fought against certain excesses (ibid.). To understand the resistance of the slaves reveals the

strength and unfaltering nature of the African spirit in the face of such adversity as slavery, and that

although they were victims of the transatlantic slave trade they did not adhere to a victim mentality

(ibid.). Many revolts were uncoordinated events that occurred through desperation in the face of

extreme brutality, starvation, being stripped of certain privileges or other conditions (Genovese:

1979: 3). Occasionally the revolts would erupt into large scale slave wars such as the ones in; Saint-

Domingue (Haiti) (1791), Jamaica (1730-40; 1795-96), Grenada (1795-97), Antigua (1735-36) and

South Carolina (1739). Slaves understood that revolting against their masters would result in torture

and the loss of many lives of their own people, but this did not prevent them for fighting against the

violent and barbaric domination they were repressed by (Small &Walvin: 1994: 44). The violence of

the slave owners would prove to be pivotal in the abolitionist movement, as many in Britain in the

early 19th century saw that if brutal and counter-productive acts of violence were what was

necessary to keep slavery in place then slavery may have reached its economically prosperous end

(ibid). The vicious nature of the punishment for slaves who rebelled are documented well and there

are many accounts such as in Antigua in the aftermath of Tackey’s revolt (1735-1736) where there

were 86 slave executions with 77 of the rebels were burned alive. In Barbados in 1816 four hundred

slaves were executed, in Demerara (1823) two hundred and fifty slaves were executed (ibid.).

Beckles (1987:21) cites the preamble to the law passed in Barbados in 1661, An Act for the Better

Ordering and Governing of Negroes, declared that slaves were ‘heathenish, brutish and a dangerous

kind of people’. Consequently, colonial lawmakers deemed it appropriate that ‘criminal slaves

should be branded, whipped, mutilated, suffer amputation of limbs and capital punishment for

crimes like rebellion’. Furthermore Stephen (1824: 7-9) states that; ‘for the wretches who had

committed the diabolical crime of insurrection the slaves were roasted alive, hung up in irons to

perish of thirst, shut up in a cage and starved to death’, and that rebellion was a crime ‘of such a

nature, that you always annex to it the most excruciating pain’.

The brutal punishments dealt to those who revolted in a large scale armed response were intended

to deter further slave wars. One way in which slaves continued to rebel was by running away. Slave

owners would often advertise bounties for the return of their slaves in (see figure 3.1.).

120201806

14

One significant story that survives from the period is that of Margaret Garner who, in 1856, escaped

from a Maplewood plantation on Richwood Road in Boone County, Kentucky by crossing the frozen

Ohio River. Garner managed to arrive as far as Mill Creek, Cincinnati, Ohio, and hide with her freed

cousin, Elijah Kite, before being tracked down by the U.S Marshalls (approximately seven hours

walking, 21 miles) (See Figure 3.2). Upon realising she had been caught, instead of seeing her two

year old daughter re-enter slavery she killed her, almost decapitating her in an attempt to slit her

throat. Garner is to reportedly have said ‘I will go singing to the gallows rather than be returned to

slavery’ (Davis: 1981: 21).

Figure 3.1. A Newspaper clipping of a reward for the apprehension of a

runaway slave. Image Courtesy of Liberalarts.edu

http://americanabolitionist.liberalarts.iupui.edu/resistance.htm

Figure 3.2. A map

detailing two possible

routes Margaret

Garner may have

taken during her

escape. It must be said

that this is a modern

map and therefore

may not represent

Garner’s true route

©Google Maps

120201806

15

Garner escaped with her husband and four children (three of which were described as ‘mullato’ (a

person of dual heritage) and it is theorised that her children were also of her owners, Archibald

Gaines. The title given to the painting by Noble (Figure 3.3.) was chosen because in ancient

mythology Medea killed her children to spite Jason (the father) for leaving her for another woman.

Historians have theorised that Margaret Garner may have killed her child and attempted to kill her

three other children because Archibald Gaines would not let her escape him (Brunings: 2004: 4). This

however, cannot detract from the fact that the thought of her child re-entering slavery would have

been unbearable. During the recapture of Garner and her family, a Marshall was shot and injured

before the melee ended, the furore surrounding the case of Garner was reported in the local

newspapers (Figure 3.4.).

Figure 3.3. ‘The Modern Medea’ (1867) by Thomas

Satterwhite Noble which is based on Garner's story.

Image Courtesy of playbillarts.com http://www.playbillarts.com/features/article/6963-My-Journey-

from-Beloved.html

120201806

16

Throughout the slave trade many slaves ran away and this culminated in the creation of slave

communities known as maroons. Maroons appeared in number during the late 18th and the 19th

centuries and these communities emphasised the attempts to overthrow slavery as a social system

which is completely without contrast and would have been completely unknown to slaves in

antiquity (Genovese: 1979: 4). The maroons originally were founded as communities of self-freed

slaves in the large islands and less settled colonies and eventually maroon communities could be

found across the Americas (Small &Walvin: 1994: 44-45). The communities of maroons that were the

most substantial and longer lasting were situated in areas where the number of whites was small

and the terrain was treacherous (i.e. mountains and swamps), and thus the whites found it difficult

to remove and defeat the ex-slaves (ibid.). Evidence has been uncovered that leads to the

understanding that maroon communities were established within the swamps and mountains of the

Southern states of American and that several of these communities raided plantations, attacking and

murdering whites for several years (ibid.). The maroons, however, were not solely committed to

other slaves and there is evidence of a collaboration with whites throughout the slave world, one

poignant example is during the revolution in Saint-Domingue, Haiti (1791). The maroons supported

the French against the slaves and became allies with Napoleon’s forces that had come to restore

slavery and quash the revolution. At first this alliance may seem strange but the maroons may have

struck the alliance to protect their own autonomy against any power whether it be slaves or not

(Genovese: 1979: 55). Yet the presence of a community of self-freed slaves had a destructive impact

Figure 3.4.Headline from a Cincinnati newspaper, detailing the

arrest of Garner.

Image courtesy of playbillarts.com http://www.playbillarts.com/features/article/6963-My-Journey-from-

Beloved.html

120201806

17

on slavery and became a beacon of hope for freedom and therefore encouraged disaffection,

desertion and even rebellion.

Maroons were capable of delivering considerable disruptions to the slave trade through retaliation

against the whites, who were deemed to be significantly brutal towards slaves. In Surinam, the

governor’s representative (Captain Stedman) was sent to sue for peace in 1757 with a maroon

community and the leader rejected his proposal asking the question, how could Europeans ‘claim to

be civilised and yet treat slaves so cruelly’ (Genovese: 1979: 56). Stedman recounted the speech for

documentation and it raises obscurities in relation to the beliefs of the maroon communities that

may otherwise have been overlooked, the speech allegedly goes as follows:

‘We desire you to tell the governor and your court that in case they want to raise no new gangs of

rebels, they ought to take care that the planters keep a more watchful eye over their own property,

and do not trust them so frequently to the hands of drunken managers and overseers, who … are the

ruin of the colony and wilfully drive to the woods such numbers of stout, active people, who by their

sweat earn your subsistence, without whose hands your colony must drop to nothing, and to whom

at last, in this disgraceful manner, you are glad to come and sue for friendship.’ (ibid.).

The maroon communities’ concern for slave welfare is obvious, however, it does reveal that they do

not seem to be committed to the overhaul of slavery but in fact are willing to see slavery remain

intact. The speech does show that the maroon communities of Surinam did attempt to influence the

way in which slaves were treated and being able to advise the whites on how to treat their own

‘property’ does show the remarkable power the maroons had in relation to keeping the status quo.

Therefore, the maroons showed a key interest in the development of slave conditions and their

treatment within their environment, but they did seem to accept the legal entitlement that whites

held over the slaves. This has led to beliefs that the existence of maroon communities retarded the

development of an abolitionist movement as people would not dare to publically voice and opinion

that agreed with slave rebellions (Matthews: 2006: 32). The unpredictable nature of the maroons

within the slave worlds of the Caribbean and the Americas may not have intended to directly

influence those enslaved but the existence of such communities are responsible for igniting the

spark of revolution in all those who remained enslaved.

The study of the insurrections of the transatlantic slave world can shed light on those of the Roman

world and a diachronic comparison is a necessity in the continual development of our understanding

of slavery in antiquity. The large slave rebellions such as that of Spartacus (73-71 B.C.) and those in

Sicily (135-132 B.C., 104-100 B.C.) indicate the similarities between the New World and the colonies

with the Roman world, and I will continue to discuss this point in the following narrative, using key

120201806

18

scholarly texts such as Urbainczyk (2008), Finley (1982) and Patterson (1982) and Bradley (1989).

Nevertheless the continual development of the comparative field has seen a resurgence in the focus

on the classical world and this is a key theme in the rewriting of slave rebellions (Katsari& Del Lago:

2008). The focus on comparative approaches has allowed for new information and new

understandings to be presented and consequently provided a more thorough understanding of the

Roman slave world.

The issue in question is whether the insurrections of slaves in antiquity can be successfully

understood through a comparative approach incorporating the modern slave societies. Slaves

rebelled in a plethora of ways in the classical world; they often decided between fight and flight just

like slaves in the transatlantic world. Many slaves decided to take flight (Urbaincyzk: 2008: 1). The

evidence for such events is scarce in the classical world but there are brief accounts of slaves

absconding as well as covert resistance, however, the majority of the evidence focuses on overt

resistance such as the famous slave rebellions of Spartacus (73-71 B.C.) and the Sicilian slave wars

(135-132 B.C., 104-100 B.C.) which are prominent in history.

When slaves resorted to escaping from their masters it was often for individual purposes, but it is

possible that slaves that absconded could have formed communities comparable to maroon

communities. The comparisons may combine but it is important to clarify that there is no obvious

parallel in the Roman world for maroon communities. There is a record from Greece, within the

works of Nymphodorus of Syracuse who is referenced by Athenaeus concerning a slave named

Drimacus, who was a leader of an organised group of slaves who governed their self-established

community on the island of Chios (approx. First half of the 3rd century B.C.). The organised band of

slaves were acting in a maroon community mentality and therefore can highlight the existence of

maroon communities within antiquity that may have been overlooked by modern scholars who were

not searching for such connections but rather focusing on the rebellion within Greek history.

‘The Chians’ slaves ran away from them and made off into the mountains where they gathered in

large numbers and did a lot of damage to their country estates. The island is rough and covered with

trees’ (Athenaeus cited in Bradley: 1989: 38-40).

The topographical description of the area (Figure 3.5.) in which the slaves created their community

shares similarities with those in the Caribbean and South America, it was mountainous and most

probably wooded, which aided the guerrilla style warfare of maroon communities. Further

similarities are highlighted throughout the passage of Athenaeus with the Chian rebels suing for

peace with their masters and signing a treaty, this account suggests that the Chian rebels had the

same motivation as the rebelling slaves in Ilheus, Brazil. The details of this account has remarkably

120201806

19

similar features to that of a maroon community (Bradley: 1989: 40). Suetonius describes in his works

‘Augustus 3.1’ that when C. Octavius was travelling to begin his governorship of Macedonia he had

to undertake a special command that required ‘wiping out a band of runaway slaves (fugitivi) from

the armies of Spartacus and Catiline, who held possession of the country of Thurii’ (Suetonius:

Augustus 3.1).

The passage shows clearly that despite the defeat of the slave rebellion led by Spartacus and also

the remnants of the army of L. Sergius Catilina, the servile population that had been associated with

the rebellion had not yet been utterly eradicated, they had instead found refuge in the mountainous

environment of Thurii and had continued to provide an armed resistance (Bradley: 1989: 41). The

area which the slaves held shares similarities with the maroon communities of the transatlantic

world, however, it is unfortunate that Suetonius does not elaborate in further detail. Pinccinin

discusses the aim of the Spartacus rebellion by highlighting that the slaves did not flee to the

countryside and create a maroon community, but they recruited more slaves and this may infer that

the slaves intended to meet their former masters in battle rather than abscond with their freedom

(Piccinin: 2004: 194). Yet, Bradley’s (1989: 125) perception on the objectives behind revolts differs

with Piccinin’s and states that; ‘it cannot be assumed that slaves set out to make war, in any formal

manner, against established powers; it can only be said that slaves were prepared to use military

tactics to protect and sustain themselves in flight’. Therefore, although the ancient sources and with

Figure 3.5. A map depicting the

terrain of the island of Chios, Greece

– Showing mainly mountainous and

dense woodland areas

©Google Maps

120201806

20

that the ancient historians themselves do not specifically use the term maroonage, it can be inferred

that the absconding slaves of the Roman world were more than likely forming maroon-like

communities in order to survive as freedman.

The reasons for rebelling have been debated and Finley (1959: 159) states that slaves would not

have revolted due to maltreatment but that they seized an opportunity, a slave rebellion on any

scale requires, careful planning, persistence and opportunity. The argument that slaves revolted due

to maltreatment can be applied both to the new world and also the classical world; when describing

the first two servile wars in Sicily, Diodorus states that they were due to the slaves being provoked

by the cruelty of their masters (DiodorusSiculus: 34/35.2.24b). Diodorus elaborates further noting

that if slaves are treated cruelly by their masters they will not want to abscond, but take their

revenge. He divulges further:

‘All of them (the slaves) were equipped with the best of weapons: a rage that was directed at the

destruction of their arrogant and overbearing masters’ (DiodorusSiculus: 34/35.2.24b).

The rage that the slaves in antiquity would have felt due to their oppressive masters resonates into

the examples of slave rebellions in the New World. The cruel reality of how slaves were treated

should never be forgotten and cases such as the Charleston workhouse in South Carolina which

implemented dense, sand filled walls to silence the screams of those being tortured inside highlight

this (Figure 3.5.). The barbaric treatment of the slaves in Charleston resulted in rebellion and saw the

men on the site, killing the women and children to spare them from the pain and cruelty (Egerton:

2008: 118).

Figure 3.6. Slave housing at the

McLeod plantation, Charleston

County, South Carolina.

Image Courtesy of

south-carolina-plantations.com

http://south-carolina-

plantations.com/charleston/i/m

cleod/mcleod-slave-

quarters.jpg

120201806

21

Slaves who rebelled in a violent manner such as arming themselves may have seemed threatening to

the owners but with the luxury of hindsight it is clear that the rebellions had no opportunity for long-

term success and unlike the slaves in the later phases of the transatlantic slave world, the Roman

slaves may have had little impact on society due to the lack of an abolition movement (Urbainczyk:

2008: 1-2). The lack of an apparent abolition movement within the Roman world reveals a startling

idea that within the free community there was no desire for the end of slavery, even amongst those

who had been freed from slavery. In fact, it has been theorised that it is more likely that those who

had been freed would have gone on to purchase slaves for themselves and thus embrace the idea

that slavery was crucial in the Roman world (Urbainczyk: 2008: 1). Bradley (1989: 126) also

comments on the lack of an abolition movement by critiquing the effect the revolutions had on

Rome. Insurrections within the classical slave world were ever present but the result of the overt

resistances had led to no enhancements for the lives of those enslaved, unlike their modern

counterparts the slaves in in the Roman world had very little chance of the rebellions leading to the

abolition of slavery (Bradley: 1989: 126). The lack of an abolition movement is in stark contrast to

Britain in the 1780’s which witnessed one of the largest political lobbying movements in history, to

abolish the redundant system of slavery. The British were clear that slavery was no longer a

necessity with the focus on; ‘new systems of labour and production that were inspired by a freer

trade in commodities, produce and labour’ (Walvin: 2007: 27). Where as in Rome, the economic

advantages of slavery remained embedded in society and thus resulted in the lack of an abolition

movement. In the Roman world the slaves’ actions were purely individualistic and only concerned

with personal freedom or the freedom of themselves and their family, there was no communal long-

term aim and therefore those who gained their freedom through rebelling were prepared to defend

their freedom against the inevitable retaliation of Rome.

I have discussed above the harsh and barbaric treatment of escaped slaves in the New World. The

punishments were as severe in antiquity too. Livy (32.26.4-18) describes the events in 185 B.C.

briefly, but it highlights the importance of vigilance within the Roman world in the coordination of

governing slaves. The Praetor Lucius Postumius conducted a strict investigation into a ‘conspiracy of

shepherds’ in Tarentum, who according to Livy had ‘endangered the highways and the public

pasture-lands’ through their ‘brigandage’. Lucius Postumius, according to Livy, condemned

approximately seven thousand men; many escaped but many were also executed. The number of

men that may have been executed would have been substantial considering the amount of men

captured and may have shadowed the eighty-four executions in Antigua (1735-36) and the four

hundred in Barbados (1816). Livy likens the seven thousand shepherds’ actions to ‘brigandage’

which as a noun ‘brigand’ is defined as; ‘a gang that ambushes and robs people in forests and

120201806

22

mountains’ (Oxford Dictionary: 2007). The phrasing Livy uses to describe the men allows one to infer

that the shepherds may have been living similarly to the maroon communities of the New World.

This is one of the several pieces of evidence discussed in this chapter which suggests that slaves in

the classical world may have created maroon communities and used guerrilla tactics to extort key

resources from surrounding areas. The advantages to the comparative approach can be seen

specifically in the case of the maroon communities, without using a comparative approach the

maroon-like communities in Ancient Greece and Rome would not be easily identified. Yet when

using the maroon communities in the transatlantic world it is apparent that they have an abundance

of similarities; from the topographical layout of the communities, to the armed resistance of their

past masters as well as the self-governed nature of the communities in both Rome and the

transatlantic world. Therefore, the comparison between maroon communities both in the New

World and the Roman world highlights the necessity for further diachronic studies to be carried out

in order to truly understand the world of slavery in antiquity.

3.3 Conclusion

Slave insurrections throughout history are crucial pieces of evidence in the understanding of the

slave world both in antiquity and the New World. The barbaric behaviours of masters, the

opportunistic nature of the slaves and the ability to create communities for absconded slaves

resonate from the modern era and through into the classical past. The apparent scarcity of evidence

for maroon communities in the Roman world does not mean there were none in comparison to the

hundreds that are documented in the transatlantic slave world. One can believe that within the

slave world rebellions were necessary, and in the cases of Margaret Garner and of the slaves in

Charleston, killing the ones you love the most to free them from pain and suffering was the only

option. Slave insurrections in both the Roman world and the transatlantic world have key similarities

that, I would argue, facilitate a new understanding of not only the rebellions in the Roman world but

also the reactions of the masters and the aftermath of such rebellions. Being able to study the well

documented rebellions of the New World has opened up a new approach to the study of the Roman

world. The slave rebellions of Rome and the maroon-like communities in particular have been vastly

overlooked by scholars. This may be due to the fact that the evidence has not been evaluated with

such communities in mind. Thus, the connection has been missed. This chapter has incorporated the

maroon communities of the transatlantic world and has been able to draw close comparisons with

potential maroon communities of the Roman world through the re-evaluation of previous works,

including ancient scholars. Consequently, the comparative study of slave insurrections between the

New World and antiquity is essential in the continuation of comparative studies and the

120201806

23

development of further understanding of the Roman slave world. More thorough research is

therefore needed to be able to ascertain how the slave body functioned in detail in antiquity.

120201806

24

Chapter 4: Manumission

4.1. Introduction

Manumission is the release from dominion (Morris: 1996: 371) and is a crucial aspect of the

comparative study in the slave world. It has been written that whilst the ‘literature on slavery has

reached impressive proportions, very little has been written so far on the comparative history of

manumission’ (Woodward: 1978: 93). The idea of manumission has been investigated by Patterson

(1982) and Davis 1975) and they have applied an anthropological theory of the ‘gift’ to explain

manumission. Gift exchanges in premarket societies created a plethora of obligations through the

distribution of goods, even though the gifts appeared to be given voluntarily and without cause.

However, the complexity that the concept of ‘gift giving’ can lead to problems when interpreting

manumission. Yet if one were to look closely at the practice among slave owners in the American

South and not at the legal aspect, or if one was to focus on the law of slavery in antiquity and those

slave systems that were built upon civil law foundations such as Louisiana, there is a strong case for

the use of the ‘gift’ in relation to manumission (Morris: 1996: 371). Patterson (1982: 409) argued

that manumission was the ‘gift of a social life, ideologically interpreted as a repayment for faithful

service’ and Davis (1975: 17) agreed with this interpretation of manumission stating that ‘continuing

gratitude and obligations to the master and his successors’ were expected post-freedom. In

Louisiana, if a freed slave was deemed to be acting in an ungrateful manner towards his ex-master,

then the master could take the freeman and reduce him once again to slavery (Atiyah: 1979: 130).

The idea of ongoing obligations in the South did not exist outside of a civil law state and Coke (1628)

dissects the legal differences between common law and civil law, stating that; ‘if a villain be

manumised albeit he become ungrateful to the lord in the highest degree, yet the manumission

remains good’. Therefore the difference in legal standings of a number of states emphasised that in

the South manumission often resulted in a lack of civis, which is the opposite of what occurred in

Roman law (Morris: 1996: 371). Civis, translates roughly as ‘citizen’ and thus accorded someone the

ability to no longer be classed as an outsider within the community (Pagden: 1986). The concept of

civis in the Roman world does create a contrast to how the manumised slaves in the New World

were treated. Some Southern states were so fearful of the growth in the free black population that

they rarely allowed for freed slaves to remain in the state in which they had served (Morris: 1996:

372). While the free slave became a ‘libertus’ or ‘libertinus’, (a slave who had obtained ‘libertas’) the

120201806

25

former master gained the title of ‘patronus’ (derived from the word ‘pater’, meaning Father). The

father-son relationship was intended to be used as a moral model to establish the relationship which

should exist between a freedman and his former owner. This particular model is significant in

understanding the transition for the freedman in Rome into society; through this patriarchal system

the freedman was entered into two separate social institutions. The first institution is that of

‘clientela’ (Patronage) and the second is the ‘familia’ (family), therefore the use of manumission is

often referred to, in an abstract manner, as a ‘birth’, through which the slave owner has given life

and social existence to his former slave (Mourtisen: 2011: 37-38). Epitaphs’ have been used to great

effect in the study of manumission in roman slavery as some suggest that manumission occurred on

a regular basis and slaves were generally between the ages of thirty and thirty-five. It has been

theorised that manumission was not difficult to attain if one possessed certain character traits such

as; intelligence, energy and a thrifty nature (Weaver: 1972: 97). The Oxyrhyncus papyrus (up to XLII)

(Figure 4.1.) is also key in understanding manumission in Rome as it contains statements from forty-

six slaves gaining their freedom. The amount of data is too small to be able to infer that the roman

slave trade adhered to an ‘integration’ model but it allows for further studies to continue in regards

to the numerical data of manumissions in the roman era (Wiedemann: 1985: 163).

Figure 4.1. An example of an Oxyrhyncus Papyrus

Image Courtesy of Spurlock Museum, Illinois

http://www.spurlock.illinois.edu/collections/artifa

ct/oxyrhynchus/papyrus.jpg

120201806

26

4.2 We Will All Be Welcome In Virginia? Manumission in the New World

Manumission in any case was rare in the colonial world and the first manumission to be granted

came through Philip Ludwell’s will in which he freed Jonathon Pearse for his ‘faithful services’

(McIlwaine: 1925-1966). The pressure to authorise private manumissions was intensifying in the

1770s and 1780s and resulted in Virginia altering the law in 1782, mainly in response to petitions

from Quakers and other religious sources that asked for those who are ‘disposed to emancipate

their slaves may be empowered to do so’ (Morris: 1996: 394). Due to the change in the law, slave-

owners were now legally able to free slaves either in their wills or by any other contract in writing.

There were restrictions upon the manumissions; male slaves had to be between twenty-one and

forty-five and female slaves had to be between eighteen and forty-five, slaves younger or older than

this would have to be supported by their emancipators (ibid.).

Berlin (1976) noted that during a certain period of time Alabama, Kentucky, North Carolina,

Tennessee and Virginia required freed people to leave the state swiftly or they would be re-entered

into slavery. The threat of re-enslavement was often enforced and the case of Patty Green and Betty

in Charles City County, Virginia, were found guilty of remaining within Virginia past the time limit set

by the magistrate for the ex-slave to leave the state and in June 1834, Judge Abel Parker Upshur

ordered the two women to be sold back into slavery (Charles City County Circuit Court Order Book:

1831-52:75). Freedman in the rest of the southern states may not have been likely to be re-entered

into slavery if they remained in the state but once again they could not be permitted full citizenship

(Morris: 1996:372). The State of Virginia in 1836 rethought the banishment of freed slaves and

allowed all those who had been freed after 1806 to apply for permission to stay in the county in

which they were freed by applying to the local court. Furthermore, in Virginia’s constitution of 1850

a section appeared that is of significance in regard to the manumission of slaves; ‘Slaves hereafter

emancipated shall forfeit their freedom by remaining in the commonwealth more than twelve

months after they became actually free, and shall be reduced to slavery under such regulation as

may be prescribed by law’, Virginians were experimenting with the rules on private manumission

(Morris: 1996: 394).

Slaves had a right to purchase their own freedom in the New World as in antiquity, however, in the

transatlantic world slaves would have to arrange contractual agreements with their master within

the restrictions of the civil law (Morris: 1996: 380). Scott (1985: 74-75), however, has proven that in

Cuba the price of a slave’s freedom would have been almost certainly out of the price range of any

120201806

27

slave. The introduction of contracts for manumission was a revolutionary movement and heavily

contested in the Southern States of America, especially Virginia, and many argued that a slave had

no ‘will’ due to their enslavement and thus could not enter into contracts whether for their freedom

or not (Blassingame: 1977: 82). The case of Guardian of Sally, a Negro v. Beaty (1792), is a prime

example of the complications in the law in regards to slaves, slave-owners and manumission. During

the 1790’s a slave woman in South Carolina purchased another slave named Sally with her own

money and decided to free her as soon as purchased, however, the slaves master contested that

anything owned by his slave was therefore his and thus the manumission of Sally was illegal and he

demanded his property returned to him at once (Morris: 1996: 381). The jury returned the verdict in

favour of the freedom of Sally after the Chief Justice John Rutledge (Figure 4.2.) directed them with a

clear speech on the key elements of the case; ‘If the master got the labour of this wench, or what he

agreed to receive for her monthly wages, he could not be injured; on the contrary he was fully

satisfied, and all that she earned ought to be at her disposal’ (ibid.).

Figure 4.2. Portrait of the Chief Justice John

Rutledge

Image Courtesy of Encyclopaedia Britannica

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/51

4312/John-Rutledge

120201806

28

Russell (1969: 61) commented on the removal of the restraints on manumission in 1782 and referred

to them as ‘like the sudden destruction of a dam before increasing the impetus of a swollen stream’.

This led to an increase of the free black population in Virginia to almost twice its previous size in the

space of two years and this was due mainly to manumission becoming popular in Virginia and large

numbers of slaves were manumised at one time. Jordan (1969: 347) noted that following the

manumission ‘boom’ of the previous years, in 1806, the State of Virginia restricted the rights of

slave-owners to free their slaves; ‘On its face not a remarkable measure, in fact it was the key step in

the key state and more than any event marked the reversal of the tide which had set in strongly at

the Revolution. It was a step on the slippery slope which led to Appomattox (court house battle of

1865) and beyond.’ Jordan’s statement is rather bold but the work of Nash (1990: 18) has pushed

the boundaries even further with a strong claim that the slave-owners of Virginia, who comprised

approximately half of America’s slave-owners, were; ‘disentangling themselves from the business of

coerced labour’ and elaborated further claiming that there was evidence of a ‘widespread desire to

be quit of slavery and blacks’. Although there is evidence of opposition to slavery and the use of

large-scale manumissions, one must be cautious in the assumption that there was a desired urgency

to emancipate, there are examples such as Methodist leaders Francis Asbury and Thomas Coke who

in 1785 brought forth a petition for a general emancipation law in Virginia, it cannot be presumed

that the owners of large plantations were disassociating themselves with slavery through a purely

conscience driven decision (Morris: 1996: 395).

Nevertheless, the proslavery ideology was still embedded in parts of society in the South and

evidence is available through the petitions submitted in 1784 and 1785 to the assembly in Virginia.

The proslavery members of Virginia were not happy with the direction of the manumission laws

were headed, many of the petitions contained a strong biblical and deeply racist defence of slavery

(ibid.). The petitions often called for the ‘rejection of any scheme of emancipation and to repeal the

law of 1782’ and was then followed by a list of offences that were ‘associated with manumission’,

including ‘the rapes, murders and outrages which a vast multitude of unprincipled, unpropertied,

revengeful and remorseless Banditti (group of bandits) are capable or perpetrating’ (Bruns: 1977:

506-507).

120201806

29

The desire of the individual slave-owners were often not taken into account in the colonial period as

to free one’s slaves was seen to be an insubordinate act and against ‘policy’, which was highly

restrictive. There was a shift in the legal standing in the late 18th century which saw the acceptance

of ‘humanitarian sensibility’ which allowed for some people to reject the whole institution of slavery

and therefore saw people begin to reason as to when and how slavery would be abolished, instead

of wondering whether it ever would be (Morris: 1996: 398). Yet, there were constant changes in the

laws of Virginia in regards to private manumission and these changes saw the development of

hostility towards the growth of a free black population, however, O’Neall (1848: 12) concludes that

the policy throughout Virginia meant that ‘the State has nothing to fear from emancipation,

regulated as… law directs it to be’.

Figure 4.3. Deed of Manumission for Francis Drake, May

23, 1791

Image Courtesy of the Library of Virginia

http://www.virginiamemory.com/docs/05-23-1791_05-

0521-01.jpg

120201806

30

4.3. Manumission in Rome

Manumission was always a distinctive feature of the Roman slavery system and has a history that

stretches back well before the imperial period. Watson (1971:43).

Slave-owners in Rome were relatively liberal with the manumission of their slaves compared to

those in the New World and this was demonstrated by the vast number of ex-slaves that inhabited

Rome and highlighted that slavery in the Roman world was not necessarily seen as a permeant state

but one in which freedom was possible (Bradley: 1987: 81). The freedmen and women of Rome, as

in the New World, acted as an example of what could be achieved through obedience and loyal

service and as a result of this an understanding of slave-owners that freedom could be used as a

bribe and also to repay a slave was apparent early on in the Roman world (Hopkins: 1978: 118).

Freedom was the highest reward a slave would be able to attain and there had to have been an

understanding from the freedman on their role with Roman society. To be able to interpret how

slaves would anticipate their freedom and the meritorious service they must perform in able to be

granted their freedom, would help scholars to understand how the freedman actively partook in

maintaining the stability of Roman society. (Bradley: 1987: 83-84). Weaver (1972: 97) theorised that

manumission would be easy to achieve for a slave who was ‘intelligent, thrifty and energetic’,

however, one must also consider the motives of the slave-owners in allowing their slaves to be

granted freedom. Treggiari (1969) believes that ‘owners were concerned to attract the esteem of

their peers through apparent acts of kindness’, but one must clarify that when slaves were

emancipated they did not completely remove themselves from their former masters, the freedman

bound himself to his patron summarised in the legal term ‘operae’, which would see the slave enter

an agreement with their patron to carry out certain ‘services of labour, and obtain them at law’

(Shumway: 1901). The use of ‘operae’ demonstrates the contrast between the New World and the

Roman world, as seen above, those who were freed in North America were demanded by law to

leave the county. Whereas in Rome, there was potential for employment with the same owner but

within the dynamic of employer and employee, rather than slave and master.

Roman history saw many former slave-owners take advantage of this legal commitment, for

example; before their deaths in 89 B.C. Gaius Gracchus and C. Fulvius Flaccus are believed to have

offered slaves their freedom in return for their support in their political plans. The senate also

offered freedom as a reward for any slaves who held information regarding the assassination of A.

Sempronius Asellio (Bradley: 1987: 84). However, it is also possible that slaves took advantage of

political or military confusion in an attempt to liberate themselves without the retaliation of a

preoccupied ruling elite and this can be shown during the Catiline conspiracy where rural slaves may

120201806

31

have taken it upon themselves to abscond (Bradley: 1978: 73). Rural emancipation is little spoken of

and this is one of the problems with Roman slavery, the historical record is dominated by those

slaves in the city who have more opportunity to earn money, whereas, rural freedman would not

have had enough money to commemorate their freedom with inscriptions (Bradley: 1987: 104)

(Figure 4.4.).

The constant change in the legal attitude towards manumission in the New World is reminiscent of

Augustus’ decision to introduce the Lex Aelia which was established in the year 4 A.D. and was

designed to restrict the rising number of manumissions as was documented by Gaius in his institutes

(Gaius: 1:19-20). However, the reaction in the American South is a direct contrast to the way in

Figure 4.4. The Cinerary urn of the freedman Tiberius

Claudius Chryseros

Image Courtesy of Flick River

http://www.flickriver.com/photos/mrjennings/sets/7215762

6483373576/

120201806

32

which the slaves in antiquity would have been treated. The freedman in Rome was integrated into

society through careful legal procedures and regulations which are not available in the New World in

such a stringent manner. The comparison between North America and Rome in regards to the role

of a freed slave adds real value due to the contrast between the two; the obligations attached to the

freed slave in Rome is in complete contrast of the banishment of a freed slave in the southern states

of America. The importance of the treatment of freed slaves is crucial in understanding how the

freed slaves were expected to integrate into a society they have never been part of.

In 2 B.C. the lex Fufia Caninia was introduced by Augustus and acted as a sliding scale to control and

manage the proportion of slaves that could be emancipated after the death of their owner; the

larger the household the smaller the number of slaves that could be freed and under no

circumstances could more than one hundred slaves be freed at the same time (Atkinson: 1966: 356).

The development of the legislative restrictions on manumission does not show an unwillingness

from Augustus to accept manumission as it had been a traditional Roman practice for centuries and

therefore a halt in manumission would have been impossible. Augustus is emphasising the

importance of a slaves moral fibre, but Suetonius does elude to another reason for the restrictions

on manumission:

‘Considering it also of great importance to keep the people pure and unsullied by any taint of foreign

or servile blood, he was most chary of conferring Roman citizenship and set a limit to manumission’

(Suet. Aug. 40.3).

Rome’s stance on manumission was continually changing and the introduction of the lex Aelia Sentia

of 4 A.D. was designed to determine a boundary for the minimum age manumission of both slaves

and the age at which a master could set a slave free. A slave had to be thirty years old and the

master 20 years before manumission with full Roman citizenship could be either accepted or

conferred by one or the other (Bradley: 1987: 87). A third law was introduced, entitled the lex Junia

which was created to clarify the position of a slave who was freed without gaining full citizenship.

This particular law has been attributed to either Augustus or Tiberius but a precise date is unknown

(ibid.). In Suetonius’s biography of Augustus he explains the purpose behind the three new pieces of

legislation that were passed, that allowed for reluctance in the granting of manumission;

Not content with making it difficult for slaves to acquire freedom, and still more so to attain full

rights, by making careful provision as to the number, condition, and status of those manumitted, he

added the proviso that no one who had ever been put in irons or tortured should acquire citizenship

by any grade of freedom’ (Suetonius: Augustus; 40.4).

120201806

33

Dio refers to the lex Aelia, and comments that too many people were indiscriminately emancipating

their slaves and that Augustus’ legal modifications to the process should not be taken in a purely

numerical sense but should also be considered from a ‘qualitative point of view’ (Dio: 55.13.7). Once

the parameters set out in the legislation were met there was no restraints on servile manumission

(Bradley: 1987: 89). As in the New World, slaves could also be freed within the wills of their

deceased owners, with a passage of the lex Aelia setting out the way in which this could be achieved

and thus showing that testamentary manumission was not necessarily the most common means by

which to free a slave. The Augustan legislation laid down the foundations for the manumission of

slaves in Rome and although these were later amended when necessary, they remained in effect up

until the reign of Justinian (Bradley: 1987: 93). In spite of the Augustan restrictions it is clear that

slaves in the Roman world still desired freedom and were anticipating the time when they could join

the great mass of freed people. The advantages that came with freedom vastly outweigh the

potential negatives, such as; prostitution. Freedmen and women were no longer oppressed by their

master and they could acquire full Roman citizenship with both political and legal rights.

Furthermore, their descendants had the opportunity to progress socially (Bradley: 1987: 81-82). It

can be said that the life of a slave in Rome relied upon two key factors; the opinion created by the

Augustan legislation and also the world which the slaves shaped for themselves (ibid: 111).

4.4. Conclusion

Manumission allowed for slaves to reach for freedom and escape slavery in both the transatlantic

slave world and the oppressive slave world of Rome. Arguably for the same reasons, North American

slave-owners and those in Rome put in place a system of legal regulations to restrict the rate of

manumission; but the similarities between both the New World and the Roman world highlight the

importance of a diachronic comparison in the continual understanding of Roman slavery.

Manumission was a way in which the freedom of slaves was used as a manipulative tool; in Rome it

allowed for obligations to be attached to the slave. The use of freedom in Rome highlights a contrast

in the use of manumission in regards to the freedman in North America, who were expelled from the

area in which they had been enslaved. The manipulation of the slaves ‘freedom’ is clear as the law

was restricting the movements of a person even when free. (Bradley: 1987: 112). The idea of

manumission was as crucial to the slaves in Rome as it was to those in the transatlantic world and

they would seize their new status of freedman or woman as soon as it was in grasp and I believe this

is identifies the need for further in-depth comparative works within slavery, focusing on the

transatlantic world and the Roman world.

120201806

34

Chapter 5 – Conclusion

5.1 Summary

This dissertation has adopted an evaluative approach to insurrections and manumissions in order to

ascertain whether a diachronic comparison of slavery in the transatlantic world and the Roman

world is a necessity in order to increase our understanding of slavery in Rome. It began by providing

a historical background of slavery in Rome and the transatlantic world in order to place my argument

into its context. This was then followed by a discussion on the crucial aspects of the dissertation to

explain how a diachronic comparative approach would better aid our understanding of slavery in the

Roman world. The third chapter focused on insurrections, in both Rome and the New World,

engaging in an in-depth discussion on overt resistance and covert resistance, including maroon

communities. The fourth chapter gave a detailed account on manumission within the New World

and Rome, specifically focused on a comparison of Virginia and Rome, referring to legal

enforcements and the obligations of freed slaves within the societies.

5.2. Areas for Further Study

This dissertation has attempted to be as detailed as possible in regards to the comparisons between

the transatlantic world and Rome, but it still requires greater exploration. This dissertation has

focussed primarily on the comparisons between the insurrections and manumissions of Rome and

the transatlantic world but further work is necessary to further our understanding of slavery in the

Roman world. Such areas that may be approached in such a way are, for example, slave housing and

material culture and also freedom within slave religions. The need for a diachronic comparison is a

necessity but also, there is a need for a willingness to re-evaluate the classical past in order to fully

understand it, from those in the academic world.

5.3. Conclusion

Overall, the use of a diachronic comparative approach to slavery in the Roman world and the

transatlantic world has been a success. Through the use of a comparative approach has allowed for a

wider discussion on slavery in the Roman world and how the comparisons drawn from the

transatlantic slave world can increase our understanding of slavery in Rome. The comparisons drawn

in chapter three between maroon communities in the New World and the potential maroon

communities of the Roman world has allowed for a re-evaluation of our understanding on how

Roman slaves reacted when in flight, the scarcity of the evidence for such a topic has led to little

120201806

35

being documented on such communities. Yet, I believe that the lack of primary evidence for maroon

communities in Rome is primarily due to modern scholars failing to engage with the text in search

for such comparisons. Chapter four enabled a discussion on the benefits of manumission in both the

New World and Rome. Through the study of the legal restrictions on manumission I was able to draw

several similarities which can further my argument for a diachronic comparison of the slave worlds

of Rome and the New World. The world of modern academia cannot hold the classical world in such

a light, that the obvious similarities between Rome and the New World in regards to slavery can be,

to an extent, largely ignored. The works of Webster (2008) and Katsari and Del Lago (2008) have,

however, commented on the resistance by ancient historians and archaeologists to engage with a

comparative approach. We cannot begin to hope that through the study of a singular period in

history, it will be able help us understand the developments within the one society. Unless we

engage with equivalent cases throughout history; we cannot deduce whether the outcomes of

events in slavery were frequent or scarce. Without comparative work the result can only be an

‘antiquarian accumulation of data’ that is not only untestable but leads to haphazard claims about

the significance of the events in one system (Schiedel: 2006: 4). Therefore, I believe that a diachronic

comparison between Rome and the transatlantic world is a crucial necessity in the development of

our understanding of slavery within the Roman world.

120201806

36

List of References

Primary Sources

Cassius Dio, Historia Romana, in: Foster, H.B. (trans) Dio’s Annals of Rome (London: Harvard University Press, 1955

Cicero, Philippics, 8.32 in Hall, J., (2002): The Philippics, in: Brill's Companion to Cicero. Oratory and Rhetoric, hrsg. von James M. May, Leiden-Boston-Köln, 273-304.

Coke, E, (1628); The First Part of the Institutes of the Laws of England; or a Commentary on Littelton, 18th ed., London: Clarke, J., Pheney, R. and Brooke, S., 1823

Commonwealth v. Patty Green and Betty, June 27th, 1834, Charles City County Circuit Court Order Book, 1831-52, pp. 75

DiodorusSiculus in Buckley, T., (1996): Aspects of Greek History 750-323 BC: A Source-based Approach, London, Routledge

Dorey, T.A., (ed.) (1971): Livy, London, Routledge

Gaius’ Institutes, translated by; Moyle, J.B., 2002: The Institutes of Justinian, New Jersey, The Lawbook Exchange

O’Neall, J.B., (1848): The Negro Law of South Carolina, Columbia, John G. Bowman, 12

Stephen, J. (1824): The Slavery of the British West India Colonies Delineated, As it Exists Both in Law and Practice, and Compared with the Slavery of Other Colonies, Ancient and Modern, Vol. 1, Aberdeen, Constable and Co.

Suetonius, Divus Augustus, in: Graves, R. (trans) The Twelve Caesars (London: Penguin Classics, 2007)

120201806

37

Secondary Sources

Alfoldi, G. (1972): Die Freilassung von Sklaven und die Struktur der Sklaverei in der romischenKaiserzeit', RivistaStoricadelVAntichita 2, 97-129

Aptheker, H. (1993), American Negro Slave Revolts, New York (6th edition, first published 1943)

Atiyah, P.S., (1979): The Rise and Fall of Freedom of Contract, Oxford, Oxford University

Atkinson, K.M.T., (1966): The Purpose of the Manumission Laws of Augustus in The Irish Jurist 1, 356-374

Bauman, A. 2000. Human Rights in Ancient Rome (London).

Beckles, H. (1987): Black Rebellion in Barbados: The Struggle Against Slavery, 1627-1838, Bridgetown, Barbados, Caribbean Research and Publications

Berlin, I., (1976): Slaves Without Masters: The Free Negro in the Antebellum South, New York, Vintage Books

Blassingame, J.W., (1977): Slave Testimony: Two Centuries of Letters, Speeches, Interviews and Autobiographies, Baton Rouge, Louisiana University Press

Bloch, H. (1947): I BolliLaterizi e la StoriaEdiliziaRomana, Rome

Bradley, K. (1989), Slavery and Rebellion in the Roman World, 140BC – 70BC, London

Bradley, K. (1994): Slavery and Society at Rome, Cambridge

Bradley, K.R., (1978): Slaves and the Conspiracy of Catiline, 73

Bradley, K.R., (1987): Slaves and Masters in the Roman Empire; A Study in Social Control, New York & Oxford, Oxford University Press, 81-112

Braund, D. & Wilkins, J., (eds.) (2000): Athenaeus and his world: reading Greek culture in the Roman Empire, Exeter, University of Exeter Press,

Brunings, R., (2004): Slavery and the Tragic Story of Two Families – Gaines and Garner, Kentucky

Bruns, R., (1977): Am I Not a Man and a Brother: The Antislavery Crusade of Revolutionary America, 1688-1788, New York, Chelsea House Publishers, 506-507

Brunschvig, R. (1960): Abd, in Encyclopedia of Islam, Leiden

Cody, C.A. 1987. “There was no ‘Absalom’ on the Ball plantations: slave-naming practices in the South Carolina Low Country, 1720-1865” American Historical Review 92(3): 563-596.

Dal Lago, E. and Katsari, C. eds., 2008a. Slave Systems Ancient and Modern (Cambridge).

Dal Lago, E. and Katsari, C. eds., 2008b. World Slavery and Comparative Slavery: Diachronic Approaches (Leicester).

Davis, A., (1981): Women, Race and Class, The Women’s Press, p21

Davis, D.B., (1975): The Problem of Slavery in the Age of Revolution, Ithaca, Cornell University Press

Deetz, J. In small things forgotten. An archaeology of early American life (2ndedn), New York

120201806

38

Dubois, L. (2004), Avengers of the New World: The Story of the Haitian Revolution, Cambridge, Mass.

Egerton D.R. (2008), ‘Denying the Evidence: Slave Rebelliousness and the Denmark Vesey Debate’, in Katsari C. & Dal Lago E. (eds.), (2008), From Captivity to Freedom: Themes in Ancient and Modern Slavery, pp.107-118, Leicester, School of Archaeology and Ancient History, University of Leicester

Eltis, D., Behrendt, S., Richardson, D. and Klein, H., eds. (2011), Voyages: The Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Database, Available HTTP: http://www.slavevoyages.org/, [Last Accessed: 12/04/2015]

Finley, M. (1982): Problems of Slave Societies. Some Reflections on the Debate, Opus 1, 201-211

Finley, M.I. (1959), ‘Was Greek Civilisation Based on Slave Labour?’,Historia, 8, pp. 145-164.

Genovese, E.D. (1979), From Rebellion to Revolution: Afro – American Slave Revolts in the Making of the Modern World, Baton Rouge

Hall, M. (2000): Archaeology and the Modern World. Colonial Transcripts in South Africa and the Chesapeake, London

Hall, M., (2000): Archaeology and the Modern World. Colonial Transcripts in South Africa and the Chesapeake, London

Handler, S. &Pohlmann, J.T. (1984): Slave Manumissions and Freedman in Seventeenth-Century Barbados in The William and Mary Quarterly Vol. 41, No. 3, Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture, pp. 390 - 408

Higman, B.W. (2001): The Invention of Slave Society , in B.L. Moore, B.W. Higman, C. Campbell and P. Bryan (eds.), Slavery Freedom and Gender. The Dynamics of Caribbean Society, Kingston, 57-75

Hopkins, K., (1978): Conquerors and Slaves: Sociological Studies in Roman History vol. 1, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press

Issac, B. (2006): Proto-racism in Graeco- Roman antiquity, World Archaeology 38 (1), 32-47

Jordan, W., (1969): White Over Black: American Attitudes towards the Negro, 1550-1812, New York, W.W. Norton

Katsari, C., and E. Dal Lago (eds), (2008): From captivity to freedom: Themes in ancient and modern slavery, Leicester

Klebaner, B.J., (1955), ‘American Manumission Laws and the Responsibility for Supporting Slaves Author’,The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. 63, No. 4, pp. 443-453

Matthews, G., (2006): Caribbean Slave Revolts and the British Abolitionist Movement, Baton Rouge, Louisiana State University Press

McIlwaine, H.R., Hall, W.L., Hillman, B.J., (eds.), (1925-66), Executive Journals of the Council of Colonial Virginia, 6 vols., Charlottesville, University Press of Virginia

Miers S &Kopytoff I, 1979: ‘Slavery in Africa: Historical and Anthropological Perspectives’, Wisconsin, University of Wisconsin Press

Morris, I. (1994): Archaeologies of Greece, in I. Morris (ed.), Classical Greece, Ancient Histories and Modern Archaeologies, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 8-47

120201806

39

Morris, T.D., (1996): Southern Slavery and the Law, 1619-1860, Chapel Hill, North Carolina University Press

Mourtisen, H. (2013): Slavery and Manumission in the Roman Elite: A study of the Columbaria of the Volusii and the Statilii in George, M. (ed.): Roman Slavery and Roman Material Culture, Toronto, Toronto University Press

Mourtisen, H., (2011): The Freedman in the Roman World, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press

Nash, G., (1990): Race and Revolution, Madison, Madison House Publisher

Oakes, J. (1990) Slavery and Freedom: An Interpretation of the Old South. New York.

Orser, C.E.Jr. &Funari, P.P.A., (2001): Archaeology and slave resistance and rebellion, World Archaeology, London, Routledge

Pagden, A., (1986). "The image of the barbarian". The fall of natural man: the American Indian and the origins of comparative ethnology, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press

Patterson O, (1982): ‘Slavery and Social Death’, Harvard University Press

Patterson, O., (2008): Slavery, Gender and Work, in the Pre-modern World and Ancient Greece. A Cross Cultural Analysis, in E. Del Lago & C. Katsari (eds.), Slave Systems. Ancient and Modern, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 32-69

Piccinin, P. (2004), ‘Les Italiensdans le Bellum Spartacium’, Historia, 53, pp. 173-199

Roth, U, (eds.), (2010), Peculium, Freedom, Citizenship: Golden Triangle or Vicious Circle? An Act in Two Parts in The Sweat of Your Brow: Roman Slavery in its Socio-Economic Setting, London, Universtiy of London, 91-120

Russell, J.H., (1969): The Free Negro in Virginia, 1619-1865, New York, Dover Publications, 61

Scheidel W, (2010): ‘Slavery in the Roman economy’, Stanford, Stanford University Press

Scheidel, W. (2003): The Archaeology of Roman Slavery, review of L. Schumacher, Sklaverei in der Antike. Alltag und Schicksal der Unfeien, Journal of Roman Archaeology 16, 577-81

Scheidel, W. (2007): The Roman Slave Supply in Bradley, K and Cartledge P (eds.) The Cambridge World History of Slavery: The Ancient Mediterranean World, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press

Scheidel, W. (2011): Rome and China: Comparative Perspectives on Ancient World Empires, Oxford Studies in Early Empires, Oxford, Oxford University Press

Scheidel, W., (2011a): The Roman Slave Supply in Bradley, K. &Cartledge, P., (eds) (2011): The Ancient Mediterranean World vol.1, The Cambridge World History of Slavery, Cambridge, Cambridge University

Schumacher, L., (2001): Sklaverei in der Antike. Alltag und Schicksal der Unfeien, München: C.H. Beck Verlag

Scott, R., (1985): Slave Emancipation in Cuba: The Transition to Free Labour, 1860-1899, Princeton, Princeton University Press 74-75

Shorter Oxford English dictionary. (2007) Vol. 2. 6th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

120201806

40

Shumway, E. S., (1901): "Freedom and Slavery in Roman Law" in The American Law Register (1898-1907), Volume 49.

Small, S. &Walvin, J., (1994): African Resistance to Enslavement, in Tibbles, A (ed.), (1994): Transatlantic Slavery: Against Human Dignity, Liverpool, Liverpool University Press

Terrenato, N., (2005): The Deceptive Archetype. Roman Colonialism in Italy and Postcolonial Thoughts, in Hurst, H. & Owen, S. (eds.), Ancient Colonisations. Analogy, Similarity and Difference, Bath, 59-72

Terrenato, N., (2002): The innocents and the sceptics. Antiquity and classical archaeology, Antiquity 76, 1104-11

Thomas E. J. Wiedemann (1985). The regularity of manumission at Rome. The Classical Quarterly, 35, pp 162-175

Treggairi, S.M., (1969): Roman Freedmen During the Late Republic, Oxford, Oxford University Press

Urbainczyk, T. (2008a): ‘Rewriting Slave Rebellions’, in Katsari C. & Dal Lago E. (eds.), (2008), From Captivity to Freedom: Themes in Ancient and Modern Slavery, pp. 93-106, Leicester, School of Archaeology and Ancient History, University of Leicester

Urbainczyk, T., (2008b): Slave revolts in antiquity, Berkeley, University of California Press

Walvin, J. (2007): ‘Slavery, mass consumption and the dynamics of the Atlantic world: an overview’ in Hamilton, D. and Blyth, R. J. (eds.) ‘Representing Slavery: Art, Artefacts and Archives in the Collections of the National Maritime Museum’ Hampshire: Lund Humphries

Walvin, J. (2007): ‘Slavery, mass consumption and the dynamics of the Atlantic world: an overview’ in Hamilton, D. and Blyth, R. J. (eds.) ‘Representing Slavery: Art, Artefacts and Archives in the Collections of the National Maritime Museum’ Hampshire: Lund Humphries

Watson, A., (1971): Roman Private Law Around 200 B.C., Edinburgh

Weaver, P. R. C., (1972): FamiliaCaesaris, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press,

Webster J, (2010): ‘Routes to slavery in the Roman world: a comparative perspective on the archaeology of forced migration’ in Eckardt H (ed), 2010: ‘Roman Diasporas: Archaeological approaches to mobility and diversity in the Roman Empire’, Thomson – Shore, Michigan Webster J., (2008): Less beloved. Roman archaeology, slavery and the failure to compare, Archaeological dialogues, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 103-123

Webster, J., (2005): Archaeologies of slavery and servitude. Bringing ‘New World’ perspectives to Roman Britain, Journal of Roman archaeology 18, 161-79

Woodward, C.V., (1978): ‘The Price of Freedom’ in ‘What was Freedom’s Price?’ Edited by Sansig, D.G., Jackson, University of Mississippi Press, 93 – 113

120201806

41

Images Used

Front Cover: ‘The Death of Spartacus’, by Hermann Vogel (1882)

Image Courtesy of Fine Art America

http://fineartamerica.com/featured/spartacus-d71-bc-granger.html

[Date Accessed: 21/04/2015]

Figure 2.1. Toussaint Louverture; ‘Chef des Noirs Insurgés de Saint Domingue’, by Jean de Beauvais

(c. 1802)

Image Courtesy of Historic Hudson Valley.

http://american-

arcadia.hudsonvalley.org/sites/default/files/imagecache/full/sites/default/files/images/toussaint_lo

uverture.jpg

[Date Accessed: 21/04/2015]

Figure 3.1. A Newspaper clipping of a reward for the apprehension of a runaway slave

http://americanabolitionist.liberalarts.iupui.edu/resistance.htm

[Date Accessed: 21/04/2015]

Figure 3.2. A map detailing two possible routes Margaret Garner may have taken during her escape.

It must be said that this is a modern map and therefore may not represent Garner’s true route

©Google Maps

[Date Accessed: 21/04/2015

Figure 3.3. ‘The Modern Medea’ (1867) by Thomas Satterwhite Noble was based on Garner's story.

Picture courtesy of playbillarts.com http://www.playbillarts.com/features/article/6963-My-Journey-from-Beloved.html

[Date Accessed: 21/04/2015]

Figure 3.4.Headline from a Cincinnati newspaper, detailing the arrest of Garner.

Image courtesy of playbillarts.com http://www.playbillarts.com/features/article/6963-My-Journey-from-Beloved.html

[Date Accessed: 21/04/2015]

Figure 3.5. A map depicting the terrain of the island of Chios, Greece – Showing mainly mountainous

and dense woodland areas

©Google Maps

[Date Accessed: 21/04/2015]

Figure 3.6. Slave housing at the McLeod plantation, Charleston County, South Carolina.

Image Courtesy of south-carolina-plantations.com

http://south-carolina-plantations.com/charleston/i/mcleod/mcleod-slave-quarters.jpg

[Date Accessed: 21/04/2015]

Figure 4.1. An example of an Oxyrhyncus Papyrus

Image Courtesy of Spurlock Museum, Illinois.

http://www.spurlock.illinois.edu/collections/artifact/oxyrhynchus/papyrus.jpg

[Date Accessed: 21/04/2015]

120201806

42

Figure 4.2. Portrait of the Chief Justice John Rutledge,

Image Courtesy of Encyclopaedia Britannica.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/514312/John-Rutledge

[Date Accessed: 21/04/2015]

Figure 4.3. Deed of Manumission for Francis Drake, May 23, 1791,

Image Courtesy of the Library of Virginia

http://www.virginiamemory.com/docs/05-23-1791_05-0521-01.jpg

[Date Accessed: 21/04/2015]

Figure 4.4. The Cinerary urn of the freedman Tiberius Claudius Chryseros, Curated in the Museum of

the Diocletian Baths

Image Courtesy of Flick River.

http://www.flickriver.com/photos/mrjennings/sets/72157626483373576/

[Date Accessed: 21/04/2015]