1 December 19, 2025
Articles
1. Sergey I. Degtyarev
Slavery among the American Pre-Columbian Civilizations (Incas, Aztecs and Maya): Comparative Characteristics and Some Aspects of Historiography
Slavery: Theory and Practice. 2025. 10(1): 3-14.
Number of views: 6 Download in PDF
2. Sergei N. NikitinSlavery: Theory and Practice. 2025. 10(1): 3-14.
Abstract:
This study is devoted to the historiography and comparative characteristics of the institution of slavery in American pre-Columbian civilizations. Scientific works on the research problem were used as materials, and the methodological complex consists of such methods of historical research as historiographical, historical-comparative, historical-systemic, etc. Historiography has studied the institution of slavery in pre-Columbian American civilizations quite fully and is represented by both foreign and Russian studies. The Incas had the mildest institution of slavery. It was not slavery per se, but consisted only in the labor service of "mitu", which was performed by almost all citizens (with the exception of the nobility, children, the elderly, the sick and widows). Slavery among the Aztecs was in the literal sense of the word: slaves were involved in heavy work, and were also used in sacrifices. The source of slavery was debt, crime, and later the capture of prisoners of war. Voluntary slavery was characteristic of the Aztec civilization. However, the condition of slavery was not inherited. Maya slavery was the most severe of the above. In Mayan law, slavery could be hereditary (in the case of debt dependence), group (i.e. with the family, in the case of sale into slavery of a free person). The sources of slavery are not only the same as those of the Aztecs, but also very exotic (for example, for women in case of divorce). Slaves were also used in heavy and dangerous jobs, as servants, in sacrifices, etc. It should be noted that slavery among native American civilizations was much milder than classical slavery, since Indian tribes saw a human being as a slave behind the institution of slavery: it was forbidden to prevent escape (with the exception of slave owners), to separate families, etc.Keywords: slavery among the Indians of America, Incas, Aztecs, Maya, comparative characteristics of the institution of slavery of the Incas, Aztecs, Maya.
This study is devoted to the historiography and comparative characteristics of the institution of slavery in American pre-Columbian civilizations. Scientific works on the research problem were used as materials, and the methodological complex consists of such methods of historical research as historiographical, historical-comparative, historical-systemic, etc. Historiography has studied the institution of slavery in pre-Columbian American civilizations quite fully and is represented by both foreign and Russian studies. The Incas had the mildest institution of slavery. It was not slavery per se, but consisted only in the labor service of "mitu", which was performed by almost all citizens (with the exception of the nobility, children, the elderly, the sick and widows). Slavery among the Aztecs was in the literal sense of the word: slaves were involved in heavy work, and were also used in sacrifices. The source of slavery was debt, crime, and later the capture of prisoners of war. Voluntary slavery was characteristic of the Aztec civilization. However, the condition of slavery was not inherited. Maya slavery was the most severe of the above. In Mayan law, slavery could be hereditary (in the case of debt dependence), group (i.e. with the family, in the case of sale into slavery of a free person). The sources of slavery are not only the same as those of the Aztecs, but also very exotic (for example, for women in case of divorce). Slaves were also used in heavy and dangerous jobs, as servants, in sacrifices, etc. It should be noted that slavery among native American civilizations was much milder than classical slavery, since Indian tribes saw a human being as a slave behind the institution of slavery: it was forbidden to prevent escape (with the exception of slave owners), to separate families, etc.Keywords: slavery among the Indians of America, Incas, Aztecs, Maya, comparative characteristics of the institution of slavery of the Incas, Aztecs, Maya.
Number of views: 6 Download in PDF
The Creative Legacy of Henri Alexandre Vallon (1812–1904) and His Views on the Institution of Ancient Slavery
Slavery: Theory and Practice. 2025. 10(1): 15-24.
Number of views: 5 Download in PDF
3. Artyom Yu. PeretyatkoSlavery: Theory and Practice. 2025. 10(1): 15-24.
Abstract:
The work is devoted to the personality of Henri Alexandre Vallon (1812–1904) and his views on the institution of ancient slavery. The material of the work was the works of Wallon himself, as well as some biographical studies about him. The research methods were historiographical, historical-system, biographical, etc. Henri Alexandre Vallon was a very versatile personality, which left a significant imprint on his scientific work. A politician, minister, philosopher, historian, and teacher, Vallon has been a preacher of liberal ideas all his life, which he implemented not only in politics and administrative work, but also in historical research. His research interests ranged from the study of the holy Christian scriptures and the biography of Jesus Christ to the political geography of the 19th century, the study of ancient and medieval slavery, as well as the biographies of prominent representatives of the late Middle Ages, such as Richard II Plantogenet of Rhodes, Joan of Arc. Henri Vallon saw the Institute of ancient slavery in a very peculiar way, but his ability to accurately systematize and classify led to the fact that, without introducing any innovations into the study of ancient slavery, he greatly popularized the topic, colorfully describing it, as well as clarifying previously controversial issues. Vallon wrote the idea to accurately describe the evolution of ancient slavery. The author points out how the sources of obtaining slaves, as well as the attitude towards slaves themselves, have changed over time and geography. If in Ancient Greece a slave was considered an assistant and even a family friend, and was not always a slave in the ancient Roman sense of the word (including the spartiates, who practiced the most severe form of ancient Greek slavery), then in Ancient Rome the attitude towards slavery changed fundamentally, and during the course of Roman history itself. An opponent of monarchies in any form, Vallon points out that during the period of the Roman republics, the attitude towards slaves was quite humane (although by no means the same as in Ancient Greece), however, with the beginning of large-scale conquests and the transformation of Rome into an empire, slaves became nothing more than a production tool and people in the true sense of the word. The Romans stopped seeing them. This approach was also facilitated by a harsh foreign policy, which was the main source of recruitment of slave personnel. At the same time, economic expediency forced the Romans to weaken slave oppression, turning slaves into serfs, coloni, who were more productive and less prone to revolts.
The work is devoted to the personality of Henri Alexandre Vallon (1812–1904) and his views on the institution of ancient slavery. The material of the work was the works of Wallon himself, as well as some biographical studies about him. The research methods were historiographical, historical-system, biographical, etc. Henri Alexandre Vallon was a very versatile personality, which left a significant imprint on his scientific work. A politician, minister, philosopher, historian, and teacher, Vallon has been a preacher of liberal ideas all his life, which he implemented not only in politics and administrative work, but also in historical research. His research interests ranged from the study of the holy Christian scriptures and the biography of Jesus Christ to the political geography of the 19th century, the study of ancient and medieval slavery, as well as the biographies of prominent representatives of the late Middle Ages, such as Richard II Plantogenet of Rhodes, Joan of Arc. Henri Vallon saw the Institute of ancient slavery in a very peculiar way, but his ability to accurately systematize and classify led to the fact that, without introducing any innovations into the study of ancient slavery, he greatly popularized the topic, colorfully describing it, as well as clarifying previously controversial issues. Vallon wrote the idea to accurately describe the evolution of ancient slavery. The author points out how the sources of obtaining slaves, as well as the attitude towards slaves themselves, have changed over time and geography. If in Ancient Greece a slave was considered an assistant and even a family friend, and was not always a slave in the ancient Roman sense of the word (including the spartiates, who practiced the most severe form of ancient Greek slavery), then in Ancient Rome the attitude towards slavery changed fundamentally, and during the course of Roman history itself. An opponent of monarchies in any form, Vallon points out that during the period of the Roman republics, the attitude towards slaves was quite humane (although by no means the same as in Ancient Greece), however, with the beginning of large-scale conquests and the transformation of Rome into an empire, slaves became nothing more than a production tool and people in the true sense of the word. The Romans stopped seeing them. This approach was also facilitated by a harsh foreign policy, which was the main source of recruitment of slave personnel. At the same time, economic expediency forced the Romans to weaken slave oppression, turning slaves into serfs, coloni, who were more productive and less prone to revolts.
Number of views: 5 Download in PDF
An Attempt at Deceiving Orenburg Authorities by a Member of Nomadic Elite: Report of Imam Ismagil Urazmukhametev about his role in Rescuing Subjects of the Russian Empire from the Steppe (1818)
Slavery: Theory and Practice. 2025. 10(1): 25-43.
Number of views: 10 Download in PDF
4. Evgeniуa V. KravtsovaSlavery: Theory and Practice. 2025. 10(1): 25-43.
Abstract:
The article is dedicated to problems of communication between Orenburg authorities and members of elite of the nomadic world in the first half of the 19th century in the context of struggle against slavery in Central Asia. The main sources are the report of imam Ismagil Urazmukhametev and the answer on it by the Orenburg Border Commission, both until now not included into scientific circulation. The article shows that I. Urazmukhametev addressed Staff Commander of the Separate Orenburg Corps G.P. Veselitskii with an extensive report where he described in details his achievements in rescuing Russian Empire subjects from the Steppe (both runaways and slaves) and generally presented himself as the single member of nomadic elite loyal to the Empire. On those grounds he requested to be provided with a whole series of privileges (salary, personal muezzin etc., to the point of being ready to lead a squad of Cossacks into the Steppe). Meanwhile, most of I. Urazmukhametev’s achievements even in his interpretation didn’t amount to any real consequences and were coming down to him unsuccessfully trying to help runaways and slaves return to Russia. An exception was his supposed rescue of 18 people from Bukhara, but Orenburg Border Commission noted that in reality those people were brought back by Bukharan merchant N. Faizzhanov. As a result, Orenburg authorities came to conclusion that I. Urazmukhametev was lying in an attempt to gain privileges from the Russian Empire, and answered to imam in a rather harsh manner about most of his requests being unacceptable. Archival search in the materials of the Joint State Archive of the Orenburg Region shows that the case of I. Urazmukhametev isn’t unique. Thus, starshina T. Aukov, too, tried to receive reward for taking people out of Bukhara, whom he didn’t really rescue. Khan of Younger Dzus Sh. Aishuakov tried to slander starshina T. Chudin for rescuing a Russian officer from captivity, whom Khan himself wanted to rescue. On the other hand, there were also cases of unwarranted accusation of members of nomadic elite by Russian officials: for example, certain biy Baimukhammet, who took part in liberating several slaves, was then unfoundedly detained on suspicion of conspiring with slave-traders to raise the price for other slaves. All this allows to say that among the members of nomadic elite were persons, whose attitude towards Russian Empire was extremely peculiar: they tried to demonstrate loyalty to it while in fact pursuing their own goals and not stopping at lying and slandering their fellow tribesmen and co-religionists. That, in turn, was amplifying xenophobic attitude already present among the Orenburg authorities. As a result, this whole situation complicated the rescue of slaves of Russian descent from the Steppe.
The article is dedicated to problems of communication between Orenburg authorities and members of elite of the nomadic world in the first half of the 19th century in the context of struggle against slavery in Central Asia. The main sources are the report of imam Ismagil Urazmukhametev and the answer on it by the Orenburg Border Commission, both until now not included into scientific circulation. The article shows that I. Urazmukhametev addressed Staff Commander of the Separate Orenburg Corps G.P. Veselitskii with an extensive report where he described in details his achievements in rescuing Russian Empire subjects from the Steppe (both runaways and slaves) and generally presented himself as the single member of nomadic elite loyal to the Empire. On those grounds he requested to be provided with a whole series of privileges (salary, personal muezzin etc., to the point of being ready to lead a squad of Cossacks into the Steppe). Meanwhile, most of I. Urazmukhametev’s achievements even in his interpretation didn’t amount to any real consequences and were coming down to him unsuccessfully trying to help runaways and slaves return to Russia. An exception was his supposed rescue of 18 people from Bukhara, but Orenburg Border Commission noted that in reality those people were brought back by Bukharan merchant N. Faizzhanov. As a result, Orenburg authorities came to conclusion that I. Urazmukhametev was lying in an attempt to gain privileges from the Russian Empire, and answered to imam in a rather harsh manner about most of his requests being unacceptable. Archival search in the materials of the Joint State Archive of the Orenburg Region shows that the case of I. Urazmukhametev isn’t unique. Thus, starshina T. Aukov, too, tried to receive reward for taking people out of Bukhara, whom he didn’t really rescue. Khan of Younger Dzus Sh. Aishuakov tried to slander starshina T. Chudin for rescuing a Russian officer from captivity, whom Khan himself wanted to rescue. On the other hand, there were also cases of unwarranted accusation of members of nomadic elite by Russian officials: for example, certain biy Baimukhammet, who took part in liberating several slaves, was then unfoundedly detained on suspicion of conspiring with slave-traders to raise the price for other slaves. All this allows to say that among the members of nomadic elite were persons, whose attitude towards Russian Empire was extremely peculiar: they tried to demonstrate loyalty to it while in fact pursuing their own goals and not stopping at lying and slandering their fellow tribesmen and co-religionists. That, in turn, was amplifying xenophobic attitude already present among the Orenburg authorities. As a result, this whole situation complicated the rescue of slaves of Russian descent from the Steppe.
Number of views: 10 Download in PDF
Slavery in the Pyrenees in the Late Middle Ages: Referring to the Works of I.V. Luchitsky and J.-A. Brutails on Slavery and the Slave Trade in Roussillon
Slavery: Theory and Practice. 2025. 10(1): 44-56
Number of views: 9 Download in PDF
5. Anvar M. MamadalievSlavery: Theory and Practice. 2025. 10(1): 44-56
Abstract:
The article examines aspects of slavery and slave trade in the Iberian Peninsula, namely in its northeastern part, in the lands of Roussillon. The chronological period of the studied problematic covers the stage of the Late Middle Ages (14th–15th centuries), when Roussillon was Spanish territory. The reference materials are the studies of 19th century historians – I.V. Luchitsky and J.-A. Brutails. Through the review of I.V. Luchitsky “Russian slaves and slavery in Roussillon in the 14th and 15th centuries” (1886), distinguished by particular depth, the introduction of historical documents and his own analysis of the designated problem, the research path leads to the essay of the French author J.-A. Brutails, dedicated to the topic of slavery in Roussillon in the 13th-17th centuries. His French-language study, “Study on slavery in Roussillon, from the 13th to the 17th century” (1886), is also a very valuable source for historians: it contains numerous excerpts, quotations, copies of notarial acts, government decrees, and statistical data. When studying these works, the following key aspects of slavery, characteristic of medieval Roussillon, were revealed: 1) the socio-economic reasons for the spread of slavery; 2) the influence of the religious factor and the ambiguous attitude of the Catholic Church towards slavery; 3) the difficult social and legal situation of slaves; 4) the sources that replenished the slave stratum; 5) the ethnic diversity of slaves, who arrived not only from the African continent and the shores of the Mediterranean, but also from the distant Black Sea coast; 6) the spread of female slavery and its specific, sometimes horrific features. The disclosure of these aspects is undoubtedly a pressing task and requires further development and close attention from modern researchers.
The article examines aspects of slavery and slave trade in the Iberian Peninsula, namely in its northeastern part, in the lands of Roussillon. The chronological period of the studied problematic covers the stage of the Late Middle Ages (14th–15th centuries), when Roussillon was Spanish territory. The reference materials are the studies of 19th century historians – I.V. Luchitsky and J.-A. Brutails. Through the review of I.V. Luchitsky “Russian slaves and slavery in Roussillon in the 14th and 15th centuries” (1886), distinguished by particular depth, the introduction of historical documents and his own analysis of the designated problem, the research path leads to the essay of the French author J.-A. Brutails, dedicated to the topic of slavery in Roussillon in the 13th-17th centuries. His French-language study, “Study on slavery in Roussillon, from the 13th to the 17th century” (1886), is also a very valuable source for historians: it contains numerous excerpts, quotations, copies of notarial acts, government decrees, and statistical data. When studying these works, the following key aspects of slavery, characteristic of medieval Roussillon, were revealed: 1) the socio-economic reasons for the spread of slavery; 2) the influence of the religious factor and the ambiguous attitude of the Catholic Church towards slavery; 3) the difficult social and legal situation of slaves; 4) the sources that replenished the slave stratum; 5) the ethnic diversity of slaves, who arrived not only from the African continent and the shores of the Mediterranean, but also from the distant Black Sea coast; 6) the spread of female slavery and its specific, sometimes horrific features. The disclosure of these aspects is undoubtedly a pressing task and requires further development and close attention from modern researchers.
Number of views: 9 Download in PDF
Slavery in the Caucasus and Central Asia in the XVIII–XIX centuries: A Review of Modern Historiography
Slavery: Theory and Practice. 2025. 10(1): 57-67.
Number of views: 10 Download in PDF
6. Slavery: Theory and Practice. 2025. 10(1): 57-67.
Abstract:
This historiographical study is devoted to the analysis of modern studies of slavery of the XVII–XIX centuries in the territories of Central Asia and the Caucasus. The research on the institution of slavery within the specified territorial and chronological boundaries served as the material for the work. The methodological complex consists of the historiographical method, the classification method, etc. In the course of the work done, it was concluded that no fundamental research of the institute of slavery and the slave trade in the Caucasus and Central Asia of the XVIII–XIX centuries was conducted in the period from 2015 to 2025; only articles in periodicals, collections of scientific conferences, etc. are publicly available. It is convenient to divide the latest historiography of slavery in these territories into three sections: (a) A study of slavery in the Caucasus; (b) a study of slavery in Central Asia; and (c) comparative studies of the institution of slavery and the slave trade in the Caucasus and Central Asia. The first category of works includes the research of A.A. Cherkasov, A.Y. Peretyatko, E.I. Inozemtseva, M. Shmigel, S.N. Bratanovsky, S.L. Dudarev, D.S. Dudarev, V.S. Molchanova, V.G. Ivantsov, N.S. Stepanenko, G. Rayovich, D. Yezhevsky, A. Vazerova, M. Trailovich, A.A. Golovleva, A.V. Goncharenko, Yu.Y. Klychnikova, T.A. Magsumova, T.E. Zulfugarzade, M.B. Kolotkov, S.B. Zinkovsky, M.M. Vershinina, I.V. Elizarov, G.M. Huseynov, H.M. Donogo, T.S. Magomadova, L.B. Salikhova and others. The authors make an in-depth analysis of the essence of slavery and the slave trade in the Caucasus during the XVIII-XIX centuries, and also highlight its features and distinguishing features from slavery in neighboring territories. The studies of the Institute of Central Asian slavery in the period of the XVIII–XIX centuries are represented by the works of I.A. Ermachkov, L.A. Koroleva, E.K. Mineeva, L.L. Balanyuk, O.A. Efimova, A.Y. Peretyatko, S.B. Kenzhebayeva, I.R. Prokhorov and others. This category of works is less extensive; it explores various areas of slavery and the slave trade, as well as raids by Kazakh tribes on the southeastern borders of the Russian Empire in order to capture slaves. The smallest is the third category of works, which is represented by comparative studies of the Institute of Slavery of the Caucasus and Central Asia, and it is represented by the works of T.A. Magsumov, T.E. Zulfugarzade, M.B. Kolotkov, S.B. Zinkovsky and others.
This historiographical study is devoted to the analysis of modern studies of slavery of the XVII–XIX centuries in the territories of Central Asia and the Caucasus. The research on the institution of slavery within the specified territorial and chronological boundaries served as the material for the work. The methodological complex consists of the historiographical method, the classification method, etc. In the course of the work done, it was concluded that no fundamental research of the institute of slavery and the slave trade in the Caucasus and Central Asia of the XVIII–XIX centuries was conducted in the period from 2015 to 2025; only articles in periodicals, collections of scientific conferences, etc. are publicly available. It is convenient to divide the latest historiography of slavery in these territories into three sections: (a) A study of slavery in the Caucasus; (b) a study of slavery in Central Asia; and (c) comparative studies of the institution of slavery and the slave trade in the Caucasus and Central Asia. The first category of works includes the research of A.A. Cherkasov, A.Y. Peretyatko, E.I. Inozemtseva, M. Shmigel, S.N. Bratanovsky, S.L. Dudarev, D.S. Dudarev, V.S. Molchanova, V.G. Ivantsov, N.S. Stepanenko, G. Rayovich, D. Yezhevsky, A. Vazerova, M. Trailovich, A.A. Golovleva, A.V. Goncharenko, Yu.Y. Klychnikova, T.A. Magsumova, T.E. Zulfugarzade, M.B. Kolotkov, S.B. Zinkovsky, M.M. Vershinina, I.V. Elizarov, G.M. Huseynov, H.M. Donogo, T.S. Magomadova, L.B. Salikhova and others. The authors make an in-depth analysis of the essence of slavery and the slave trade in the Caucasus during the XVIII-XIX centuries, and also highlight its features and distinguishing features from slavery in neighboring territories. The studies of the Institute of Central Asian slavery in the period of the XVIII–XIX centuries are represented by the works of I.A. Ermachkov, L.A. Koroleva, E.K. Mineeva, L.L. Balanyuk, O.A. Efimova, A.Y. Peretyatko, S.B. Kenzhebayeva, I.R. Prokhorov and others. This category of works is less extensive; it explores various areas of slavery and the slave trade, as well as raids by Kazakh tribes on the southeastern borders of the Russian Empire in order to capture slaves. The smallest is the third category of works, which is represented by comparative studies of the Institute of Slavery of the Caucasus and Central Asia, and it is represented by the works of T.A. Magsumov, T.E. Zulfugarzade, M.B. Kolotkov, S.B. Zinkovsky and others.
Number of views: 10 Download in PDF