Chains of History: Slavery in Sri Lanka

Editor’s Note: The following essay has been prepared based on excerpts from the article published in the Journal of the Sri Lanka Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, New Series, Volume XLIII, 1974. It seeks to present the original research and insights in a condensed and accessible form for readers interested in the historical and social aspects discussed therein.

It is generally accepted by anthropologists that as human society became organized and developed through stages from food gatherers to settled urban communities, treatment of fellow human beings also changed progressively. As head-hunters, men killed their enemies after they were captured in raids. As pastoralists they captured human beings only to be sold. In other societies, male captives were destroyed and the young females were brought home to do menial work and also to be kept as mistresses or sold. As agriculturalists, men settled on the land and lived with the farm animals, cultivating the lands as farmers. They led a sedentary life engaged in agriculture and warlike pursuits. Economically, man became prosperous. The labour of serfs was obtained to provide food for the master by cultivating his vast extents of land.

The two words serf and slave are used somewhat indiscriminately now, but earlier these may have been applied to two types of menial workers. A serf is a person whose service is attached to the soil and is transferred with it. A slave is a person who is the legal property of another or others and is bound to absolute obedience and human control.

Among almost all ancient societies, serfdom or slavery existed in some form or other. In the course of time, such a system became an institution maintained by strict laws and observances. In countries such as Greece, Italy, Egypt, Arabia, India, and China, slavery was of the domestic kind. So was it in Lanka for the most part. Slaves were often treated inhumanly and they at times sought their freedom by running away from their masters. People resorted to magic to bring back a runaway slave. An Arab resorted to imitative magic thus: a magic circle was traced on the ground. A nail was struck in the middle and to it was attached a beetle with a thread, its being according to the sex of the slave. As the beetle went round and the thread shortened, the slave, it was believed, was drawn to the master.

In ancient India, slavery was fully recognized. Seven classes of slaves were mentioned by Manu. They are those captured, those who voluntarily submitted, those born as slaves, those sold as slaves, those gifted as slaves, those inherited as slaves, and those condemned as slaves as a punishment. Wives and slaves could have no property of their own. The Sudras are a perpetual class of slaves by caste. Later, Närada enumerated 15 classes of slaves. Even the later-day adoption of persons itself may be considered a survival of an ancient institution. V. A. Smith observes that “praedal and domestic slavery of a mild form seems to have been an institution in most parts of India from ancient times”. During European times, in India, Pariahs were looked upon as slaves by other castes. In Lanka, too, the folk play Sokari nådagama has a pariah as a menial character.

In Vedic India, ‘dasa’ meant ‘non-Aryan,’ i.e., slave. It may be a reference to the Dasyus, who were the flat-faced, broad-nosed, dark-complexioned inhabitants found in India when the invading Aryans arrived. Dāso (m) meant a foe, demon, infidel, servant, slave. Naturally, some of the male and female captives were retained for domestic service. Note ‘dāsajana’ meaning domestic slaves. Thus dāsa (dāsī-f) was applied to mean a slave in Vedic times. Dāsaputra, meaning the son of a slave, was used as a term of abuse.

During the fifth century B.C. in India, two categories are mentioned in Pali literature: “Dāso ca kammakāra,” meaning slaves and labourers. The latter class was remunerated. The principle of remuneration determined the distinction. Gradually, the word ‘dasa’ may have acquired the fuller meaning of slave. In Pali texts, we come across phrases such as ‘dăsagana’ (troop of slaves), ‘dāsagani’ (troop of female slaves). Four kinds of ‘dasaporisa’ are also mentioned. Even fortune-telling from observing the condition of a slave (dāsa lakkhana) was one of the popular professions during this period. Slave-trading (däsa-dāsi patigghana) was also practised. Dāsiputta (son of a slave) continued to be in use as a term of abuse.

Early Buddhism had to resist strong opposition from vested interests and caste prejudices. It treated all human beings alike. It accepted into its priesthood all persons irrespective of caste, creed, colour, or rank. Persons of lower castes were admitted to the order without discrimination. Punnā, the daughter of a slave woman, was admitted to the order of Bhikkhunis. Two Panthas admitted to the order of monks were born out of wedlock to the daughter of a noble and a slave. But the privilege of being ordained was denied to a limited few for other valid reasons: those diseased, those unable to obtain permission of parents, a soldier, and a slave. The slave was inhibited from becoming a monk, but this was not due to the state of degradation or inferiority of his condition, but as the peculium belonging to another. No slave is thought to have the right to place himself in a situation that may forever deprive his master of his services. The social status of slaves was above that of hired labourers. Male and female slaves always stood before hirelings and artisans. In a well-laid city, rooms had to be made for the residence of various classes, including slaves. The buying and selling of slaves was not infrequent.

It may be of interest to note that in the reign of Justinian, slaves were allowed to enter convents without leave of their masters, but among the Anglo-Saxons, the candidate for ordination was required to prove that he was not of spurious or servile birth. Buddhism, however, imposed no such restrictions on anyone except for very special valid reasons, and these, too, not because of birth or class. The word ‘vasala’ and several equivalent forms have been in use from fairly early times. The word ‘vasala’ is derived from Vedic Vrsala (diminutive of Vrsan), literally meaning a “little man”. It also meant an outcaste, a low person according to the caste classification. At a later stage, the term itself may have been used to convey a part or whole of the connotation of the word slave (dāsa). However, the term was not used at any time to denote any caste. Also, as an adjective, the word meant mean, vile, or foul.

In Sri Lanka, slavery may have originated on lines similar to those obtaining in India. In fact, even its structural pattern may have been borrowed from India during the fifth century B.C. However, a possible origin is believed to be as follows: King Panduvas of Dambadiva (India) sent a princess as queen of Wijaya and 700 maidens of different castes for his 700 warriors. With them he sent gold, silver, pearls, male and female slaves, and thence forward slavery was established. So far as present knowledge goes, different types of slavery may have become crystallized to constitute two main forms. One class was employed as domestic servants, who worked in homes and estates in close association with their masters and families. The other attended to all menial duties such as scavenging, and the treatment and handling of dead bodies. Two separate words denoted these two main classes. Later, the word ‘vahal’ may have replaced the earlier word ‘dasa’. Naturally, both words ‘dasa’ and ‘vahal’ are used to mean slaves. But a distinction, if one did exist, was that the earlier word meant serf, whilst the latter meant slave.

The ancient Sinhala legends and stories incorporated in later literary works mention only the word ‘dasa’. There existed in early society of Sri Lanka both male and female dāsas. They were a class of domestic servants (serfs) who worked in fields and homes. Reference is made to ‘dāsas’ (slaves), especially females gathering firewood in the forests or reaping in the paddy fields. They were heard singing at work. Others served as maids performing all the menial chores. Such evidence establishes the prevalence of a form of slave service during the pre-Christian era (2nd to 1st century B.C.). Women served as domestic slaves in return for clothing, food, and wealth. As wives of slaves and wives of workers, they are classed among female slaves. Those slaves who tilled the land (serfs) and domestics formed a slightly superior class among the slaves. A poor husband and wife worked as domestics (dasa) and after saving paddy amassed wealth. They left the service and settled down. The earliest rock inscription mentions the word dāsa thus: “dasi anula, dini dasa kala ca”. It means “gave female slave Anula and male slave Kala”. This dates to about the 2nd century A.D. to 9th century A.D. If the word dāsa ever meant a subordinate being in Lanka, it is clear that by the end of the 9th century A.D., it underwent a change of meaning. This use continued until the 13th century A.D. The slab inscription of Velaikkāras mentions dāsa. At least five classes of dasa (panca dasa) are mentioned in the Dambadeniya period. These were artisans (Kammakāro=kâmi) who performed certain specified work deemed inferior but not slaves in the real sense. Among them were ironsmiths, carpenters, blacksmiths, potters, goldsmiths, brickworkers, masons, woodworkers, and stone workers.

However, the word ‘vasala’ is not met with prior to the 6th century A.D. A slab inscription mentions ‘pahal,’ believed to be an older form of vahal, meaning slave. Thus, we are led to believe in the existence of two main categories of slaves from the earliest times. These were domestic slavery and institutional slavery. The former category served persons and families of chiefs as part of their retinue. They rendered personal service and worked in fields. The latter belonged to public institutions like the state, guilds, vihāras, and monasteries. To this class belonged runaways, captives, and convicted persons. It would appear that neither category (dāsas or vasalas) formed a distinct caste like Chandalas, Rodiyas, kinnaras, and gahalayas.

Very little information is recorded about slavery. One has to rely solely on a few Sinhala stories prior to the 6th century A.D. Lithic records are available thereafter. Slavery had been divided into four main categories. These were hereditary (antojātā), purchased (dhanakkită), captured in war (karamaranitā), and voluntary submission (sāmam dasabbhyam upagatānam). Both male and female slaves have been further subdivided into classes. One such group was flag bearer (dhajā-hatā). Most probably they were female messengers employed in war to carry the white truce flag or in peace to carry secret messages. There were slaves for daytime or nighttime (ratti dāsã) or for both. A woman could borrow 60 gold pieces (kahāpanas) on agreeing to work by day and another 60 for work by night. Such an agreement was written on an ola leaf. Such a woman was called iņadāsi. A husband and wife had to work together, being unable to repay a debt of 60 gold pieces. A cow in calf was purchased thereafter for 8 gold pieces.

For all practical purposes, slaves may be placed under the following categories:

A. Slaves by birth – They included all the offspring of female slaves (dāsiputta) whether their fathers were bond or free. Such an acceptance is based on the principle that the civil condition of the mother determined the status of the progeny. A free woman marrying a slave retained her freedom, nor were her children born slaves. This confirms the prevalence of a matriarchal system in ancient Lanka. Reminiscences of such a right enjoyed by the mother are present among the rural Sinhala folk who refer to a child as so and so’s.

B. Slaves by circumstances – These are those sold into slavery by their unfortunate parents or those abandoned due to circumstances beyond their control. The wife, more than the husband, had a control in the disposal of the children until they reached the age of discretion. During the Portuguese times, seduction of children to be sold into slavery was a lucrative profession. They maintained a large band of female slaves, from whose industry and the commerce of whose bodies their masters derived considerable revenue. The stories in the Sihalavatthu incorporated in later works mention slaves of this class.

C. Slaves by Punishment – Sinhala society observed a very strict code of morality, especially concerning females. Caste distinctions were rigidly observed. Women enjoying illicit intercourse with men of lower caste were punished with death or by being handed over as slaves to the king for the remainder of their lives. Sometimes a man pledged his wife, children, and himself as surety for debts incurred by him. During times of famine, poor families were in the habit of selling their male and female children for money. Once a poor farmer sold his daughter for 8 gold pieces. Parents at times pawned their daughters for slavery. A son was pawned for 8 gold pieces. Even today, the custom of swearing upon the person of one’s child, wife, mother, god, sacred object, or the Buddha can be heard. Due to economic circumstances and other disappointments, a person may fail to pay his debts or fulfill pledges. In such an event, the man, his wife, and children being sureties passed into slavery.

In the Cakkupāla story, the wife pledges that she will become a slave along with her children. In the Kukkutamitta story, a man pledges, “I, together with my wife and children dedicate myself to the dagobas.” Thieves who could not make a sevenfold restitution became slaves as a punishment. Captives in war and those bought and sold as slaves fell into this group. Tamil captives in Sinhala areas and Koviars in Tamil areas are those who became slaves under compulsion. King Gajabāhu (114–138 A.D.) brought back South Indian prisoners from the Chola country to avenge the capture of Sinhalese. King Silāmeghavanna (618 A.D.) distributed the defeated Tamil invaders as slaves to vihāras.

D. Slaves by Submission – Those who of their own accord bartered their freedom for a price became slaves. In some cases, rich persons voluntarily became slaves of monasteries to be released later by others (relatives) as an act of merit accruing to both parties to the transaction. Persons who were bought for money by monasteries or were otherwise forced into slavery came to be known as gold slaves (vahal). Those who pledged their persons for debt to be released on repayment were called slaves in debt (iņa dāsa).

The slaves owned by the State were employed in hard work, both laborious and menial, in public institutions. In the royal household, they performed household duties, including tilling the lands in the king’s villages (gabadāgam). Female slaves may have been employed during very ancient times in the secret service as trustworthy emissaries. Princess Cittā is recorded as having entrusted her slave woman to take young prince Pandukābhaya to safety (400 B.C.). In the monasteries, the slaves cultivated temple lands (vihāragam). Slaves were employed as messengers (payindakārayas) in the ordinary business of the king’s establishment (Gabadāva), whilst others were employed as servicemen (nilakārayo) at the pleasure of the Lord.

The slaves formed the retinue of rich landowners and officials whose status became enhanced by the ownership of slaves. They tilled the fields. Collecting and conveying firewood to the Residence (Walawwa) could be performed by none other than slaves. This reminds one of the ancient Sinhala stories about servant maids (dāsi) gathering firewood in the jungle. Another important duty of a slave was laying out the corpse on the death of a member of the master’s family. Everything of a menial and derogatory nature was assigned to slaves, and no one but a slave would do such work for any price. The only other person who would accept such a job was a member of the executioner caste (wහලය) and not even anyone of the other lowest castes. At such a critical occasion, if the family owned no slaves, a relative would send slaves to perform the funeral ceremonies assigned to them. A chief could not do even that as it very seriously affected his status in the eyes of the people and other chiefs if recourse had to be made to hire an executioner.

Slavery in the Kandyan Provinces was valued not for the labour executed but as an appendage of rank and for the performance of certain services which were deemed a badge of slavery and could not be obtained for hire. Inscriptional evidence shows that Buddhist Vihäras had their own slaves from about the 2nd century A.D. Their control may have been somewhat similar to those of the slave proprietors. Both male and female serfs have been given as gifts and required to be exempt from taxes by kings and royal ministers for maintenance of temples and vihāras. The temple lands, too, were cultivated by them. Hindu temples in India, Buddhist temples in Burma and Cambodia, and religious establishments owned slaves. King Buddhadasa assigned revenues and servants (kappiya kāraka). Temple slaves are mentioned in the Cülavamsa.

Slaves belonging to families were inherited (anvayāgata vahal) by the heirs on the death of their master. Others were purchased and acquired by payment (ran vahal) of 100 gold pieces to the temple or vihāra. Slaves are referred to in later times (14th century A.D.) as bodies of slaves (vahal rü), even as head of cattle (sarak ru). The slaves were all personal property of the owner and were not attached to the soil. They were liable to perform any services required by the owner. The slave’s lot was generally tolerable during the Kandyan Kingdom. They were allowed to hold land and keep cattle on the estate for their own maintenance. They could own and possess movable and immovable property and dispose of it by will or otherwise but could not transfer immovable property nor could they earn money. Frequently, they were advanced to office on the estates at the absolute discretion of the owner who might even abandon them. Actually, there was no code of law laying down any rights or obligations.

Very often, the slaves improved their wealth. Anything procured by their diligence and industry was not taken away by the masters. These persons were treated as responsible and trustworthy. When the master bought or acquired a slave in other ways, he was provided with a wife and was encouraged to keep house and settle down on the land to prevent him from running away. Slaves born of high-caste parents were permitted to retain the honour of their degree. They were not allowed to wear their cloth up to the ankles nor use the names of the masters but should use such names and suffixes as were appropriate to the lower castes.

“The kings avenged those guilty of treason at will; it may be he kills them altogether or gives them away for slaves.” Most of the slaves in the kingdom of Kandy were of high caste, and many of those who were originally free retained their distinctive caste appellations like ‘etana,’ since a person did not lose caste by becoming a slave. Generally, no low-caste man could have a slave. The only people of inferior caste who possessed slaves were the goldsmiths. An edict of Sena IV stated that buffaloes, slaves, and men from one village should not be employed in another. This was the general practice, but, with the king’s approval, they could be transported outright to another Vihara.

In the general management of slaves, caste rules could not be overlooked. The owner was free to inflict any punishment short of death or mutilation, but he could not compel a female to receive the addresses of a man of an inferior caste, whether bond or free. On the whole, the slaves in Lanka were treated mildly. They were seldom sold or families separated but were given as marriage portions or distributed among heirs on the death of the proprietor. Every consideration was paid to the feelings of slaves. Cruelty to a slave was hardly known, and slaves were treated as adoptees rather than menials. Nevertheless, the owner had the right to punish slaves by torture with red-hot iron, flogging, confinement in stocks or iron, cutting off the hair, and even selling them.

Slaves were competent, like free men, to give evidence in a court of law and were even called upon as witnesses to transactions of their masters. If a slave died intestate, his heir-at-law (master) inherited all the property and effects. “The children of a slave or of a woman of low caste or inferior rank cannot by Kandyan custom inherit their father’s praveni property as a matter of course, but must have their title to such property supported either by a written deed or a formal verbal gift or bequest duly authenticated by responsible witnesses.” It could also be effected by giving a certificate and pouring water on the hands.

At the time of the Malabar invasion, a brisk slave trade existed between South India and the Northern Provinces of Lanka, but the slaves were left very much in their same condition. The perquisites of office by a slave could be appropriated by none, and these were fixed appropriately for slaves. If a free man loved a female slave of another or spent undue time with her, the owner could claim his services for the duration of that period, however long it might be. The outsider might leave as he pleased, subject to relinquishment of all the property acquired during his period of amour. During the Kandyan times, female slaves received 5 fanam and a piece of cloth 6 cubits in length at the time of each confinement.

Whilst the slaves were doomed to toil from birth, the masters were obliged to maintain them in good health, to succour them in sickness, and apportion their burdens according to their strength. Buddhism, as stated earlier, threw open its privileges to all the slaves and others alike, except for ordaining them. There were special reasons for denying some the state of monkhood. Whatever custom makes a slave, he should not be admitted to the order of monks. However, Buddhaghosa in the same work (samantapāsādikā) refers to other sources and states that slaves born in houses and bought slaves, when presented as park keepers to the community of monks, should be ordained only after manumission.

It may be interesting to note that in ancient Italy, during the Saturnalia festival (17–23 December), the distinction between slave and free was abolished. The slave was permitted to rail at the master, drink, and sit at the table with him. On the 7th of July, female slaves were permitted to dress as matrons and maids and parade the streets. They railed and jeered at everyone and engaged in fights among themselves. This is similar to the festival of Holi in India. It is likely that in ancient Lanka, a similar festive occasion (nekat keli) was observed annually when slaves could act like free men and women. The nearest traditional custom to this is the willful subjection of the members of the household to being scolded by one’s own domestics after seeing the new moon during Sinhala New Year.

Early Sinhala literary records have preserved scant information about slavery in Lanka. Certain instances are mentioned as to the method of obtaining the freedom of a slave. This could be effected by the master himself by giving freedom; by one performing all the domestic chores such as drawing water and hewing wood; or by payment of a specified amount in gold pieces (kahavanu) to the lawful owner. Usually, the sum was 60 gold pieces. Such a practice has come down from the pre-Christian era. The earliest lithic inscription recording the manumission of slaves may be dated to the 2nd century A.D. (it reads dasi anula dini dasa kala ca).

Masters brought slaves for admission to the Order. If they liked a religious life, they would be declared free. Otherwise, they would continue as slaves. During King Dala Mugalan’s reign (6th century A.D.), a bricklayer, Puyagonula, caused his wife to be freed by giving 100 gold pieces. Another bricklayer, Boya Gonula, caused his children to be freed from slavery by giving 100 gold pieces. Another, Pati Salala, caused his child to be freed from slavery by paying the same amount. Yet another, Dalameya-Vesiliniya Aba, gave 100 gold pieces to the Kasabagiri Monastery and freed themselves. A hundred gold pieces were granted to the great royal monastery called Tisarami by a bricklayer, who had himself freed from slavery. It is to be noted that the amount payable for obtaining freedom was 100 gold pieces each.

The fruits of all the acts of manumission mentioned above were for the benefit of all beings, to attain Buddhahood as desired. Others who paid 100 gold pieces and freed themselves are mentioned by name. To secure the freedom of a slave is an act conducive to great merit for oneself as well as for all others. A slave’s freedom can be obtained in several ways. It is also meritorious to maintain slaves by payment in kind or money to the monastery or vihāra. A Lambakarna, in order to emulate King Vessantara, offers his wife, children, and finally himself to a monk and redeems all of them by paying money. An instance of a slave who wished to be ordained a monk was freed and later, if he failed to join, he would revert to slavery again. A friar (Puvijayi) Sidhata earned his freedom by payment of 100 gold pieces.

King Mahadathika Mahānāga gave himself, his queen, his two sons, his state elephant, and his horse to the Sangha and later redeemed all of them by paying money. This was done purely as an act of merit. The mother of Aggabodhi, at his own request, offered him as a gift to the Sangha and later redeemed himself by giving wealth to the Order. King Nissankamalla offered his son and daughter to the Tooth relic and Bowl relic and later redeemed them. This symbolic act of the king himself becoming a slave, even for a moment, shows how meritorious it was to free a slave. Kings also gifted other slaves to monasteries. King Silā Meghavanna placed slaves at the disposal of monasteries.

Another class of donors of slaves to the Bhikkhus were masters of slaves, relatives, and patrons of monks. Potthalakutta, a Tamil officer, granted a village together with slaves. Bhadda, a commander of troops, built a pirivena endowed with slaves. Mindal (Mahinda), who held the office of Demela Adikäri, gifted slaves, lands, etc., to the Galapāta Vihāra. No low-caste person was allowed to own slaves. However, if such a person did acquire a slave, then a chief would buy that slave. By obtaining the freedom of slaves or by paying money for their maintenance, one gains merit. A military officer manumitted all children for merit. Even if the payment of money is for gaining one’s own freedom, it would be meritorious. The strong belief is that by such merit, a person will be reborn having a large retinue. The earliest ceremony of confirming freedom of a slave was by pouring buttermilk (ghee) on the head of slaves.

The word ‘vaharala’ and its variant readings are translated by Dr. Paranavitana as slave in all instances. He follows Geiger, who derives the word from Sanskrit: Vrsala > Pali Vasala > Sinhala Vahala > vahal. Dr. Wijeratne derives ‘vaharala’ and its variants as visāralaka > Visārala > Veherala, viherila, meaning timber, wood. The former translation has been preferred as all the equivalents suit all the uses in all contexts. It is probable that the close association the slaves had in making wooden funeral pyres and gathering firewood may have led at least a class of slaves to be known by such a functional appellation.

There were documentary titles in the case of transfers and testamentary bequests of slaves. Registers defined their position, and grants were made by kings or ministers. The earliest gifts are not found in inscriptions discovered so far, but they may have existed within the families or institutions concerned. The practice was to make a grant of both male and female slaves. Sometimes a single slave and, at other times, entire families were donated to a vihāra or monastery. The monks were allowed to receive slaves as gifts and could even require that they be exempted from taxes, as they formed the property of the temple. Similar practices existed in Burma, where slaves were gifted to monasteries. In Cambodia, an inscription of the VI–VII century A.D. records a person named Pon Prajña Candra who dedicated male and female slaves to the three Bodhisattvas, viz., Sāsta, Maitreya, and Avalokitesvara. This is the earliest record of its kind.

In Lankā, too, there was the custom of dedicating oneself with one’s wife and children to the dagoba (මමත් අඹුදරු වනුත් සහිතව දා ගැබ සන්තක වෙමි) or of becoming a slave to the dagoba (ගැබට වාල් වීම). Since grants of slaves to temples, vihāras, and dagobas are mentioned, it is very likely that the tradition of dedication as slaves to the Bodhisattvas and the Bodhi tree did exist in ancient Lankā. Although it may have gone into disuse during later periods, it may have seemed an appendage of Mahayana worship. King Kirti Nissankamalla (1187–1198 A.D.) recorded a number of such grants. All this establishes the fact that slaves were personal property and legally negotiable. These grants were often tax-free for five years, as the king relinquished the revenue and enriched inhabitants by gifts of ‘divel’ lands, serfs, cattle, etc. Another inscription reads, “King Nissankamalla removed the poverty of the poor by providing them with livelihoods, serfs, cattle, and permanent grants (දිලිඳු, ගිමිනිවා දිවෙල්, වහල්, සරක්, පමුණුගම්).” Identical grants of slaves are mentioned in the Kälinga Forest Gal Asna inscription, the Rankot Dagoba pillar inscription, and the Pritidanaka Mandaka rock inscription. The same king made a grant of slaves for the custodian of the Treasury in case he required their services after taking permission from the proper authorities.

The largest single grant inscribed on rock is at Galapāta Vihāra: “In order that they may function as servitors and slaves to the Vihāra and to their lordships (monks) residing in this Vihāra, the following (were granted) from among the slaves — about 90 in all — who had belonged hereditarily to his family, were purchased, or were acquired by paying gold from the funds of this Vihāra.” This inscription is unique, as nowhere else in Lanka has a similar lithic muster roll of temple tenants been discovered. The donor was Mindal (Mahinda), who held the office of Demala Adikāra and administered the Pasyodun District. It is likely that the Tamil captives treated as slaves continued to be separately stationed and administered.

The presence to this day of several villages within ten miles of Galapāta Vihāra — viz., Indigastuduwa in Pasdun Korale, and Mahāvila, Galganda, Vallambagala in Walallāviți Korale — where Tamil captives live, and five villages of Berawa caste (drummers) — viz., Suddegoda, Dampalayagoda, Tundüva, Boltudāva, and Kendalapitiya within nine miles of Galapāta Vihāra — confirms the early settlements and suggests the need for a special organization and administration for that class of slaves. Whole families, including mother, father, younger brother, younger sister, daughter, elder brother, son, and aunt, comprised such grants. This likely occurred during the reign of Parākramabahu I. A later inscription from the Gampola period (1350–1351 A.D.) records the grant of fields, two amunas of seed-paddy, and three heads of slaves (පිදු කුම්බුරු බිජු දැමුණක්, වහල් රූ තුනෙක්).

Under such circumstances, it is reasonable to expect the establishment of a state department to manage slaves in each district under overall authority. The duties assigned to slaves, their maintenance, and the punishment for failure to obey instructions would likely have been carefully specified and uniformly applied. Slaves could not be transferred from one district to another, and if freed, a record of registration was to be kept by the state official. Monasteries also followed a uniform procedure in administering slaves. Slaves under private ownership were generally more amenable to discipline and conducted themselves with understanding. Nevertheless, legal procedures were followed in their management, as the majority of able-bodied male slaves were employed on hereditary private estates (pamunubim) owned by their masters.

During the 6th century A.D., an officer designated Superintendent of Slaves existed under the Pandyan king. In the Galapāta inscription, slaves were donated by the Tamil Superintendent (Demala-Adikāra), the chief officer in charge of the Vihāra. Aggabodhi I made donations to monasteries for the slave population. Several devotees had given money to maintain slaves at Abhayagiri Vihāra. King Kassapa V ordered that villages were to be taken away only after the monks and slaves (sangun, dasun) had been provided for. Mahinda IV issued rules intended for the Sangha, employees, and slaves (මහබික් සඟ හිමියන්, කැමියන් හා දසුන්).

It is generally agreed, confirmed by inscriptions, that slaves in early Sinhala society were a recognized class of servitors to monasteries, paid and maintained by gifts of land. The total population of slaves cannot be ascertained, but it is obvious that every vihāra and monastery with royal patronage maintained a retinue of slaves. Slaves were not outcastes but workers belonging to a recognized category. Control over slaves was also exercised by the Dutch and Portuguese, who employed overseers to manage them. High-caste women who had relationships with low-caste men were sometimes consigned as royal slaves to villages such as Gampola, as recorded in 1823 A.D.

In the earliest Sinhala stories, slaves were not named, referred to simply as dāsa or dāsi, likely because they mainly served as domestic hands. Names of slaves recorded in inscriptions appear to be common, without foreign or derogatory elements. Examples include Anula (f) and Kala (m). Names from the sixth century A.D. include bricklayers Puyagonula and Boyagonula, possibly brothers. Other names include Patisalala, Sahasavarala, Dalameya, and Sakana Kana Vesiminiya Aba. A VI–VII century rock inscription mentions slaves who freed themselves by paying 100 gold pieces to the vihāra, including Gala Araki Buyu Deviya, Buyu Peri Šaba, Hilisela Sivigonahi Bada Aba, and others.

At the capitulation of the Portuguese in 1656, two generals and Coutinho’s son were allowed to remove all their property, Portuguese servants, and slaves. However, in other circumstances, slaves were generally confiscated, except in a few exceptional cases. All married soldiers with their families were allowed to be conveyed to Goa but were forbidden to carry any of their property or slaves. It was accepted by both the Portuguese and Dutch that slaves constituted a part of the owner’s property.

Humanitarian ideas regarding slaves were introduced by the Dutch about a century before the British. In fact, in Batavia, they had a formal code for dealing with slaves. The same principles formed the basis of their dealings with slaves in Lanka. In 1660, the Dutch issued an order forbidding the sale or mortgage of free-born Sinhalese. By 1771, the Dutch had greatly reduced the number of slaves in Colombo, and by 1787, transfers of slaves had become difficult. Traffic in Christian slaves was forbidden. Before the arrival of the British, the Dutch had laws aimed at reducing and eventually abolishing slavery. This was confirmed in 1802, with a fine of 100 rix dollars imposed on anyone attempting to enslave free-born persons.

Despite the enlightened view of the Dutch government, those in control of their possessions in Lanka did not radically alter the system of slavery. When the Dutch handed power to the British in 1795, slaves were still in much the same position. Treatment varied across three district areas. In the Northern Provinces, slaves continued to be sold to South India. In the maritime areas, slaves were treated as chattel and personal property, primarily used for domestic work and pleasure. In the Kandyan Provinces, slaves enjoyed relatively kinder treatment as retainers, contributing to the dignity, prestige, and respect of their proprietors. Although registers of slaves were maintained, their total numbers were never definitively known. According to a census taken in 1829, there were 2,113 male and female slaves in the Kandyan Provinces, and the total slave population in these areas likely never exceeded 10,000.

When the Dutch capitulated, a male slave, regardless of age, was valued at 50 rix dollars (£1 13s 4d), and a female slave at 100 rix dollars (£3 6s 8d). Each female child was worth 3 rix dollars (£0 4s 6d). A serious dispute arose in 1795 over whether slaves should be treated as property, despite the long-standing custom of regarding them as private property. Questions also arose regarding the redemption or transfer of slaves. The procedure outlined in the Statute of Batavia and in the Koran was followed. The Commander of the British Expeditionary Force extended the meaning of property to include slaves, and all slaves were restored to their owners. Slaves were allowed to give testimony under oath in tribunals, and all were required to be registered. Governor North took prompt measures to provide relief for slaves, offering sums for their maintenance. Although slave bonds existed, no more than six percent produced them.

The Kandyan Chiefs objected to the registration of slaves and requested a postponement of both registration and eventual abolition without adequate compensation. They argued that emancipating slaves would prevent certain religious duties, such as the care of dead bodies, from being performed. Any others attempting to do these duties would commit an affront. In 1843, they petitioned the government to postpone abolition for sixty years, arguing that such a measure would not only be a financial loss but also a severe affront to their dignity. They contended, “If there were to be no slaves, there would be no religion, no respect. How could such a situation be endured?” The government had attempted to abolish slavery in the Isle of France, but inhabitants successfully resisted. Nevertheless, the broader modernizing process gained momentum, and enlightened European thinking eventually influenced Britain and, subsequently, the colony of Ceylon.

During the governorship of Edward Barnes, slavery was abolished in the Maritime Provinces on 12th August 1816, the birthday of the Prince Regent (later George IV). This order was voluntarily implemented by a group of slave owners in Galle and Jaffna, who freed all children born to their slaves. Wolvendaal Church allotted special pews for freed slaves and welcomed their presence at Sunday services. Slaves were generally able to obtain liberty if there was insufficient proof of their enslavement. Those who established the right of possession were required to bear full responsibility. Thus, slaves who wished to be free could do so without difficulty.

Despite these measures, the majority of slave owners in the Kandyan Provinces were not satisfied. The government itself did not rigorously enforce registration, which was largely neglected for some time. Nevertheless, a new public awareness emerged. A form of census of the slave population was prepared around 1832, and in 1837, slaves in the Kandyan Provinces were officially registered. The total figures, excluding the seven Korales, were as follows:

The total number of slaves in Tamil-speaking areas was estimated at 27,397 in 1837. During this period, the global movement demanding the abolition of slavery gained full strength. European governments could no longer ignore the humanitarian appeal for liberation. The British government had to take action, as slavery could no longer be indefinitely postponed. Anti-slavery societies also estimated the number of slaves at around 37,000. However, British commissioners in Ceylon observed that “slavery was of the mildest possible character,” noting the small numbers of slaves. The Chiefs requested pecuniary compensation for the abolition of slavery.

In 1841, an ordinance was passed to abolish “all vestiges of slavery,” with the first implementation in the Northern and Maritime Provinces. In 1845, Lord Stanley carried out the final act of abolition in Sri Lanka. No compensation was paid to slave owners, nor was it requested by them. Thus ended an ancient social order that had no chance of survival in a rapidly changing world, where equality of man and the dignity of humanity were increasingly recognized.