Lawful Conquest?: European Colonial Law and Appropriation Practices in Northeastern South America, Trinidad, and Tobago, 1498–1817 9783110690149, 9783110689990

Citation preview

Constanze Weiske Lawful Conquest?

Dialectics of the Global

Edited by Matthias Middell

Volume 12

Constanze Weiske

Lawful Conquest?

European Colonial Law and Appropriation Practices in Northeastern South America, Trinidad, and Tobago, 1498–1817

Funded with help of the DFG, a product of SFB 1199.

ISBN 978-3-11-068999-0 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-069014-9 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-069022-4 ISSN 2570-2289 Library of Congress Control Number: 2021943692 Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston Cover image: Johannes De Laet, Map of Guaiana (1630). Typesetting: Integra Software Services Pvt. Ltd. Printing and binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck www.degruyter.com

On the Series Ever since the 1990s, “globalization” has been a dominant idea and, indeed, ideology. The metanarratives of Cold War victory by the West, the expansion of the market economy, and the boost in productivity through internationalization, digitization and the increasing dominance of the finance industry became associated with the promise of a global trickle-down effect that would lead to greater prosperity for ever more people worldwide. Any criticism of this viewpoint was countered with the argument that there was no alternative; globalization was too powerful and thus irreversible. Today, the ideology of “globalization” meets with growing scepticism. An era of exaggerated optimism for global integration has been replaced by an era of doubt and a quest for a return to particularistic sovereignty. However, processes of global integration have not dissipated and the rejection of “globalization” as ideology has not diminished the need to make sense both of the actually existing high level of interdependence and the ideology that gave meaning and justification to it. The following three dialectics of the global are in the focus of this series: Multiplicity and Co-Presence: “Globalization” is neither a natural occurrence nor a singular process; on the contrary, there are competing projects of globalization, which must be explained in their own right and compared in order to examine their layering and their interactive composition. Integration and Fragmentation: Global processes result in de- as well as reterritorialization. They go hand in hand with the dissolution of boundaries, while also producing a respatialization of the world. Universalism and Particularism: Globalization projects are justified and legitimized through universal claims of validity; however, at the same time they reflect the worldview and/or interests of particular actors.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110690149-202

Acknowledgements The idea of this book was born in the Makushi village of Surama in 2013, when the present Minister of Indigenous Peoples and former Vice-President of Guyana, Sydney Allicock, has recalled the legal-historical argument of Arawak Stephen Campbell of 1963 that “she [the British Queen] took it [the territory of Indigenous Peoples] without our having asked her to do so”,1 which had opened up a completely new perspective on the European colonial history for me, made me wonder about the lawfulness of European colonial practices and set me up for an adventurous journey into the treasuries of historical archives on both sides of the Atlantic and numerous inspiring encounters with the beautiful Indigenous Peoples of northeastern South America. The present book is the result of this research process of both European colonial law and practices in northeastern South America and tells the story of both Spanish and Dutch colonial practices in interaction with the Arawak, Chiamas, Nepoio, Warouws, Acowaio, Makushi, Wapishana, “Caribs”, Guayanos, Yaio, Shebaio, Sapoyos, Tivitives, Chaguanas, Pariagotos, Semicorals, Saliva, Guaicas, Panacays, Guaraunos, Parhavianes, and Magnauts of northeastern South America in the time period between Columbus’ first visit in Paria in 1498 and Simón Bolívar’s capture of Angostura in 1817. During the whole production process from the idea to the coherent argument of this book, I became indebted to many people and institutions all around the globe. Hence, I am very grateful for the support, encouragement, and positive vibe from colleagues and professors of the DFG Research Training Group “Critical Junctures of Globalization” (GK 1261) at Leipzig University and the interdisciplinary PhD Programme “Biodiversity and Society” at Georg-August University Göttingen, in particular to Prof. Dr. Volker Wittke (1957–2012), Prof. Dr. Jürgen Kädtler, Prof. Dr. Ulf Engel, and Prof. Dr. Matthias Middell for their wise guidance, challenging remarks, and benevolent support. Moreover, I am indebted to the State of Lower Saxony (Lichtenberg PhD scholarship) and the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD travel grants) for their trust, generosity, and the extraordinary opportunity to conduct extensive field and archival work on both sides of the Atlantic and to transform my European into a truly global perspective by giving me the chance to encounter the wonderful Indigenous Peoples of northeastern South America and participate in eye-opening debates at partner universities of the Global South.

1 S. Campbell, “Memorandum to the Queen of England”, London, 13 October 1963, CO 1031_4509, TNA. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110690149-203

VIII

Acknowledgements

Moreover, I am very much beholden to the kind-hearted and committed dedication of Dr. Katharina Middell to shape the manuscript into this book for the De Gruyter Series “Dialectics of the Global” and the generous financial support of the Collaborative Research Centre SFB 1199 “Processes of Spatialization under the Global Condition”, which significantly contributed to bringing this book into the world. Likewise, I am deeply grateful for the precious, warmhearted, and patient remarks of Dr. Audrey Colson (Oxford University) during the writing and re-writing process of my manuscript, whose long-lasting love and commitment for the Acowaio of Upper Mazaruni has truly touched my heart and deeply inspired me. Finally, I am grateful beyond words for the love, support, care, and encouragement of Marie and Tom Cass (Opotiki), Alba Lara Elias (Barcelona), Marwan Al-Hashimi (Dubai), Marcos Weiske (Ribeirão Preto), Sylvia Rogängel (Zedtlitz), Eyk Henze (Leipzig), Sonya Rahaman (London), Hans Neher (Georgetown), Fuad Mohd Noor and Suhaila Ramli (Kuala Lumpur), Byron Meyer (Melbourne), Nicolas Aspinwall (New York), Clive Lock and Isabel Ford (Katikati), Viola Gründemann (Leipzig), Claudia Baumann (Berlin), and Gina (1950–2013), who is still dearly missed. This book is dedicated to the Indigenous Peoples of northeastern South America, to whom I sincerely apologize for the unlawful colonial practices of my European ancestors.

Contents On the Series

V

Acknowledgements

VII

Chapter 1 Introduction 1 UNDRIPs as “Remedial Instrument”? 9 The “New Historical Scholarship” and the doubtful European “Conquest” 12 Unlawfully Taken Historical Territories and the Caribbean Reparation Debate 20 Chapter 2 European Colonial Law and Appropriation Practices in the Americas Many European Laws of Nation 25 Terra Nullius vs. Treaty Making 28 Discovery vs. Occupation 34 Conquest and the Question of “Just War” 41

25

Chapter 3 Spanish De Jure Myths (1493–1573) 46 The Discovery Myth and the Papal Bulls of 1493 46 Spain’s Persistent Legal Debate (1503–1573) 56 The Legal Writings of Francisco de Vitoria (1532) 65 Chapter 4 Spanish Colonial Appropriation Practices in Terra Firme and Trinidad (1503–1591) 73 Enslavement in the “Indies” between War and Labour (1503–1537) Spanish Short-Term Settlements in Trinidad (1530–1579) 77 Failed Capitulaciones and the Discovery Myth of El Dorado (1530–1591) 82 Chapter 5 San Joseph de Oruña (1592–1802) 94 Lines in the Soil (1592–1637) 94 Battered San Joseph (1636–1699) 102 The Spatial Extent of Capuchin Missions in Trinidad (1686–1783)

73

110

X

Contents

Chapter 6 Santo Tome (1595–1699) 114 Santo Tome de Morequito (1595–1637) 114 Santo Tome de Usupamo (c. 1637) 124 Carib and French Intervention (1651–1699) 131 Chapter 7 Violent Capuchin Removal and Spatial Extensions (1682–1817) 136 From Deportation Plans to Violent Removal (1682–c. 1788) 136 Capuchin Missions and “Carib” Responses (1724–1813) 143 The Spatial Extensions of the Secret Boundary Expedition (1761–1770) 157 Chapter 8 Dutch De Jure Myths (1581–1764) 166 The Legal Writings of Hugo Grotius (1609–1630) 166 The Grotian Legal Thought and WIC Practices (1621–1752) WIC Agreements and Orders on the Wild Coast (1672–1764)

174 181

Chapter 9 Dutch Appropriation Practices on the Wild Coast and Tobago (1581–1673) 186 Dutch Settlements on the Wild Coast (c. 1613–1637) 186 Van Pere’s Berbice Colony and the WIC in Essequibo (1616–1732) The Dutch and Courlanders in Tobago (1627–1803) 201 Chapter 10 Essequibo and the Limits of Plantations (1670/75–1803) 211 Fort Kijkoveral and the WIC Plantations at the Essequibo Junction (1670/75–c. 1764) 211 Plantations at the Essequibo Junction (1699–1771) 216 Fort Zeelandia and Lower Essequibo (1730–1803) 228 Chapter 11 Dutch Inland Posts and the Limits of Jurisdiction and Interference (1737–1790) 237 Arinda and the Limits of Jurisdiction (1737–1790) 237 The Dutch Cuyuni Post and Capuchin Violent Removal (1730–1790) 249 The Limits of Dutch Interference (1673–1776) 264

190

Contents

Chapter 12 Dutch Posts on the “Wild Coast” and the Limits of Alliance (1678–1814) 270 Dutch Posts from Pomeroon to Barima (1678–1796) 270 Moruca and Capuchin Violent Removal (c. 1752–1794) 277 From Collars to Knobs: The Limits of Alliance (1763–1814) 282 Chapter 13 Conclusion

294

List of Abbreviations List of Figures Bibliography Index

333

305 307

303

XI

Chapter 1 Introduction The adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) by the General Assembly in New York on 23 September 20071 was unanimously praised as “milestone of re-empowerment”,2 “diplomatic success”,3 “groundbreaking” moment,4 “landmark achievement”,5 “momentous occasion”6 and “historic event”.7 At the same time, UNDRIP was determined as the “most important development concerning the recognition and protection of the

1 UN, “Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP)”, GA Resolution A/RES/61/ 295 (13 September 2007), pp. 1–15. The Declaration was adopted by a vote of 144 to 4, while eleven states abstained (Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Burundi, Colombia, Georgia, Kenya, Nigeria, Russian Federation, Samoa and Ukraine), https://www.un.org/development/desa/indig enouspeoples/declaration-on-the-rights-of-indigenous-peoples.html (accessed 17 July 2018). The no-voters Australia, New Zealand, USA, and Canada, however, finally signed the Declaration in 2009 and 2010 (E. Pulitano [ed.], Indigenous Rights in the Age of the UN Declaration, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012, p. 2; R. Pitty and S. Smith, “The Indigenous Challenge to Westphalian Sovereignty”, Australian Journal of Political Science 46 [2011] 1, pp. 121–122). 2 S. Wiessner, “Indigenous Sovereignty: A Reassessment in Light of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples”, Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 41 (2008), pp. 1141–1176, at 1142; Id., “The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples”, 2009, https://legal.un.org/ avl/ha/ga_61-295/ga_61-295.html (accessed 22 March 2021). Moreover, Samson and Gigoux declared the adoption of the Declaration as “most significant milestone” (C. Samson and C. Gigoux, Indigenous Peoples and Colonialism. Global Perspectives, Cambridge: Polity, 2017, chapter 5, p. 1), Rudolfo Stavenhagen as “major step” (Stavenhagen, “Making the Declaration work”, in: C. Charters and R. Stavenhagen [eds.], Making the Declaration Work. The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Copenhagen: IWGIA Transaction, 2009, p. 352), and Xanthaki as “major development” (A. Xanthaki, “Indigenous Rights in International Law over the last 10 Years and Future Developments”, Melbourne Journal of International Law 10 [2009] 1, pp. 27–37, at 27). 3 Pitty and Smith, “Indigenous Challenge”, p. 121. 4 F. Lenzerini (Rapporteur), “Rights of Indigenous Peoples under Customary International Law”, in: International Law Association, The Hague Conference (2010). Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 2010, pp. 43–52, at 43 (pdf online available). In a similar way, Federico Lenzerini determined the UNDRIP adoption as a “landmark event” (F. Lenzerini, Reparations for Indigenous Peoples, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009, Preface) and Elvira Pulitano as “(l)andmark document” (Pulitano, Indigenous Rights, p. 4). 5 Ibid., p. 1. 6 S. Allen and A. Xanthaki, Reflections on the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Oxford: Hart, 2009, p. 1. 7 E. Daes, “An Overview of the History of Indigenous Peoples”, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 21 (2008) 1, p. 7. Similarly, Federico Lenzerini speaks about a “historical moment” (Lenzerini, Reparations for Indigenous Peoples, p. 624). https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110690149-001

2

Chapter 1 Introduction

basic rights and fundamental freedoms of the world’s indigenous peoples”,8 an “important transformational moment in global politics”9 and “significant turning point”10 for about 476 million Indigenous Peoples around the globe.11 Roderic Pitty and Shannara Smith even argue that the legally non-binding Declaration had significantly changed the “structure and practice” of world politics12 and provides a fundamental “challenge to Westphalian sovereignty”.13 And indeed, UNDRIP is granting Indigenous Peoples a set of political and jurisdictional rights, such as self-determination, political and legal institutions, their own laws, tradition and customs, free, prior and informed consent and, most notably, the control of territories, lands, and resources,14 which Jérémie Gilbert and Cathal Doyle determine as “the real revolution behind the Declaration”, as this frame of rights affirms that states “are not the only entities entitled to title to territory”15 and these rights present a significant limitation to the control of the Westphalian 8 E. Daes, “The Contribution of the WGIP to the Genesis and Evolution of UNDRIP”, in: Charters and Stavenhagen (eds.), Making the Declaration Work, pp. 73–74. 9 S. Lightfoot, Global Indigenous Politics. A Subtle Revolution, New York: Routledge, 2016, p. 200; S. Lightfoot, “Indigenous Mobilization and Activism in the UN System”, in: D. Short and C. Lennox (eds.), Handbook of Indigenous Peoples’ Rights, New York: Routledge, 2016, pp. 253–268. 10 D. S. Dorough, “The Significance of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples”, in: Charters and Stavenhagen (eds.), Making the Declaration Work, p. 264; D. S. Dorough, “Reflections on the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: An Arctic Perspective”, in: S. Allen and A. Xanthaki (eds.), Reflections on the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Oxford: Hart, 2009, pp. 507–535. 11 Worldbank, “Indigenous Peoples”, 2020, www.worldbank.org/en/topic/indigenouspeoples (accessed 20 July 2020). See D. Maybury-Lewis, “Indigenous Peoples”, in: R. Maaka and C. Andersen (eds.), The Indigenous Experience. Global Perspectives, Toronto: Canadian Scholars, 2006, p. 22; K. Coats, A Global History of Indigenous Peoples, Struggle and Survival, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004, pp. 42–63. 12 Lightfoot, Global Indigenous Politics, p. 200; S. Allen, “UNDRIP and the Limits of the International Legal Project”, in: Allen and Xanthaki (eds.), Reflections, p. 248. 13 Pitty and Smith, “Indigenous Challenge”, p. 121; J. Lüdert, Conditions Apply. Non-state Actors Challenging State Sovereignty through Intergovernmental Organizations, Vancouver: University of British Columbia, 2016, p. 281. 14 UN, UNDRIP, Articles 3–5; 25–27; 32. 15 J. Gilbert and C. Doyle, “A New Dawn over the Land. Shedding Light on Collective Ownership and Consent”, in: Allen and Xanthaki (eds.), Reflections, pp. 289–328, at 326–328; C. Gigoux and C. Samson, “Globalization and Indigenous Peoples. New Old Patterns”, in: B. Turner and R. Holton (eds.), The Routledge International Handbook of Globalization Studies, London: Routledge, 2016, pp. 287–311; C. Doyle, Indigenous Peoples, Title to Territory, Rights and Resources: The Transformative Role of Free Prior Informed Consent, London: Routledge, 2015; J. Gilbert, Indigenous Peoples’ Land Rights under International Law. From Victims to Actors, Ardsley: Transnational, 2006.

Chapter 1 Introduction

3

state over nested indigenous territories.16 However, the cheerful UNDRIP appraisal is masking the significant attenuation of the right to self-determination from its “fullest sense” of meaning as “a right to independent statehood”17 to an “internal right”.18 Accordingly, the previous Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, adopted by General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 to promote “a speedy and unconditional end of colonialism in all its forms and manifestations”19, has recognized the full right to selfdetermination, manifested either as (a) “a sovereign independent state”, (b) an association with an existing independent state, based on the “free and voluntary choice by the peoples of the territory”, or (c) the “freely” chosen integration “with an independent state”,20 whereas UNDRIP just enshrines a limited “right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their internal and local affairs”,21 without “dismember[ing] or impair[ing], totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent states”.22 This qualifier was inserted “last minute” during the exceptional third stage of the 25 years’ long UNDRIP negotiations in 2006–2007, without a vote of Indigenous Peoples23 and on initiative of both the African Union and an additional group of seven Westphalian

16 See also A. Surrallés and P. Hierro, The Land Within, Copenhagen: IGWIA, 2005; A. Simpson, Mohawk Interruptus, Durham: Duke University, 2014; A. Simpson, “Paths Toward a Mohawk Nation: Narratives of Citizenship and Nationhood in Kahnawake”, in: R. Maaka and C. Andersen (eds.), The Indigenous Experience: Global Perspectives, Toronto: Canadian Scholars, 2006, pp. 174–189. 17 J. Anaya, Indigenous Peoples in International Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004, p. 103. 18 Stavenhagen, “Making the Declaration Work”, p. 364. 19 UN, “Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (14 December 1960)”, p. 1. 20 UN, “Principle which should guide Members in determining whether or not an obligation exists to transmit the information called for under Article 73e of the Charter”, GA Resolution 1541 (XV), A/RES/61/295, 15 December 1960, Annex, Principles VI–VIII. In this context, Principle IX emphasizes that the peoples’ wish should have been determined “through informed and democratic processes, impartially conducted and based on universal adult suffrage”, which could be “supervise[d]” by the UN, if “necessary” (Ibid., Principle IX). 21 UN, “UNDRIP”, Article 4. 22 UN, “Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples”, Article 46. However, the external right of exercising self-determination remained a possibility for those Indigenous Peoples, who are “oppressed” or “denied meaningful access to government” in order “to pursue their political, economic, social and cultural development” (Canadian Supreme Court, “Quebec Opinion”, in: S. Wiessner [ed.], “Indigenous Sovereignty: A Reassessment in Light of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples”, p. 1165, footnote 155). 23 This exceptional negotiation stage was established by the General Assembly in December 2006 (UN, “Working Group of the Commission on Human Rights to elaborate a Draft Declaration in

4

Chapter 1 Introduction

states, namely Guyana, Suriname, Columbia, Canada, the Russian Federation, Australia, and New Zealand, as those states had continued to press for the limitation of the right to self-determination one day after the final report of facilitator His Excellency Hilario Davide was already submitted to the President of the General Assembly on 16 July 2007 and the submission deadline had already passed,24 as their concern about a potential secession of Indigenous Peoples25 was dismissed during both previous negotiation stages between 1982–199326 and 1995–2005/200627 and also unconsidered in the Draft Declaration of Chairperson-Rapporteur Luis-Enrique Chávez in 2006.28 Moreover, the final restriction of the right to self-determination was paralleled by an increased limitation of Indigenous Peoples’ participation in the UN-

Accordance with Paragraph 5 of General Assembly resolution 49/214 of 23 December 1994”, GA Resolution A/RES/61/178, 20 December 2006, p. 1). 24 HE Hilario Davide, “Supplement Report to UN President of the General Assembly (PGA)”, 20 July 2007, para. 1. This report was submitted after the deadline of “not later than mid-July 2007” (PGA Her Excellency Rashed Al Khalida, “Letter to all Permanent Representatives and Permanent Observers to the UN”, 6 June 2007, para 2. See also HE Hilario Davide, “Report to the PGA on the Consultations on the Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples”, 13 July 2007, Part II, para. 5. 25 A. Eide, “The Indigenous Peoples, the Working Group on Indigenous Populations and the Adoption of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples”, in: Charters and Stavenhagen (eds.), Making the Declaration Work, pp. 32–48; Daes, “The Contribution of the WGIP to the Genesis and Evolution of UNDRIP”; E. Daes, “The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: Background and Appraisal”, in: Allen and Xanthaki (eds.), Reflections, pp. 11–41; J. Henriksen, “The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples”, in: Charters and Stavenhagen (eds.), Making the Declaration Work, pp. 78–86; L.-E. Chávez, “The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: Breaking the Impasse”, ibid., pp. 96–108; A. Carmen, “International Indian Treaty Council Report from the Battle Field”, ibid., pp. 86–96; M. Åhrén, “The Provisions of Lands, Territories and Natural Resources,” ibid., pp. 206–207; L. A. De Alba, “The Human Rights Council’s Adoption of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples”, ibid., pp. 108–138. See also M. Åhrén, Indigenous Peoples’ Status in the International Legal System, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. 26 WGIP, “Report of the Working Group on Indigenous Population on its First Session”, E/CN.4/ Sub.2/1982/33 (25 August 1982), paras. 1–2; WGIP, “Report of the Working Group on Indigenous Population on its Eleventh session”, E/CN.4/Sub.2/1993/29, 23 August 1993, pp. 1–63; WGIP, “Report of the Working Group on Indigenous Population on its Eleventh Session”, E/CN.4/Sub.2/ 1993/29/Add.1, 27 August 1993, pp. 1–2. 27 UN ECOSOC Commission on Human Rights, “Report of the Working Group established in Accordance with Commission on Human Rights Resolution 1995/32”, E/CN.4/1996/84, 4 January 1996. 28 UN ECOSOC Commission on Human Rights, “Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples”, E/CN.4/2006/79, 22 March 2006, Annex I, pp. 8–77.

Chapter 1 Introduction

5

DRIP negotiations since 199529 and predated by a long historical pattern of Indigenous Peoples’ exclusion from the United Nations since the rejection of Cayuga Chief Deskahe’s claim before the UN’s predecessor, the League of Nations, in 192230 and the dismissal of a Memorandum for “sovereign statehood” of the Haudenosaunee at the UN conference in San Francisco on 13 April 1945.31 Indigenous Peoples in the Americas were hindered from exercising the full right of self-determination granted by the Independence Declaration of 1960, although “the direct participation of the indigenous populations in the legislative and

29 Whereas Indigenous Peoples during the first negotiation stage in 1984 were “urged [. . .] to contribute to a deeper and more critical analysis of the issues involved so as to assist the Working Group in adopting and being able to defend certain ideas” (WGIP, “Report of the Working Group on Indigenous Population on its Third Session”, E/CN.4/Sub.2/1984/20, 8 August 1984, para. 15) and the “constructive dialogue” between states and indigenous peoples was emphasized in 1985 (WGIP, “Report of the Working Group on Indigenous Population on its fourth session”, E/CN.4/Sub.2/1985/22, 27 August 1985, p. 6, para. 13), the participation of Indigenous Peoples was significantly limited during the second negotiation phase since 1993, when Indigenous Peoples had several times stressed that “it must be explicitly recognized that indigenous nations and peoples were equal participants in the working group and not ‘observers’ and that they should have full input in the drafting of the reports of the sessions of the working group” (UN ECOSOC Commission on Human Rights, “Report of the Working Group established in Accordance with Commission on Human Rights Resolution 1995/32”, E/CN.4/1997/102, 10 December 1996, para. 36. See also UN ECOSOC Commission on Human Rights, “Report of the Working Group established in Accordance with Commission on Human Rights Resolution 1995/32”, E/ CN.4/1998/10, 15 December 1997, paras 22–25; A. Carmen, “International Indian Treaty Council Report from the Battle Field: The Struggle for the Declaration”, pp. 86–87; Davide, “Report to the PGA on the Consultations on the Draft UNDRIP”, 13 July 2007, para. 9. 30 In particular, the Chief of the Haudenosaunee represented the Oneida, Cayuga, Seneca, Mohawk, Onondaga and Tuscarora, who were known to the English as Six Nations and French as Iroquois, but had received no hearing at the League of Nations (D. Sanders, “Developing a Modern Law on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples”, December 1994, http://www. anthrobase.com/Browse/home/hst/cache/Developing.doc.htm (accessed 18 September 2918); D. Sanders, The Formation of the World Council of Indigenous Peoples, Copenhagen: IWGIA, 1977, pp. 9–10). More precisely, at the UN Charter Conference in San Francisco in 1945, the Haudenosaunee had vainly attempted to raise historical claims based on the Halimand Treaty with the British Crown of March 1784 (J. Borrows, Canada’s Indigenous Constitution, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2010, footnote 64), whereupon sovereignty claims, which were during the 1950s “sent every year from various parts of the Americas” to the UN, were likewise ignored (D. Sanders, “Developing a Modern Law on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples”, December 1994; D. Sanders, The Formation of the World Council of Indigenous Peoples, p. 10) and Indigenous Peoples’ claims voiced at the “opening proceedings for the new U.N. headquarters in New York” in 1956 remained unacknowledged (T. McCarthy, In Divided Unity, Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 2016, p. 7). 31 Lüdert, Conditions apply, p. 170; Anaya, Indigenous Peoples in International Law, p. 83.

6

Chapter 1 Introduction

executive organs of government of those [Non-Self-Governing and Trust] Territories” in order to prepare them “for complete self-government or independence” was in December 1952 still indicated as requirement for the independence of “Colonial Countries and Peoples”.32 Instead, Indigenous Peoples entered the UN not as Westphalian states, but by detour as participants in the UNDRIP negotiations in 1982.33 Most commonly, the exclusion of Indigenous Peoples from exercising the right of full self-determination of the Independence Declaration of 1960 is justified either by the “saltwater thesis” or by the principle of uti possidetis (‘as you possess’). The former was spontaneously inserted as Principles IV and V of UN General Assembly Resolution 1541 (XV) of 15 December 1960 and had determined that colonial countries and peoples are required to fulfil the condition of a “geographical and ethnic or cultural distinctiveness of a territory”,34 respectively “a 32 UN, “The Right of Peoples and Nations to Self-Determination”, 20 December 1952), GA Resolution A/RES/637 (VII), pp. 26–27, Parts A–C. 33 Instead of being full participants at the negotiation table about independence in the context of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples of 1960, Indigenous Peoples entered the UN in May 1982 as participants of the Working Group of Indigenous Populations (WGIP), which was established by the ECOSOC (UN, “Study of the Problem of Discrimination against Indigenous Populations”, ECOSOC Resolution 1982/34 (7 May 1982), p. 26, paras 1–2). This decision was based on the eponymous study commissioned by ECOSOC resolution 1589 of May 1971 (ibid.), formally conducted in 37 states, namely Australia, Argentina, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Brazil, Burma, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Greenland (Denmark), Ecuador, El Salvador, Finland, French Guyana (France), Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Japan, Laos, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zeeland, Nicaragua, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Surinam, Sweden, USA and Venezuela by Special Rapporteur José R. Martínez Cobo (UN Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, “Study of the Problem of Discrimination Against Indigenous Populations”, E/CN.4/Sub.2/476 (30 July 1981), p. 2, para. 7) and de facto carried out by Augusto Willemsen Díaz (Willemsen Diaz, “How Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Reached the UN”, in: Charters and Stavenhagen [eds.], Making the Declaration Work, pp. 16–32). Thereupon, the study was published between 1981 and 1983 in 22 chapters (UN Sub-Commission on the Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, “Study of the Problem of Discrimination Against Indigenous Populations”, E/CN.4/Sub.2/1983/21 (5 August 1983), pp. 5–6, para. 14) and urged the UN to take action with regard to the situation of Indigenous Peoples, at that point of time determined as “discrimination” problem, which resulted in the establishment of the WGIP. 34 UN, “Principles”, GA Resolution A/RES/ 1541 (XV), 15 December 1960, Principle IV. Accordingly, the underlying assumption that there existed just one cultural and ethnic distinct people from the European colonizers in a colonial territory fails to recognize the South American reality of several distinct peoples in a colonial territory, whereas the UN definition of “Non-Self Governing Territories” as both “a territory and its peoples” recognizes several (indigenous) peoples within those territories (UN, “Principles”, Principle II).

Chapter 1 Introduction

7

territory and its peoples” from “the country administering it”35 to exercise the full right of self-determination and emerge as an independent Westphalian state, whereas the often cited international law principle of uti possidetis, which had emerged during the independence process of European colonies in South America in the nineteenth century, had stipulated that the boundaries of newly emerging Westphalian states were to be defined by the course of the colonial frontiers, which is why some international law scholars argue that the principle had “allowed states to neglect the decolonization of indigenous territories”.36 However, neither the saltwater requirement nor uti possidetis apply to northeastern South America, as the Caribbean colonies of the Dutch, English, and French, such as Guyana, Suriname, and several Caribbean islands, were indeed still administered by European Westphalian states, which were in 1960 still situated a salty ocean apart. In addition, the principle of uti possidetis was not fulfilled in the area claimed by Venezuela, Guyana, and Suriname, since the territorial boundaries between both Guyana and Venezuela and Suriname and Guyana were not spatially fixed, when the Independence Declaration was implemented in (British) Guiana on 26 May 1966,37 after Venezuela had in 1962

35 UN, “Principles”, Principles II; V. 36 J. Gilbert, Indigenous Peoples’ Land Rights, p. 21. This argument resonates with the explanation provided by Patrick Thornberry, who indicated that the Decolonization Declaration was implicitly grasping “a people”, defined in the spatial sense of “the whole people of a territory” (P. Thornberry, Self-Determination, Minorities, Human Rights A Review of International Instruments”, International & Comparative Law Quarterly 38 (October 1989) 4, pp. 867–889, at 875. See also P. Thornberry, Indigenous Peoples and Human Rights, Manchester: Manchester University Press. 2002). A similar argument is advanced by James Anaya (J. Anaya, Indigenous Peoples in International Law, p. 100), while Benedict Kingsbury emphasizes that the relationship between Indigenous Peoples’ historic sovereignty and the international law norm uti possidetis has received little attention by international law scholars (B. Kingsbury, “Reconciling Five Conceptual Approaches to Indigenous Peoples’ Claims”, NYU Journal of International Law and Politics 34 (2001) 1, pp. 189–250, at 236). 37 ICJ, “Guyana files an Application against Venezuela”, Press Release No. 2018/17, 4 April 2018, www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/171/171-20180404-PRE-01-00-EN.pdf (accessed 18 September 2018); T. Donovan, “Suriname–Guyana Maritime and Territorial Disputes”, p. 61; D. Singh, “Comment on the Guyana–Suriname Boundary Dispute”, Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law 32 (2004), pp. 657–660. Accordingly, none of the boundaries was fixed, when the colony of British Guiana emerged as the independent Westphalian state Guyana in May 1966 and also not during the two Independence Conferences, held at Lanchester House in October 1963 and November 1965. The former was attended by Dr. C.B. Jagan for the People’s Progressive Party, Mr. L.P.S. Burnham for the People’s National Congress, and Mr. P.S. D’ Aguiar along with the Arawak Stephen Campbell for the United Force Party and British Guiana Governor Sir Ralph Grey (The National Archives Kew (hereafter TNA), Colonial Office, British Guiana, “Re-Convened Independence Conference 1965, Outstanding Issues”, CO 1031_4509_27), whereas the latter took place

8

Chapter 1 Introduction

declared the Paris Award of 1899 as “null and void”. In result, the border between Venezuela and Guyana remained unfixed38 and the whole area, including “Guayana Esequiba”, legally disputed until today (December 2020).39 At the same time, the boundary dispute between Guyana and Suriname was just settled by an Arbitral Award in 2007.40 Consequently, Indigenous Peoples of northeastern South America were unlawfully deprived from the right to exercise their self-determination in its fullest meaning. Accordingly, shortly before British Guiana’s first Independence Conference took place in 1963, the Arawak Stephen Campbell had addressed the Queen of England for substantial reason, emphasizing in a Memorandum on 13 October 1963 that the Indigenous Peoples of (spatially undefined) British Guiana had “this right of self-determination”.41 Moreover, the Arawak of Moruca raised the more profound legal claim that “she [the Queen] took it [the area of British

without Dr. Jagan, who had rejected his participation due to the violent and hostile situation in British Guiana (TNA, C. B. Jagan, “Memorandum”, CO 1031_4501, 1 November 1965). 38 International Court of Justice (ICJ), “Guyana files an application against Venezuela”, 4 April 2018. The annulment of the 1899 Boundary Award by Venezuela in 1962 resulted in the establishment of a Mixed Boundary Commission by the Geneva Agreement of 1966 (UN, Geneva Agreement to resolve the Controversy over the Frontier between Venezuela and British Guiana, 17 February 1966, No. 8192, https://treaties.un.org/doc/publication/unts/volume%20561/vol ume-561-i-8192-english.pdf (accessed 18 September 2018). followed by the appointment of several special UN officers (UN Secretary General (SG), “Secretary-General Chooses International Court of Justice as Means for Peacefully Settling Long-Standing Guyana–Venezuela Border Controversy”, 30 January 2018, SG Press Release No. SG/SM/18879-ICJ/630, https://www.un.org/press/ en/2018/sgsm18879.doc.htm (accessed 18 September 2018). As none of those attempts in result had settled the ongoing boundary dispute between Venezuela and Guyana, the UN SecretaryGeneral António Guterres in January 2018 recommended a settlement before the International Court of Justice in The Hague (SG, “Secretary-General Chooses International Court of Justice as Means for Peacefully Settling Long-Standing Guyana–Venezuela Border Controversy”, 30 January 2018). Consequently, Guyana brought the case before the ICJ in June 2018 (ICJ, “Guyana vs. Venezuela, Arbitral Award of 3 October 1899”, 19 June 2018, Case Order No. 171, pp. 1–3), but Venezuela is not recognizing the jurisdiction of the Court (A. Gordon, “Venezuela opts out of border case at ICJ”, 18 June 2018. Still in July 2020, the ICJ case remains without a decision. 39 ICJ, “Summary of the Judgement”,18 December 2020, https://www.icj-cij.org/public/files/ case-related/171/171-20201218-SUM-01-00-EN.pdf (accessed 17 February 2021). 40 UN, “Award in the Arbitration regarding the Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary between Guyana and Suriname”, 17 September 2007), http://legal.un.org/riaa/cases/vol_XXX/1-144.pdf (accessed 18 September 2018), pp. 3–144. 41 S. Campbell, “Memorandum to the Queen of England”, London, 13 October 1963, CO 1031_4509, TNA.

UNDRIPs as “Remedial Instrument”?

9

Guiana] without our having asked her to do so”,42 which resonates with similar arguments made by participating Indigenous Peoples during the UNDRIP negotiations between 1982–2006,43 questioning not only the disputed colonial boundaries, but the lawfulness of the European colonial appropriation in northeastern South America as a whole. Therefore, this book is dedicated to reconstructing the European colonial past in legally contested northeastern South America and provides a critical historical reappraisal of both European colonial appropriation in law and practice. Hence, the book examines the lawfulness of European colonization during the initial colonization stage between 1498 and 1817 and determines the extent of the (in)lawful appropriated indigenous territories by European colonial practices as basis for historically grounded reparation claims of Indigenous Peoples.

UNDRIPs as “Remedial Instrument”? The mission of the book recognizes the true novelty of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, namely that Indigenous Peoples have the right to reclaim their past territories, lands, and resources which they “have traditionally owned or otherwise occupied or used”, but were “confiscated, occupied, used or damaged without their free and informed consent”.44 Rooted in the clear acknowledgement of UNDRIP that “indigenous peoples have suffered from historic injustices as a result of, inter alia, their colonization and dispossession of their lands, territories and resources”,45 UN Special Rapporteur James Anaya argues that by “alluding to this history at the outset, the Declaration reveals its character as essentially a remedial instrument” for European colonization.46 However, the original wording was several times

42 TNA, S. Campbell, “Memorandum to the Queen of England”, London, 13 October 1963, CO 1031_4509, TNA. 43 For example, Indian Law Resource Centre et al., “Draft Declaration”, E/CN.4/Sub.2/1985/ 22, 27 August 1985, p. 1, Principles 6 and 7; WGIP, “Report of the Working Group on Indigenous Population on its Third Session”, E/CN.4/Sub.2/1984/20, 8 August 1984, p. 7, para. 27. 44 UN, “UNDRIP”, Article 28. 45 Ibid., Preamble. This preambular Article is accompanied by another Article which emphasizes “that all doctrines, policies and practices based on or advocating superiority of peoples or individuals on the basis of national origin or racial, religious, ethnic or cultural differences are racist, scientifically false, legally invalid, morally condemnable and socially unjust”. 46 J. Anaya, “The Rights of Indigenous Peoples to Self-Determination in the Post–Declaration Era”, in: C. Charters and R. Stavenhagen (eds.), Making the Declaration Work, pp. 184–200, at 191;

10

Chapter 1 Introduction

attenuated47 and the application of UNDRIP at the progressive Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) had produced significant compromises for Indigenous Peoples in recovering their past territories, as illustrated by the Xákmok Kásek vs. Paraguay case of the IACHR in 2010.48 Predated by the landmark decision Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni vs. Nicaracgua in 2001,49 Sawhoyamaxa vs. Paraguay (2006),50 and Yakye Axa vs. Paraguay (2005)51 and followed by Kaliña and Lokono (Arawak) vs. Suriname (2015),52 Xucuru vs. Brazil (2015)53 and

J. Anaya, “Indigenous Peoples and International Law Issues”, Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law, 92 (1998), pp. 96–98; J. Anaya, Indigenous Peoples in International Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004; J. Anaya and S. Wiessner, “The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: Towards Re-empowerment”, 3 October 2007, http:// jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2007/10/un-declaration-on-rightsof-indigenous.php (accessed 30 May 2017). 47 In contrast, the Draft Declaration of June 1993 had expressed the “concern that indigenous peoples have been deprived of their human rights and fundamental freedoms, resulting inter alia, in their colonization and dispossession of their lands, territories and resources” (WGIP, “Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples”, E/CN.4/Sub.2/1993/26, 8 June 1993, p. 2), which was modified until August 1993 (UN WGIP, “Draft Declaration”, E/CN.4/Sub.2/1993/29, 23 August 1993, p. 50) and again until March 2006 (UN ECOSOC Commission on Human Rights, “Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples”, E/CN.4/2006/79, 22 March 2006, p. 10). 48 Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR), “Case of the Xámok Kásek Indigenous Community vs. Paraguay”, 24 August 2010, www.hrdp.org/files/2013/10/22/seriec_214_Xak mak_v_paraguay_pdf (accessed 19 September 2018), pp. 1–79. See E. Williams, “Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community vs. Paraguay”, Loyola International & Comparative Law Review 38 (2016), pp. 1670–1690. 49 S. Frost, “Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community vs. Nicaragua”, Loyola International & Comparative Law Review 36 (2014), pp. 1113–1141; J. Anaya and R. Williams, “The Protection of Indigenous Peoples’Rights over Lands and Natural Resources Under the Inter-American Human Rights System”, Harvard Human Rights Journal 14 (2001), pp. 33–87, at 36; F. Lenzerini, “Sovereignty Revisited: International Law and Parallel Sovereignty of Indigenous Peoples”, Texas International Law Journal 42 (2006), pp. 155–189, at 184. 50 M. Venanzi, “Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community vs. Paraguay”, Loyola of Los Angeles International & Comparative Law Review 38 (2016), pp. 1519–1542. 51 U. Vyas, “Yakye Axa Indigenous Community vs. Paraguay”, Loyola of Los Angeles International & Comparative Law Review 38 (2016), pp. 1601–1626. 52 IACHR, “Case of Kaliña and Lokono Peoples vs. Suriname”, 25 November 2015, http://www. corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_309_ing.pdf (accessed 19 September 2018), pp. 1–104. See C. Garcia-Salas, “Kaliña and Lokono Peoples vs. Suriname”, Loyola International & Comparative Law Review 40 (2017), pp. 1213–1229. 53 IACHR, “Report on the Merits Xucuru Indigenous Peoples vs. Brazil”, 28 July 2015, http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_309_ing.pdf (accessed 19 September 2018). pp. 1–28.

UNDRIPs as “Remedial Instrument”?

11

Kuna and Emberá vs. Panama (2014),54 the IACHR had than decided that Paraguay had to return 10,700 hectares 55 of the Xákmok Kásek traditional territories,56 even though the Court was aware that the area does not represent “the whole” of the traditional territory,57 that the Xákmok Kásek were the only occupants and the area had never been colonized by the Spaniards, but Paraguay had “sold two-thirds of the Chaco on the London stock exchange forty years after independence to finance Paraguay’s debt after the so-called War of the Triple Alliance” in the period 1885–1887 without the consent or knowledge of the Xákmok Kásek.58 Thus, it becomes clear that the IACHR had not equated the concept of “traditional” territories with (unlawfully taken) historical territories, wherefore a true reparation based on a substantial examination of the European colonial past is still pending. In contrast, this book acknowledges the long-standing, largely unconsidered legal-historical arguments of Arawak Stephen Campbell and the participating American Indigenous Peoples of the UNDRIP negotiations, who had already in 1985 argued that European colonial legal doctrines such as “(d)iscovery, conquest, settlement [based] on terra nullius” had “never [been] legitimate bases for states to claim or retain the territories of indigenous nations or peoples”,59 which is increasingly supported by an emerging “new generation of [historical] scholarship” and includes research from various perspectives, such as intellectual legal history, global history, comparative legal history, and European colonial history on the basis of an excavation of “an entire bedrock of law that

54 K. Barreto, “Kuna of Madungandí and the Emberá of Bayano Indigenous Peoples and their Members vs. Panama”, Loyola International and Comparative Law Review 41 (2018), pp. 1009–1038. 55 IACHR, “Case of the Xámok Kásek Indigenous Community vs. Paraguay”, pp. 18–65, para 68; 91; 150; 170; 283. 56 Williams, “Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community vs. Paraguay”, p. 1674. 57 Ibid., p. 29, para. 121. By contrast, the Yakye Axa in 2005 regained “an unspecified area of ancestral lands” (Vyas, “Yakye Axa vs. Paraguay”, p. 1618). 58 IACHR, “Case of the Xámok Kásek Indigenous Community vs. Paraguay”, p. 15, para. 58. 59 Indian Law Resource Centre et al., “Draft Declaration”, E/CN.4/Sub.2/1985/22, 27 August 1985, p. 1, Principle 6. In addition, Principle 7 enshrines that “(i)n cases where lands taken in violation of these principles have already been settled, the indigenous nation or people concerned is entitled to immediate restitution, including compensation for the loss of use, without extinction of original title. Indigenous peoples’ desire to regain possession and control of sacred sites must always be respected” (ibid., p. 1, Principle 7). Furthermore, Indigenous Peoples have argued during the WGIP meeting in 1984 that this illegitimate “dispossession of their territorial base [. . .] and the loss of sacred lands and sites brought with them a disruption in the life and social and legal order of indigenous communities and plunged them into suffering, hunger, disease, death and moral despair” (WGIP, “Report of the Working Group on Indigenous Population on its Third Session”, E/CN.4/Sub.2/1984/20, 8 August 1984, p. 7, para. 27).

12

Chapter 1 Introduction

has hitherto been largely ignored”.60 Despite, international law scholars are uncritically raising historically unexamined claims about the lawfulness of European colonization by asserting, for example, that “the concepts of discovery and [. . .] conquest were accepted norms under [colonial] international law”, whereas “discovery” would have had presented a “key provision” and “military conquest” the “most common form of subjugation”.61

The “New Historical Scholarship” and the doubtful European “Conquest” Instead, the new historical scholarship, which is built upon studies of intellectual historians in the 1990s62 and the precious and thorough contributions of anthropologists since the 1970s and 1980s63, has revealed exactly the opposite,

60 A. Fitzmaurice, “The Dutch Empire in Intellectual History”, BMGN Low Countries Historical Review 132 (2017) 2, pp. 97–109, at 107. 61 J. Corntassel and T. H. Primeau, “Indigenous ‘Sovereignty’ and International Law”, Hawaiian Journal of Law & Politics 2 (Summer 2006), pp. 52–72, at 69; 63–64. 62 R. Williams, The American Indian in Western Legal Thought, New York: Oxford University Press. 1990; A. Pagden, European Encounters, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993; Id., Lords of All the Worlds, New Haven: Oxford University Press, 1995; Id., The Burdens of Empire, New Haven: Yale University Press, 2015; A. Anghie, “The Evolution of International Law: Colonial and Postcolonial Realities”, Third World Quarterly 27 (2006) 5, pp. 739–753; Id., Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of International Law, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007; A. Fitzmaurice, Sovereignty, Property and Empire, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014; Id., “The Genealogy of Terra Nullius?”, Australian Historical Studies 38 (2007) 129, pp. 1–15; Id., Humanism and America, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. See also L. Robertson, Conquest by Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. An exception presents the landmark paper of Wilcomb Washburn, who had already in 1959 raised serious doubts about the lawfulness of European appropriation (W. Washburn, “The Moral and Legal Justifications for Dispossessing the Indians”, in: J. M. Smith [ed.], Seventeenth-Century America: Essays in Colonial History, Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1959, pp. 15–32). See also W. Washburn, Red Man’s Land/White Man’s Law, Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1995 [1971]. 63 N. Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirits, Dordrecht: Foris, 1988; Id., The Conquest of the Caribs of the Orinoco Basin, Oxford: Oxford University, Ph.D. thesis, 1984; Id., “Carib Cannibalism. Historical Evidence”, Journal de La Societé des Americanistes 1 (1984) XX, pp. 69–88; Id., “Native American Cultures among the Atlantic Littoral of South America, 1499–1650”, Proceedings of the British Academy 81 (1993), pp. 197–231; Id., "Native Peoples Confront Colonial Regimes in Northeastern South America (c. 1500–1900)”, in: F. Salomon and S. Schwartz (eds.), The Cambridge History of the Native Peoples of the Americas, Vol. III. South America, Part 2, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

The “New Historical Scholarship” and the doubtful European “Conquest”

13

namely, that “discovery” had in fact not presented a legally valid means of European appropriation during the initial stage of colonization (see chapter 3), while “conquest” presented a very rare exception in northeastern South America, as no trace of a lawful Spanish “conquest” is found in the ethnomethodological study of Arie Boomert between 1498˗1797 for Trinidad, while John Hemming for Roraima impressively illustrates that the Portuguese had claimed the area by “persuading” a few Spaniards in the 1770s “to descend to the new Portuguese fort”64 and Audrey Colson has excavated that the Upper Mazaruni65 was not even explored by Europeans before the Anglo-Dutch Treaty of 13 August 1814, but instead consistently occupied by Carib-speaking Kapong (Akawaio) and Pemon (Arekuna).66 Moreover, the “modern study of Amerindian history in the first centuries of the colonial Guianas”67 by anthropologist Neil Whitehead had revealed that a “conquest” of the Orinoco Caribs is claimed on the basis of the 1999, pp. 382–442; J. Hemming, Red Gold. The Conquest of the Brazilian Indians, London: Macmillan, 1978: Id., The Search for El Dorado, London: Michael Joseph, 1978; Id., Amazon Frontier, London: Macmillan, 1987; Id., “How Brazil Acquired Roraima”, Hispanic American Historical Review 70 (May 1990) 2, pp. 295–325; Id., “Roraima, Brazil’s Northernmost Frontier”, UCL Institute of Latin American Studies Research Papers 20 (1991), pp. 1–56); P. Rivière, Absent-minded Imperialism, London, Tauris, 1995; Id., The Forgotten Frontier, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1972; A. Colson, Land. The Case of the Akawaio and Arekuna of the Upper Mazaruni District, Guyana, Somerset: Last Refuge, 2009; Id., “The Spatial Component in the Political Structure of the Carib Speakers of the Guiana Highlands: Kapon and Pemon”, Themes in Political Organization: Caribs and Their Neighbours. Special Issue of Antropológica (1984), pp. 73–124; Id., “Naming, Identity and Structure: The Pemon”, Antropológica LIII (2009) 111–112, pp. 35–114; J. Hill and F. Santos-Granero, Comparative Arawakan Histories, Chicago: University of Illinois Press. 2002; F. Jennings, The Invasion of America. Indians, Colonialism and the Cant of Conquest, Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1975. 64 Hemming, “How Brazil acquired Roraima”, pp. 295–318. 65 Colson, Land, p. 12. The anthropologist also indicates that Europeans had named the Kapong (Akawaio) as “Waika” (English), which was based on “the term used by Pemong [Arekuna] for their Akawaio neighbours in the Cuyuni headwaters and eastwards”, or “Guiaca” (Spanish). The latter is still applied by the Pemong/Pemón [Arekuna] to indicate both Akawaio and Patamona. Moreover, Audrey Colson determines that the “Serekong [Cerekons]” is the particular name for the Upper Mazaruni Akawaio (ibid.), while the Pemong/Pemón are likewise comprising the “Taurepang” of Roraima and the “Arekuna Pemong” had been situated at “the upper Kamarang river”, whereas the Akawaio, situated on the “middle Kamarang River” (ibid., pp. 13–14). 66 Ibid., p. 3. 67 G. Oostindie and R. Hoefte, “Historiography of Suriname and the Netherlands Antilles”, in: B. W. Higman (ed.), General History of the Caribbean. Vol. VI: Methodology and Historiography of the Caribbean, London: UNESCO/Macmillan, 1999, pp. 604–630, at 615; Whitehead, The Conquest of the Caribs of the Orinoco Basin, pp. 1–356; Id., Lords of the Tiger Spirit, pp. 1–191; Id., “Native Peoples Confront Colonial Regimes”, pp. 382–442.

14

Chapter 1 Introduction

practices of Franciscan and Capuchin missionaries in the time period 1720–1760, whose role as agents of the Spanish Crown remains doubtful.68 Furthermore, the application of “conquest” practices by the Dutch of the “forgotten colonies of Essequibo and Demerara” appears very unlikely.69 Finally, the indispensable anthropological research of the early stage of the historical Caribbean confirms the spatial argument of global and comparative legal historians of the early twentyfirst century70 that European colonization was de facto limited to “narrow bands, or corridors” and manifested as “enclaves and irregular zones around them”,71 whereas European historians had targeted the transatlantic African slave trade with northeastern South America72 and the time period of English colonization

68 Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, p. 19; Id., The Conquest of the Caribs of the Orinoco Basin, p. 218. 69 E. W. van der Oest, “The Forgotten Colonies Essequibo and Demerara”, in: J. Postma and V. Enthoven (eds.), Riches from Atlantic Commerce. Dutch Transatlantic Trade and Shipping, 1585–1817, Leiden: Brill, 2003, pp. 323–364, at 323–324. 70 P. Seed, American Pentimento, pp. 1–190; L. Benton, Law and Colonial Cultures, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002; Id., A Search for Sovereignty, Law and Geography in European Empires, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009; Id., “Law and Empire in Global Perspective: An Introduction”, American Historical Review 117 (October 2012) 4, pp. 1092–1100; S. Banner, How the Indians Lost Their Lands, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007; Id., “Why Terra Nullius? Anthropology and Property Law in Early Australia”, Law and History Review 23 (2005) 1, pp. 95–131; P. Seed, “How Globalization Invented Indians in the Caribbean”, in: E. Sansavior and R. Scholar (eds.), Caribbean Globalizations, 1492 to the Present Day, Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2015, pp. 58–82; P. Seed, Ceremonies of Possession in Europe’s Conquest of the New World, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995; Id., “Taking Possession and Reading Texts. Establishing Authority of Overseas Empires”, The William and Mary Quarterly 49 (April 1992) 2, pp. 183–209; L. Benton and L. Ford, Rage for Order, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2016. 71 Benton, Search for Sovereignty, p. 2. 72 See the contributions in Postma and Enthoven (eds.), Riches from Atlantic Commerce; W. Klooster, The Dutch in the Americas, 1600–1800. A Narrative History with the Catalogue of an Exhibition of rare Prints, Maps and illustrated Books from the John Carter Brown Library, Providence: The John Carter Brown Library, 1997, pp. 1–78; Van der Oest, “The Forgotten Colonies of Essequibo and Demerara (1700–1814)”, pp. 323–364; S. Schwartz, “Plantations and Peripheries. c. 1580–c. 1750”, in: L. Bethell (ed.), Colonial Brazil, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987; pp. 67–144; H. B. Johnson, “Portuguese settlement, 1500–1580”, ibid., pp. 1–38; E. Sutton, “Possessing Brazil in Print, 1630–1654”, Journal of Historians of Netherlandish Art 5 (Winter 2013) 1, pp. 1–28; G. Oostindie, Paradise Overseas. The Dutch Caribbean. Colonialism and Transatlantic Legacies, Oxford: Macmillan-Caribbean. 2005, pp. 1–179; R. J. van Lier, Frontier Society. A Social Analysis of the History of Surinam, Den Haag: Nijhoff, 1971; J. Postma, The Dutch in the Atlantic Slave Trade, 1600–1815, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990; H. den Heijer, Geschiedenis van de WIC, Zutphen: Walburg, 2011; Oostindie and Hoefte, “Historiography of Suriname”, p. 615; A. Pérotin-Dumon and S. Mam-Lam-Fouch, “Historiography of the French Antilles and

The “New Historical Scholarship” and the doubtful European “Conquest”

15

in the nineteenth century73 and in result mainly ignored the early colonization stage of the Dutch and Spanish.74 Instead, Caribbean historians had focused on jurisdictional and legal matters, which are in line with Lauren Benton’s global argument of “jurisdictional complexities”.75 Unanimously agreeing that the relation between the Dutch and Indigenous Peoples was characterized by “trade and defence”76 and solidified through presents, postholders, treaties, and agreements,77 both Mary Noel Menezes and Ellen-Rose Kambel and Fergus MacKay have excavated some peace treaties concluded between the Dutch in Berbice and the Arawakan Schotjes in the early 1700s,78 or between Suriname governor Cornelis van Sommelsdijck and (most likely) Carib, Warao, and Arawak in 1684/85, following

French Guyana”, in: Higman (ed.), General History of the Caribbean. Vol. VI, pp. 631–664; W. Marshall and B. Brereton, “Historiography of Barbados, the Windward Islands, Trinidad and Tobago and Guyana”, ibid., pp. 598–603. 73 M. N. Menezes, British Policy towards Amerindians in British Guiana (1803–1873), Georgetown: Caribbean Press, 2011 [1977], pp. 19–308; G. Burnett, Masters of All they Surveyed, Exploration, Geography, and a British El Dorado, Chicago: Chicago University Press, 2000; Id., “It is Impossible to make a Step without the Indians: Nineteenth-Century Geographical Explorations and the Amerindians of British Guiana”, Ethnohistory 49 (Winter 2002) 3, pp. 3–40; W. Rodney, A History of the Guyanese Working People (1881–1905), London: Heinemann, 1981; J. Bulkan, “‘Original Lords of the Soil’? The Erosion of Amerindian Territorial Rights in Guyana”, Environment and History 22 (2016) 3, pp. 351–391; Rivière, Absent-minded Imperialism, pp. 1–224; Id., The Guyana Travels of Robert Schomburgk I and II (1835–1844), Hakluyt Society London: Ashgate, 2006; Id., The Forgotten Frontier: Ranchers of Northern Brazil, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1972; J. Forte (Bulkan) and I. Melville, Amerindian Testimonies, Boise: Boise State University Press, 1989. 74 Notable exceptions from a Eurocentric perspective are C. Goslinga, The Dutch in the Caribbean and the Wild Coast, 1580–1680, Assen: Van Gorcum, 1971; Id., The Dutch in the Caribbean and in the Guianas 1680–1791, Assen: Van Gorcum, 1985; F. Morales-Padrón, Spanish Trinidad, Kingston: Ian Randle, 2014. 75 L. Benton, Law and Colonial Cultures, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002; See also L. Benton, “Historical Perspectives on Legal Pluralism”, Hague Journal on the Rule of Law 3 (2011) 10, pp. 57–69. 76 M. N. Menezes, “The Dutch and British Policy of Indian Subsidy: A System of Annual and Triennial Presents”, Caribbean Studies 13 (October 1973) 3, pp. 64–88, at 66. 77 C. Gravesande, “Amerindian Jurisdiction in the Guiana Territory in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries”, History Gazette 44 (1992), pp. 2–14, at 2; Menezes, “Indian Subsidy”, pp. 66–67; M. N. Menezes, British Policy Towards Amerindians Guiana, 1803–1873, Georgetown: Caribbean Press, 2011 [1977], pp. 67–68; A. Benjamin, “A Preliminary Look at the Free Amerindians and the Dutch Plantation System in Guyana during the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries”, Guyana Historical Journal 4–5 (1992) 3, pp. 1–22, at 4–17. 78 Menezes, British Policy, p. 68; Menezes, “Indian Subsidy”, p. 66. The conclusion of this treaty also entailed the transfer of presents, clothes and furnishings to the Arawak (Gravesande, “Amerindian Jurisdiction”, p. 8).

16

Chapter 1 Introduction

several joint attacks in 1678 in response to the incursion of Dutch colonists into indigenous territories.79 Nevertheless, the content of those treaties remains unknown, despite Dutch “promises that the Indians would not be reduced to slavery”.80 Moreover, Alvin Thompson argues that the Dutch in Essequibo “had very little jurisdiction over the areas beyond the plantations”,81 which is complemented by Caesar Gravesande’s comparative argument that Dutch jurisdiction was “far more widespread than that of the Spanish, at least up to the beginning of the eighteenth century”,82 whereas Indigenous Peoples’ territories in Suriname were, “at least for the first 200 years”, never considered as being situated within Dutch jurisdiction.83 In contrast, legally relevant research about Spanish colonial practices in northeastern South America is marginalized to the debate on Carib cannibalism and related historical documents, such as the logbook (diario) of Christopher Columbus (1492/1493),84 the decree of Queen Isabella I (1503),85 and the report of Rodrigo de Figueroa (1520),86 since cannibalism presented a “just cause” for conquest practices in the legal writings of both Spaniard Francisco de Vitoria (1537/1539)87 and

79 Kambel and MacKay, The Rights of Indigenous Peoples and Maroons in Suriname, Copenhagen: IWGIA, 1999, pp. 51–52. Those treaties were ratified by both “the colonial government as well as by the Minister of Colonies in the Netherlands”. However, the treaties are “reported lost”. Moreover, dissent remains about the contracting indigenous parties, which are indicated either as “Caribs, Arawaks and Waraus” or as “(different groups of) Caribs”, including the Coppename (Condie) Maroons, representing a “group of escaped slaves [. . .] intermarried with Caribs of the Coppename river”. The latter are also determined as “Karbugers or Black Caribs” (ibid., pp. 51–52). 80 Menezes, “Indian Subsidy”, p. 66; Menezes, British Policy, p. 68; Kambel and MacKay, Rights of Indigenous Peoples in Suriname, pp. 51–52. 81 A. Thompson, “Amerindian-European Relations in Dutch Guyana”, in: V. Shepherd and H. Beckles (eds.), Caribbean Slavery in the Atlantic World, Kingston: Ian Randle, 1999, pp. 13–27. 82 Gravesande, “Amerindian Jurisdiction”, p. 11. 83 Kambel and MacKay, Rights of Indigenous Peoples in Suriname, p. 54. 84 P. Hulme, Colonial Encounters, p. 10. For the first time, the cannibalism claims emerged in Columbus’ logbook entry of 23 November 1492 (ibid., pp. 16–17). See Arens, The Man-Eating Myth, p. 44. 85 Queen Isabella I, "Proclamation”, 30 October 1503, in: E. Williams (ed.), Documents of West Indian History Vol. 1, 1492–1655. From the Spanish Discovery to the British Conquest of Jamaica, Port-of -Spain: PNM, 1963, No. 62, pp. 62–63; Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, pp. 172–173; Arens, The Men-Eating Myth, p. 50; Seed, American Pentimento, pp. 62–67; 104; Whitehead, Conquest of the Caribs, p. 310, C. O. Sauer, Early Spanish Main, Berkeley: University of California, 1966, pp. 161–162; N. Whitehead, “Carib Cannibalism. Historical Evidence”, Journal de La Societé des Americanistes 1 (1984) XX, pp. 69–88, at 70; Boomert, Indigenous Peoples of Trinidad and Tobago, p. 85. 86 Whitehead, “Carib Cannibalism”, p. 71; Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, p. 11; Boomert, Indigenous Peoples of Trinidad and Tobago, pp. 85–86. 87 F. Vitoria, “On the Indians Lately Discovered (1537/1539)”, in: A. Pagden and J. Lawrance (eds.), The Political Writings of Francisco de Vitoria, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010, pp. 231–292, at 288, para 15. Accordingly, the Spaniard indicated that Spaniards “in

The “New Historical Scholarship” and the doubtful European “Conquest”

17

Dutchman Hugo Grotius (1609/1625),88 whereas anthropologists agree that the Spanish claims of Carib cannibalism (caribes) are either exacerbated or were completely invented to justify enslavement,89 since “all evidence is weak, circumstantial and largely second-hand”,90 “remarkably sparse”,91 and mainly evidenced by sources of Catholic colonizers (Portuguese, French and Spanish), but almost completely absent from Protestant accounts (Dutch and English).92 Consequently, the term caribes does not equate with Carib-speaking groups, but determines Indigenous Peoples, whom the Spaniards were unable to conquer,93 respectively “who fiercely opposed the Spanish”94 or were “prepared to defend their territory”.95 In line with Lauren Benton’s global argument that there exists just an “incomplete knowledge about the connections between the writings of early modern jurists [and the] law [. . .] applied by imperial agents”,96 this book closes the research gap for northeastern South America by providing a comprehensive and substantial study that comparatively examines both the actual valid European colonial law of the time and the European colonial practices of the Dutch and Spanish to determine the lawfulness of European

lawful defence of the innocent from unjust death, even without the pope’s authority, [. . .] may prohibit the barbarians from practising any nefarious custom or rite” (ibid.). 88 H. Grotius, The Law of War and Peace [De Jure Belli ac Pacis] (1625), Book 1, chapters 1–5, Book 2, chapters 1–26, Book 3, chapters 1–25, https://lonang.com/library/reference/grotiuslaw-war-and-peace/gro-101/ (accessed 7 October 2018); H. Grotius, The Free Sea [Mare Liberum] (1609), in: D. Armitage (ed.), The Free Sea, Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2004, https://scholar. harvard.edu/files/armitage/files/free_sea_ebook.pdf (accessed 18 July 2018). 89 Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Sprit, pp. 5; 59; 172–188; N. Whitehead, “Carib Cannibalism. Historical Evidence”, Journal de La Societé des Americanistes 1 (1984) XX, pp. 69–88, at 74–80; W. Arens, The Man-Eating Myth. Anthropology and Anthropophagy, New York: Oxford University Press, p. 27; R. Myers, “Island Carib Cannibalism”, Nieuwe West-Indische Gids 58 (1984) 3/ 4, pp. 147–184; Boomert, Indigenous Peoples of Trinidad and Tobago, p. 84; Hulme, Colonial Encounters, p. 71. See also Seed, American Pentimento, pp. 94–101; R. Aldrich, Greater France. A History of French Overseas Expansion, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 1996, p. 201. 90 Myers, “Island Carib Cannibalism”, pp. 177–178. 91 Ibid., p. 177. 92 Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Sprit, pp. 5; 59; 172–188; Whitehead, “Carib Cannibalism”, pp. 74–80; Seed, American Pentimento, pp. 94–101, Boomert, Indigenous Peoples of Trinidad and Tobago, p. 84–86; R. Aldrich, Greater France. A History of French Overseas Expansion, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 1996, p. 201; W. Arens, The Man-Eating Myth. Anthropology and Anthropophagy, New York: Oxford University Press, p. 27. 93 Arens, The Man-Eating Myth, p. 49, Boomert, Indigenous Peoples of Trinidad and Tobago, pp. 84–86; Myers, “Island Carib Cannibalism”, pp. 147–184; Whitehead, “Carib Cannibalism”, p. 78. 94 Boomert, Indigenous Peoples of Trinidad and Tobago, pp. 85–86. 95 Hulme, Colonial Encounters, p. 71. 96 Benton, Search for Sovereignty, p. 55.

18

Chapter 1 Introduction

colonial appropriation practices in northeastern South America between 1498 and 1817. Moreover, the book invokes the intertemporal law rule, implying that “juridical” facts had to be examined “in the light of the law contemporary with it”,97 while “the effect of an act is to be determined by the law of the time when it was done”,98 to present a spatio-legal argument for the restitution of unlawfully taken historical territories during Dutch and Spanish colonization in northeastern South America as reparation for Indigenous Peoples, which stands in stark contrast to the claims of international law scholar Stephen Allen, who refers to the same rule and UNDRIP Article 28 of Indigenous Peoples’ rights to past territories to claim, on unsubstantial historical grounds, that “if many indigenous peoples were subjugated and dispossessed by European colonial powers without [sic!] offending the principle of intertemporal law, as was the (self-serving) view adopted by the international law of the time, the argument of reparations is substantially weakened”.99 This resonates with the tendency of a general departure of international law scholars from historical arguments since the UNDRIP adoption in 2007 by switching from historical-political

97 UN, “Award in the Island of Palmas (Miangas) Case (Netherlands vs. USA)”, 4 April 1928, http://legal.un.org/riaa/cases/vol_II/829-871.pdf pp. 829–871, at 845 (accessed 7 October 2018). At the same time, some human rights-based arguments of international law scholars are challenging the applicability of the rule, as the right to self-determination would forge “exceptions to or alters the doctrines of effectiveness and intertemporal law, since pursuant to the principle of selfdetermination, the international community has deemed illegitimate historical patterns giving rise to colonial rule and has promoted corresponding remedial measures, irrespective of the effective control exercised by the colonial power and notwithstanding the law contemporaneous with the historical colonial patterns” (Anaya, Indigenous Peoples in International Law, p. 107). In addition, Jérémie Gilbert argues that “(b)ecause the consequences of such a legacy are still at the centre of indigenous peoples’ dispossession, it is possible to maintain that such rules of dispossession should be put in perspective with contemporary human rights law in the sense that international law deals with past wrongs, as long as they have current, ongoing effects” (J. Gilbert, “Historical Indigenous Peoples’ Land Claims: A Comparative and International Approach to the Common Law Doctrine on Indigenous Title”, International and Comparative Law Quarterly 56 (July 2007), pp. 583–612, at 592). 98 R. Jennings, The Acquisition of Territory in International Law, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1963, p. 28; A. d’Amato, “International Law, Intertemporal Problems”, Encyclopedia of Public International Law 2 (1992), pp. 1234–1236, at 1234; Corntassel and Primeau, “Indigenous ‘Sovereignty’”, p. 69; Gilbert, Indigenous Peoples’ Land Rights, pp. 40. In this context, Jennings identifies two aspects of the intertemporal law rule, namely that first of all “acts must be assessed against the law of the time they were performed” and “secondly that the claimant must, if one may so express it, keep up with the law, in order to maintain his title” (Jennings, Acquisition of Territory, p. 29). 99 Allen, “Limits”, pp. 240–241; F. Lenzerini (Rapporteur), “Reparations, Redress and Remedies”, in: International Law Association, The Hague Conference (2010). Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 2010, pp. 39–43, at 41.

The “New Historical Scholarship” and the doubtful European “Conquest”

19

conceptualizations of “parallel sovereignty”100 to “authentic sovereignty”,101 disconnected definitions of Indigenous Peoples from the experience of European colonization102 and advanced general human rights-based arguments.103

100 F. Lenzerini, “Sovereignty Revisited”, pp. 163–175; J. Gilbert, Indigenous Peoples’ Land Rights, pp. 171–245; P. Macklem, “Indigenous Recognition in International Law: Theoretical Observations”, Michigan Journal of International Law 30 (2008) 1, pp. 177–210, at 202–203; 209; P. Macklem, “Distributing Sovereignty: Indian Nations and Equality of Peoples”, Stanford Law Review 45 (May 1993), pp. 1311–1367. 101 S. Wiessner, “The Cultural Rights of Indigenous Peoples: Achievements and Continuing Challenges”, The European Journal of International Law 22 (February 2011) 1, pp. 121–139; Id., “Indigenous Sovereignty”, pp. 1174–1175; Id., “Indigenous Self-Determination, Culture, and Land: A Reassessment in Light of the 2007 UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples”, in: Pulitano (ed.), Indigenous Rights, pp. 31–64; S. Wiessner, “Rights and Status of Indigenous Peoples: A Global Comparative and International Legal Perspective”, Harvard Human Rights Journal 12 (1999), pp. 57–128. In general, Siegfried Wiessner uncritically assumes that “(c)olonial conquest” was applied as practice and successfully carried out by Europeans (Wiessner, “UNDRIP”, pp. 1–7). For a differentiation of Indigenous Peoples, Minorities and Indigenous Sovereignty, see the thoughtful contributions of J. Castellino and J. Gilbert, “SelfDetermination, Indigenous Peoples and Minorities”, Macquarie Law Journal 3 (2003), pp. 155–178; M. Åhrén, “The Provisions on Lands, Territories and Natural Resources in the UN Declaration”, pp. 201–202; T. Alfred, “Sovereignty – An Inappropriate Concept”, in: R. Maaka and C. Andersen (eds.), Indigenous Experience: Global Perspectives, Toronto: Canadian Scholars, 2006, pp. 322–337; P. Wheatley, “Conceptualizing the Authority of the Sovereign State over Indigenous Peoples”, Leiden Journal of International Law 27 (June 2014), pp. 371–396; J. Corntassel and T. H. Primeau, “Indigenous ‘Sovereignty’”, pp. 52–72; P. Keal, “Indigenous Sovereignty”, in: T. Jacobsen, C. Sampford, and R. C. Thakur (eds.), Re-Envisioning Sovereignty. The End of Westphalia?, Hampshire: Ashgate, 2008, pp. 315–330; P. Keal, European Conquest and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003; Pitty and Smith, “Indigenous Challenge”, pp. 121–139; T. Moore, “Indivisible Sovereignty: A Reply to Pitty and Smith”, Australian Journal of Political Science 46 (September 2011) 3, pp. 551–553. 102 J. Anaya, “Indigenous Peoples and International Law Issues”, p. 96; C. Iorns Magallane, “Understanding the Term Indigenous Peoples”, in: International Law Association, The Hague Conference (2010). Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 2010, pp. 7–8. Instead, the well-known definition of the UN Cobo Report of 1983 had determined Indigenous Peoples’ occupation of “precolonial” territories and “historical continuity” as essential criteria for grasping the contemporary reality of Indigenous Peoples (UN, “Jose R. Martinez Cobo Report III: Conclusions, Proposals and Recommendations”, 30 September 1983, E/Cn.4/Sub.2/1983/21/Add.8, para. 381). For a differentiation between Indigenous Peoples and “indigenism”, see R. Niezen, The Origins of Indigenism, Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008; R. Niezen, “The New Politics of Resistance”, in: R. Maaka and C. Andersen (eds.), Indigenous Experience: Global Perspectives, Toronto: Canadian Scholars, 2006, pp. 286–307. 103 Instead, the debate before the adoption of UNDRIP was equally structured by arguments, which were (1) based on historical sovereignty by invoking the prior sovereignty of Indigenous Peoples as a source to “posit indigenous peoples as states, or something like states, within a

20

Chapter 1 Introduction

Unlawfully Taken Historical Territories and the Caribbean Reparation Debate Finally, the book aims to bring the argument of the historically unlawfully taken indigenous territories into the Caribbean reparations debate that was initiated by 14 CARICOM states in October 2013 and had tabled reparations claims for slavery and colonial genocide against former European colonizers of the United Kingdom, France, the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Spain, and Portugal,104 after counter-arguments of the lapse of time105 or vanished responsibility106 were denied by Courts in London and The Hague in the cases of Mau Mau in Kenia (Mutua & Others vs. Foreign and Commonwealth Office of

perceived post-Westphalian world”, claiming “reparations for historical injustices” and consulting “(t)he rules of international law relating to the appropriation and transfer of territory by and among states [. . .] to demonstrate the illegitimacy of the assault on indigenous sovereignty and derivative rights over lands and natural resources” and (2) historically informed arguments, which apply historical narratives in order to emphasize “the origins and historical continuity of present day oppression” to raise subsequent claims for remedies (historically informed human rights-based arguments) (J. Anaya, “Divergent Discourses About International Law, Indigenous Peoples, and Rights over Lands and Natural Resources”, Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law and Policy 16 [2005] 2, pp. 237–258, at 241; J. Anaya, “SelfDetermination in the Post-Declaration Era”, pp. 189–190; B. Kingsbury, “Reconciling Five Conceptual Approaches to Indigenous Peoples’ Claims in International and Comparative Law”, NYU Journal of International Law and Politics 34 [2001] 1, pp. 189–250). For human rights-based arguments, see Stavenhagen, “Making the Declaration Work”, p. 352; Id., The Emergence of Indigenous Peoples, Berlin: Springer, 2013; J. Gilbert, “Land Rights as Human Rights: The Case for a Specific Right to Land”, SUR International Journal On Human Rights 10 (June 2013) 18, pp. 115–135. 104 T. Leonard and S. Tomlinson, “Fourteen Caribbean nations sue Britain, Holland and France for Slavery Reparations that could cost Hundreds of Billions of Pounds”, Daily Mail, 10 October 2013. 105 Agence France-Press (AFP) “Dutch Apology for Indonesian Colonial Atrocities opens old Wounds”, Straits Times, 1 May 2014; M. Garschagen “In Rawagede was de Rivier rood (The River was Red in Rawagede)”, www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2016/03/26/in-rawagede-was-de-rivier-rood -1601456-a1328666, 26 March 2016. 106 Accordingly, the Swedish Ambassador to the Caribbean, Claes Hammar, stated that “the question is what sort of compensation could be offered”, as “[t]here are no survivors from that period, only their descendants” (“Sweden open to possibilities reparations claim”, Jamaica Observer, 18 December 2013). By contrast, the Netherlands Minister Lodewijk Asscher in December 2013 asserted “that people today cannot be held responsible for what their forefathers did, and that the Dutch Government views the ‘stain of shame on its history with deep regret’” (ibid.).

Unlawfully Taken Historical Territories and the Caribbean Reparation Debate

21

5 October 2012)107 and Rawagedeh in Indonesia (Wisah Binti Silan et al. vs. The Netherlands of 14 September 2011),108 which instead held the Netherlands and United Kingdom responsible for the committed colonial crimes, although former UK Prime Minster David Cameron had still in 2015 repeated the United Kingdom’s “long-standing position”109 that “we do not believe reparations is the right approach”.110 Thereupon, the Caribbean states in November 2015 brought their claims before the Permanent Council of the Organization of American States (OAS),111 which were renewed by the CARICOM Reparations Commission in June 2020.112 While former European colonizers continue to cite the intertemporal law rule, such as in the case of Nama and Ovaherero vs. Germany at the New York Southern District Court in January 2017,113 and argue with “impracticability” and “denial”114

107 In result, the United Kingdom was sentenced to pay £ 19.9 million “in costs and compensation to more than 5,000 elderly Kenyans who suffered torture and abuse” in the Mau Mau uprising between 1952–1963, including the Hola Massacre of 1959 during British colonization (Press Association, “UK to compensate Kenya’s MauMau torture victims”, The Guardian, 6 June 2013). See also Leigh Day, “Mutua & Others v Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mau Mau case)”, 5 October 2012. 108 The Hague District Court had convicted the Dutch government to pay compensation to the widows of those killed in the Rawagedeh massacre of 1947 in Java, based on the reasoning that the former colonizer was responsible for the killing of 431 Indonesians during the Dutch colonial operations (AFP, “Dutch Apology for Indonesian Colonial Atrocities opens old Wounds”, 1 May 2014). 109 This was articulated by former Premier David Cameroon during a visit in Jamaica in 2015 (R. Mason, “‘Jamaica should ‘move on from Painful Legacy of Slavery’, says Cameron”, 30 September 2015). 110 By contrast, the Chairman of the Caribbean Reparation Commission and UWI VicePresident had revealed that an ancestor of Cameron was a slave-owner in Jamaica, who had benefited from the compensation paid by the UK for 202 freed African slaves after the abolition of slavery in English colonies in 1833 (ibid.). 111 OAS, “OAS Heard Claim for Native Genocide and African Slave Trade”, 6 November 2015, Press Release No. E-334/15, www.oas.org/en/media_center/press_release.asp?sCodigo=E-334/ 15 (accessed 18 September 2018). 112 J. Duncley, “Caribbean renew reparations call”, 26 June 2020, Caricom Today. 113 W. Kaleck, “Worauf wartest Du, Deutschland?”, Der Spiegel, 28 August 2018; B. Ziegs, “Die juristische Auseinandersetzung mit dem Kolonialismus”, Deutschlandfunk Kultur, 27 August 2018. In this case, the Nama and Herero claim reparation from Germany for the “first Genocide in the twentieth century” (J. Zimmerer, “Habitus der Kolonialherren”, Süddeutsche Zeitung, 24 January 2018). See H. Taylor, “US Court hears Case against Germany over Namibia Genocide”, Al Jazeera, 31 July 2018; R. Noack “The German Government still refuses to recognize one of its ‘genocides’”, The Washington Post, 9 June 2016. 114 J. MacKenzie, “Reparations for Britain’s Atlantic Slave Trade Would be Impracticable”, New York Times, 8 October 2015.

22

Chapter 1 Introduction

to counter substantial reparation arguments of unjust enrichment115 and unjust impoverishment,116 this book moves out of denial by facing the “difficult questions” about the European colonial past that “Europeans prefer to avoid”.117 Instead, it aims to shed light on the European colonial shadow of the past by providing an innovative and substantial historical examination of the lawfulness of Spanish and Dutch colonial practices in the “historical Caribbean”118 (see Figure 1) that provides a foundation for the precise determination of reparation claims for

Figure 1: Sketch-map of the Research Area in the Historical Caribbean (Johannes De Laet, 1630).

115 S. Tharoor, “Britain Does Owe Reparations”, Oxford Union, 28 May 2015. 116 J. Feagin, “A Legal and Moral Basis for Reparations”, Time, 28 May 2014; G. Collste, “Caribbean colony may seek reparations for Swedish slavery”, 12 March 2014. 117 J. Hickel, “Enough of Aid – Let’s Talk Reparations”, The Guardian, 27 November 2015. 118 I. Wallerstein, “The Caribbean and the World-System”, Caribbean Dialogue 8 (2002) 3, pp. 15–30, at 15; P. Hulme, Colonial Encounters, Europe and the Native Caribbean, 1492–1797, London: Methuen, 1986, p. 3; G. Lewis, Main Currents in Caribbean Thought. The Historical Evolution of Caribbean Society in its Ideological Aspects. 1492–1900, Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1983, p. 2.

Unlawfully Taken Historical Territories and the Caribbean Reparation Debate

23

the unlawfully taken historical territories of the Indigenous Peoples of northeastern South America in the time period 1498–1817. Hence, this book advances an innovative global spatio-legal history approach in a double comparative manner,119 namely as a comparison of the European colonial laws of the time, as provided by several Papal Bulls120 and the two most-influential legal colonial writings during the initial European colonization in the Americas, penned by the Spaniard Francisco Vitoria (“On the Indians Lately Discovered”, 1537/39121 and “On the Law of War”, 1539) (chapter 3) and Dutchman Hugo Grotius (Mare Liberum, 1609 and De Jure Belli ac Pacis, 1625) (chapter 8), and a comparative examination of the European colonial appropriation practices of the Spanish (chapters 4–7) and Dutch (chapters 9–12) in northeastern South America. Therefore, this book is built upon an extensive and voluminous historical record, containing more than 1,700 documents and 76 historical maps, which were compiled for the Boundary Arbitration between Venezuela and British Guiana (Award of October 1899),122 covering the time period 1593–1892 (BC, BRC, VEN, BB3), whose main body was discovered at the Stellenbosch University Library in 2014, after an exploratory fieldwork in northeastern South America in 2013. To close spatial and timely gaps, these sources are complemented by historical records of the National Archive of Trinidad and Tobago (NATT), which were excavated during archival work in Port-of-Spain in 2017, the Archivo General de Indias in Seville (AGI), the Nationaal Archief in The Hague (HaNA), the Lilian Goldman Law Library in New Haven (Avalon), Bibliotheca Albertina in Leipzig (UBL), the National Archives of Kew (TNA), and the British Library in London (BL). With an historical narrative from the Indigenous Peoples perspective (oral traditions) on the European colonial past still pending,123 these European colonial sources have been studied mindfully, vigilantly, and critically, and the

119 J. Zollmann, “German Colonial Law and Comparative Law”, in: T. Duve (ed.), Entanglements in Legal History: Conceptual Approaches, Global Perspectives on Legal History, Frankfurt/Main: Max Planck Institute for European Legal History, 2014, pp. 253–294, at 255. 120 Inter Caetera I, Inter Caetera II, Eximinae devotionis and Dudum siquidem (chapter 3). 121 According to Anthony Pagden and Jeremy Lawrence, the lecture was held between 1537–1538, “but was not delivered until 1539” (A. Pagden and J. Lawrence, “Introduction”, in: A. Pagden and J. Lawrance (eds.), The Political Writings of Francisco de Vitoria, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010, p. 231). Alternative titles are “On the American Indians” or “De Indis”. 122 UN, Award regarding the Boundary between the Colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela, 3 October 1899, http://legal.un.org/riaa/cases/vol_XXVIII/331-340.pdf (accessed 19 August 2018). 123 Hulme, Colonial Encounters, pp. 15; 57; P. Seed, “On Caribbean Shores: Problems of Writing History of the First Contact”, Radical History Review 53 (1992), pp. 5–11, at 5.

24

Chapter 1 Introduction

results presented in a chronological spatial manner to examine European colonial practices in interaction with the various Indigenous Peoples of northeastern South America to avoid a Eurocentric perspective, as the historical sources are comprising Spanish and Dutch diplomatic dispatches and correspondences, journal entries, letters, reports, minutes of juridical proceedings, royal orders, decrees, and resolutions, penned by various actors, such as the King of Spain, the Prince of Orange, the States-General of the United Provinces, the Council of the Indies, the West India Company in Zeeland and Amsterdam, WIC Shareholders (The Ten), Spanish and Dutch ambassadors and envoys, Spanish governors of Cumaná, Caracás, Santo Tomé and San Joseph, marqués, treasurers, captains, cabildos, prefects of missions, the Dutch director-general of Essequibo, Courts of Policy and Justice, commanders of Essequibo and Demerara, councillors, fiscals, colonists, plantation managers and postholders and also includes relevant bilateral treaties, such as Münster (1648), Utrecht (1713), Madrid (1750), and London (1814). Focused on the lawfulness of European colonial practices in the historical Caribbean, the spatio-legal argument of the book is built upon the comparison of both the European colonial laws of the time and the colonial appropriation practices of the Spanish and Dutch in northeastern South America in the time period 1498–1817. Hence, the book opens with an extensive literature review about European colonial laws and practices in the Americas (chapter 2). Based on the dispel of several persistent myths about the valid European colonial laws during the initial stage of European colonization, the book then unfolds as a double comparative study of both Spanish and Dutch colonial laws (chapters 3 and 8) and a chronologically and spatially ordered examination of the colonial practices of the Spanish (chapters 4–7) and Dutch (chapters 9–12) from 1498 until 1817 in northeastern South America. The final chapter 13 presents the research results in the context of the still unresolved historical boundary dispute between Venezuela and Guyana and demands the establishment of an effective mechanism to return Indigenous Peoples’ historical territories as reparation for unlawful European colonial practices within the frameworks of the CARICOM reparation claims and UNDRIP-based practices at the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR).

Chapter 2 European Colonial Law and Appropriation Practices in the Americas In response to the discussed generalized claims of intertemporal law advocates, this chapter uncovers the persistent myths about the valid European colonial law during the initial stage of European colonization. Based on the systematic examination of an extensive body of historical literature from various research perspectives, such as intellectual legal history, comparative legal and global history and ethnohistory, the chapter provides a substantial overview about the initial European colonial law, which serves as a starting point to ascertain the lawfulness of colonial appropriation practices in northeastern South America and adjacent islands. For the yet inconclusive period, the chapter examines both research results about the respective European colonial legal writings and insights about the practical application of those legal provisions, which is based on an adapted approach of Anthony D’Amato, who argues that colonial practices are inheriting an “important probative value” in identifying the actually valid European colonial legal provisions at the time.1 In result, the chapter offers a grounded and differentiated account on the European colonial law, which was valid during the initial European colonization in the Americas and, hereby, identifies occupation as a significant, but mainly overlooked, legal means of colonial appropriation and demystifies unsubstantial assumptions about the validity of terra nullius and discovery.

Many European Laws of Nation First of all, historians unanimously agree that there was no universal European colonial law in place until the late nineteenth century.2 Instead, several “laws

1 D’Amato, “International Law, Intertemporal Problems”, p. 1234. 2 A. Anghie, “Finding the Peripheries: Sovereignty and Colonialism in Nineteenth-Century International Law”, Harvard International Law Journal 40 (1999) 1, pp. 3–71, at 3–4; B. Clavero, Freedom’s Law and Indigenous Rights: From Europe’s Oeconomy to the Constitutionalism of the Americas, Berkeley: University of California School of Law/Boalt Hall, 2005, p. 86; A. Anghie, “The Evolution of International Law: Colonial and Postcolonial Realities”, Third World Quarterly 27 (2006) 5, pp. 739–753, at 739; 751; A. Pagden, The Burdens of Empire. 1539 to Present, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015, Preface; A. Pagden, “Law, Colonization, Legitimation, and the European Background”, in: M. Grossberg and C. Tomlins (eds.), The Cambridge History of https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110690149-002

26

Chapter 2 European Colonial Law and Appropriation Practices in the Americas

of nations” emerged in different places across Europe at various points of time. Accordingly, the sixteenth century was dominated by the legal considerations of a Spanish theologian from the School of Salamanca, namely Francisco de Vitoria (De Indis Noviter Inventis, 1532; 1537/1539) and De Jure Belli Hispanorum in Barbaros, 1532; 1537/1539),3 who was perceived “as one of the earliest writers on international law”,4 along with his contemporary Alberico Gentili, a Protestant Professor from Oxford University (De Jure Belli Libri, 1588/89),5 whose trilogy had “represented the first comprehensive treatment by an English jurist of the law of war in the new style – that is, in the style known today as the Law of Nations”, which Gentili had detached from the theological foundations. Therefore, the Italian “performed important spadework” for the “fully elaborated” account of Dutchman Hugo Grotius.6 Furthermore, relevant legal considerations emerged in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth century with the papal bulls Inter Caetera I and II of Pope Alexander VI of 1493,7 the Treaty of Tordesillas

Law in America, Vol. I, Early America (1580–1815), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008, pp. 1–31. More precisely, Anthony Pagden indicates that the “laws of nations” of Spaniard Vitoria would have had predominantly emerged in the context of Spain (Pagden, Burdens of Empire, Preface), whereas Antony Anghie argues more general “that the Colonial Encounters, far from being peripheral to the making of international law, has been central to the formation of the discipline”, the international law would be “a consequence of the imperial expansion” (Anghie, “Finding the Peripheries”, pp. 3–4) and the “non-European world” would present “a continuing preoccupation of international law from its Vitorian beginnings” (Anghie, “The Evolution of International Law”, p. 751). 3 Williams, The American Indian in Western Legal Thought, pp. 93–103; 167–172. See Pagden, The Burdens of Empire, p. 1–44; Fitzmaurice, Sovereignty, Property, pp. 40–51; 58; Anghie, “The Evolution of International Law”, p. 742; Anghie, Imperialism, Sovereignty, pp. 13–31; Doyle, Title to Territory, pp. 27–33; Gilbert, Indigenous Peoples’ Land Rights, pp. 9–13; R. Miller, “The International Law of Colonialism: A Comparative Analysis. Symposium about The Future of International Law in Indigenous Affairs: The Doctrine of Discovery, the United Nations, and the Organization of American States”, Lewis Clark Law Review 15 (2012) 4, pp. 847–922, at 860; A. Pagden, Spanish Imperialism and the Political Imagination: Studies in European and SpanishAmerican Social and Political Theory 1513–1830, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998, p. 16; A. Pagden, “Dispossessing the Barbarian. The Language of Spanish Thomism and the Debate over the Property Rights of the American Indians”, in: A. Pagden (ed.) The Languages of Political Theory in Early-Modern Europe, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987, pp. 79–98; A. Pagden, “The Struggle for Legitimacy and the Image of Empire in the Atlantic to c. 1700”, in: N. Canny (ed.), The Origins of Empire, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998, pp. 34–54. 4 Miller, “International Law of Colonialism”, p. 860. 5 Williams, Western Legal Thought, pp. 170; 195–199 6 Pagden, Burdens of Empire, pp. 139; 153–173; 75–96. 7 Miller, “International Law of Colonialism”, p. 859. See Lenzerini, “Sovereignty Revisited”, p. 164; Williams, Western Legal Thought, pp. 80–81, Fitzmaurice, Sovereignty, Property, p. 8.

Many European Laws of Nation

27

(1494), the Laws of Burgos (1512), and the well-known Valladolid debate between Bartolomé de las Casas and Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda (1550/1551),8 while the main law of nations of the seventeenth century was penned by Hugo Grotius (Mare Liberum, 1609 and De Iure Belli Ac Pacis, 1625), which emerged along with the legal writings of his contemporaries Samuel von Pufendorf (German), Serafim de Freitas (Portuguese)9 and Englishman John Locke (Two Treatises of Government, 1689/90),10 whose “understanding of property and labour” is commonly treated as “the dominant justification for colonization in America”,11 although his improvement or “agriculturalist” argument12 was only sparsely practically applied in North America until the second half of the eighteen century,13 when the Swiss Emer de Vattel (Le Droit des Gens, 1758)14 had promoted the shift from natural to positivist law, which evolved until the Berlin Act of the eponymous Conference of 1884/85.15 Despite the most recent arguments of global and comparative legal historians, who had uncovered that “jurisdictional complexities” had prevailed during the initial stage of European colonization “in multiple forms” by including nonEuropean actors in their historical examinations,16 the majority of intellectual legal historians is still focused on the investigation of European colonial law,

8 Williams, Western Legal Thought, pp. 173–175; 83–89; Fitzmaurice, Sovereignty, Property, p. 8; Miller, “International Law of Colonialism”, p. 859; Doyle, Title to Territory, pp. 32–37; Gilbert, Indigenous Peoples’ Land Rights, pp. 11–12; Pagden, Spanish Imperialism, pp. 14–16. 9 Pagden, Burdens of Empire, pp. 137; 153–173; Gilbert, Indigenous Peoples’ Land Rights, pp. 12–13; 23; 45; 59; Doyle, Title to Territory, pp. 38; 42–43; Banner, How the Indians Lost Their Land, pp. 16; 36; Fitzmaurice, Sovereignty, Property, p. 52; Anghie, Imperialism, Sovereignty, p. 13. 10 D. Armitage, “John Locke, Carolina, and The Two Treatises of Government”, Political Theory 32 (2004) 5, pp. 602–627. D. Armitage, The Ideological Origins of the British Empire, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004, p. 97. See Seed, American Pentimento, pp. 38–39; B. Arneil, John Locke and America: The Defence of English Colonialism, Oxford: Clarendon, 1996; Banner, How the Indians Lost Their Land, pp. 39; 43–48; Gilbert, Indigenous Peoples’ Land Rights, p. 89; Doyle, Title to Territory, p. 43; Fitzmaurice, Sovereignty, Property, pp. 24–25; P. Corcoran, John Locke on the Possession of Land: Native Title vs. the ‘Principle’ of Vacuum domicilium, Adelaide: University of Adelaide, 2007, pp. 8–9. 11 Fitzmaurice, Sovereignty, Property, p. 24. 12 Pagden, “Struggle for Legitimacy”, p. 43. 13 Banner, How the Indians Lost Their Land, pp. 43–48; 58; 80–81; 152; 157–158; Washburn, “Moral and Legal Justifications”, p. 23. Instead, Paul Corcoran refers to the overlooked chapters “on conquest, usurpation and tyranny” to even argue that John Locke is presenting “a robust defence of native rights to lands and possessions, rights that survive to succeeding generations” and would remain even in the case of a “just conquest” (Corcoran, John Locke, pp. 3–4). 14 Doyle, Title to Territory, pp. 43–44; Gilbert, Indigenous Peoples’ Land Rights, p. 23. 15 Fitzmaurice, Sovereignty, Property, pp. 28–29; 276–284; Doyle, Title to Territory, pp. 52–56. 16 Benton, Search for Sovereignty, p. 36.

28

Chapter 2 European Colonial Law and Appropriation Practices in the Americas

which legally bounds the practices of European colonial actors, but logically not Indigenous Peoples prior to a successful implementation of the respectively valid legal colonial means of appropriation in areas outside of Europe. In general, the main focus of the scholarly attention is, hereby, concentrated on three main legal doctrines, namely terra nullius, discovery, and conquest, which are, hereafter, examined in their original meaning and practical application in the light of their identified counterparts of treaty making, occupation, and “conquest” based on an “unjustly” waged war.

Terra Nullius vs. Treaty Making The doctrine of terra nullius in the sense of “land without owners”,17 “vacancy (vacuum domicilum)” or “absence of ownership”18 constitutes the most persistent legal myth in the story of European colonization, as both Francisco de Vitoria and Hugo Grotius in the sixteenth and seventeenth century had – in contrast to the common contemporary perception – actually dismissed the doctrine and its variants as lawful means of European colonial appropriation. Accordingly, intellectual legal historians nem con agree19 that Francisco de Vitoria had never applied terra or res nullius as legal means of European appropriation, but had in 1532 instead introduced the term fera bestiae to establish the opposite argument, namely that Indigenous Peoples had already taken the lands by occupation in the Americas, wherefore the Spanish appropriation based on the assumption of res nullius is unlawful.20 Furthermore, Vitoria clearly indicated that Indigenous Peoples “were rightful rulers [. . .] and must be treated as such”, while they also “undoubtedly possessed [. . .] true dominion, both public and private, as any Christians”.21 Correspondingly, Grotius also rejected the mere assumption of res nullius as legal means of appropriation by arguing that the appropriation of

17 L. Benton and B. Straumann, “Acquiring Empire by Law: From Roman Doctrine to Early Modern European Practice”, Law and History Review 28 (February 2010) 1, pp. 1–38, at 1. 18 Armitage, Ideological Origins, p. 97. 19 A. Fitzmaurice, “The Genealogy of Terra Nullius”, Australian Historical Studies 38 (2007) 129, pp. 1–15, at 6; Fitzmaurice, Sovereignty, Property, p. 49; A. Fitzmaurice, “Moral Uncertainty in the Dispossession of Native Americans”, in: P. Mancall (ed.), The Atlantic World and Virginia, 1550–1624, Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 2008, pp. 383–409 at 384; Pagden, “Dispossessing the Barbarian”, p. 80; Doyle, Title to Territory, p. 28; Gilbert, Indigenous Peoples Land Rights, p. 9; Williams, Western Legal Thought, p. 100. 20 Fitzmaurice, “Genealogy of Terra Nullius”, pp. 6–7. 21 J. Capizzi, “The Children of God Natural Slavery in the Thought of Aquinas and Vitoria”, Theological Studies 63 (2002), pp. 31–52, at 39.

Terra Nullius vs. Treaty Making

29

property based “on the notion that merely because somebody takes something [implies that] it becomes hers or his” does present “theft”, wherefore legal colonial appropriation consequently requires the consent of Indigenous Peoples thereto by the conclusion of agreements and treaties. Consistently, Grotius had in 1609 clearly recognized that “the East Indies were in the possession of their native rulers” and were, therefore, not [sic!] res nullius.22 Afterwards, the term res nullius was mainly applied in this “spirit” until the nineteenth century23 and manifested as “a common concept in the law of nations” during the eighteenth century.24 Those legal foundations are to be carefully distinguished from the application of the term res nullius by English colonists to justify their (unlawful) practices, who – most notably in breach with the contemporary colonial law and by twisting the original legal meaning – attempted to justify their settlements in North America based on the unsubstantial claim that the respective area would have been “uninhabited” or “vacant land” during the seventeenth century,25 such as for example in the case of New Jersey.26 Those justificatory practices had served as the foundation for (unsubstantial) claims that res nullius “was widely alluded to by the English during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries”27 and had taken some intellectual and comparative colonial law historians to the retrospective reasoning that the English would have had in general “legitimize[d] their settlements” based on variants of res nullius,28 or to even draw the conclusion that the English would have had “developed” the doctrine.29 In contrast, Anthony Pagden points out that the doctrine “was never formally adopted by the Crown”,30 whereas the legal insufficiency of the mere claim of res nullius is likewise confirmed by the English acquisition practice of concluding purchase agreements with Indigenous Peoples in North America, which are well-documented by the illuminating study of colonial legal historian

22 D. Armitage, “Introduction”, in: D. Armitage (ed.), Hugo Grotius. The Free Sea, Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2004, pp. xi–xxi, at xv. See also Doyle, Title to Territory, p. 42; Pagden, “Dispossessing the Barbarian”, pp. 80–81; Fitzmaurice, Sovereignty, Property, pp. 98–99. 23 Fitzmaurice, “Genealogy of Terra Nullius”, pp. 8–9. 24 Fitzmaurice, Sovereignty, Property, p. 256. 25 Fitzmaurice, “Genealogy of Terra Nullius”, pp. 8–9. 26 Miller, “International Law of Colonialism”, p. 903. 27 Pagden, Burdens of Empire, p. 135. 28 Pagden, Lords of All the World, p. 76. Alternatively, it was claimed that “(f)rom the 1620s to the 1680s in Britain, and then in North America, Australia and Africa well into the nineteenth century [res nullius became] a standard foundation for English [. . .] dispossession of Indigenous Peoples” (Armitage, Ideological Origins, p. 97). 29 Miller, “International Law of Colonialism”, p. 864. 30 Pagden, Burdens of Empire, pp. 135.

30

Chapter 2 European Colonial Law and Appropriation Practices in the Americas

Stuart Banner for both the seventeenth and eighteenth century, such as in the cases of John Cotton (1634), the visiting Royal Commission (1665) in Massachusetts, William Penn in Pennsylvania (1681), and William Cosby in New York (1701, 1733, 1774 and 1790).31 In the landmark ethnomethodological account of Francis Jennings determined as “deed game”,32 the first codified written English purchase practice was carried out in Massachusetts in 1634,33 which was followed by written purchase agreements concluded with Indigenous Peoples in Connecticut (1644, 1662),34 New Plymouth (1647),35 New York (since 1664),36 Carolina (1663),37 Pennsylvania (1685), and New Jersey (1687)38 and adopted from the Dutch, after a dispute with the same in the early 1630s,39 since the Dutch had concluded a first purchase agreement with the Lenape of Manhattan already in 1626.40 This was based on the instruction of the West India Company (WIC) in 1625, which had ordered the Dutch in North America “that Indian claims to land should be extinguished by persuasion or purchase”, since “such contracts upon other occasions may be very useful to the Company”.41 The Dutch then continued to conclude purchase agreements with Indigenous Peoples, such as the well-

31 Banner, How the Indians Lost Their Land, p. 33; 44–45; 116; 303, footnote 44. 32 Jennings, Invasion of America, p. 128. 33 Banner, How the Indians Lost Their Land, p. 27. 34 Ibid., pp. 34; 60. This refers to the sale of an area in the vicinity of the Connecticut river by Chief Bucksham (ibid., p. 60), whereas another purchase agreement relates to an area between the Connecticut and Massachusetts rivers included “more than three hundred square miles” (ibid., p. 34). In this context, Stuart Banner emphasizes that the agreement itself “says nothing about whether, from the Indians’ point of view, the transactions were voluntary in any meaningful sense, or whether the Indians interpreted the sales the same way the English did, or whether the Indians were sometimes defrauded by individual settlers or even by colonial governments, or whether the prices were fair” (ibid., p. 12). Moreover, Stuart Banner likewise refers to the many cases of purchase agreements, which were concluded without [sic!] the consent of the Chief Sachem of the respective Indigenous People (ibid., p. 75). 35 Jennings, The Invasion of America, p. 133. 36 Banner, How the Indians Lost Their Land, pp. 24–25. 37 Ibid. By contrast, Francis Jennings points out that “(e)ach colony experimented in its own way and at its own rate of progress” (Jennings, Invasion of America, p. 132). 38 Banner, How the Indians Lost Their Land, pp. 24–25. 39 Jennings, Invasion of America, p. 133–134; Banner, How the Indians Lost Their Lands, p. 19. 40 Banner, How the Indians Lost Their Land, p. 75. 41 WIC, “Instructions of 1625”, in Jennings, Invasion of America, p. 132. See J. Schiltkamp, “On Common Ground. Legislation, Government, Jurisprudence, and Law in the Dutch West Indian Colonies: The Order of Government of 1629”, De Halve Maen LXX (1997) 4, pp. 73–80, at 78.

Terra Nullius vs. Treaty Making

31

known agreement with “the grand sachem of the Pequot Indians” for the upper Connecticut Valley in 1633.42 Likewise, the English had already entered non-written treaties with Indigenous Peoples, such as the well-known peace agreement between the Wampanoag and the Mayflower Pilgrims of March 162143 and the Algonquian and the English colonists of Jamestown (1607),44 which was based on Sachem Powhatan’s allowance to the English colonists to settle in peace, who had, according to a jurist of a House of Commons in 1614, stated that “Why should you bee offended with them as long as they hurt you not, nor take any thing away by force, they take but a little waste ground, which doth you nor any of us any good”. Thereupon, his successor Opechanacanough, in line with the completely overlooked qualification inserted in the European colonial law of Hugo Grotius (chapter 8), Francisco de Vitoria (chapter 3), and the English Common Law of Blackstone in 1765, namely that the European practices of occupation and land purchase by agreement had just legally acquired property, but not sovereignty or jurisdiction, lawfully continued to exercise sovereignty in areas settled by the English, although the Virginia Company in London in 1622 (Barkham case) disliked the “savage emperor’ s authority to control the company’s land sales”.45 This resonates with Francis Jennings, who highlighted that “Indian jurisdiction” remained, where land was purchased by the Dutch as property.46 Finally, the English concluded treaties and purchase agreements in New Zealand,47 most notably by the famous Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi) with the Māori in 1840, not however in Australia,48 which Stuart Banner determines as an “anomalous” case.49 Nonetheless, based on the secret order to James Cook in 1768, the colonial appropriation practice was still based on the consent requirement of Grotius, since Cook was instructed to “endeavour by all proper means to cultivate a friendship and alliance with them” and “with the consent of the natives to take

42 Jennings, Invasion of America, p. 134. 43 Banner, How the Indians Lost Their Land, p. 21. 44 Ibid., pp. 55; 23–24. 45 Williams, Western Legal Thought, pp. 208–220. At the same time, the Virginia Company likewise recognized her “inchoate prerogative rights” of the English, since the English “had repeatedly failed to bring the king’ s perpetual infidel enemies in Virginia under subjection” (ibid.), which was predated by Pohwatan’s coronation with a “copper crown” (1607–1609), the kidnapping of his daughter Pocahontas and a truce agreement resulting in her marriage to an English colonist (1613) (ibid.). 46 Jennings, Invasion of America, p. 132. 47 Banner, “Why Terra Nullius?”, pp. 111; 102. 48 Miller, “International Law of Colonialism”, pp. 868; 876. 49 Banner, “Why Terra Nullius?”, p. 95.

32

Chapter 2 European Colonial Law and Appropriation Practices in the Americas

possession of convenient situations in the country in the name of the king of Great Britain”, but “not to seize the land if it was inhabited”,50 although Anthony Pagden likewise with reference to a James Cook order of 1768, but without any original citation, asserts that the English claimed Australia on res nullius.51 However, this appears also unlikely in the light of the purchase agreements intended to be concluded in the 1780s to establish a “penal colony” on the “island of Lemaone, 400 miles up the Gambia River” or “Das Voltas Bay, on the southwestern coast of Africa, in present-day Namibia”, which was finally established in Australia.52 Instead, the term terra nullius was not introduced in Australia before the twentieth century,53 since historian Ernest Scott used it for the first time in 1940,54 whereupon the term re-emerged in 1977/78,55 although the International Court of Justice (ICJ) had clarified in the context of the boundary dispute between Pakistan and India in 1968 that the absence of a boundary would not “imply that the disputed territory was terra nullius”56 and the ICJ landmark decision of the Western Sahara in 1975 had emphasized agreements “rather than recognizing original title obtained by occupation of terra nullius”57 and highlighted that “a

50 Royal Society, “Secret Instructions to James Cook”, 1768, in Banner, “Why Terra Nullius?”, p. 97, wherein the president of the Royal Society “reasoned that ‘No European Nation has a right to occupy any part of their country, or settle among them without their voluntary consent. Conquest over such people can give no just title’’’ (J. C. Beaglehole [ed.], The Journals of Captain Cook on His Voyages of Discovery, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1955–1974, p. 1: 514, in Banner, “Why Terra Nullius?”, p. 97). 51 Pagden, Lords of All the World, pp. 76–77. 52 Banner, “Why Terra Nullius?”, p. 98. 53 Fitzmaurice, “Genealogy of Terra Nullius”, p. 4. Most likely, this was influenced by the request of British Columbia law scholar and ICJ judge Philip Jessup, who wrote to Scott in 1939 “asking if Australia had been described as terra nullius during the period of occupation” (ibid., emphasis added), while the term “in the late nineteenth century” in other contexts emerged “if ever” as an “analogy” to res nullius and was “judged to be inappropriate for Africa” (ibid., p. 13). 54 Ibid., pp. 4; 13; 2; 6. See Benton and Straumann, “Acquiring Empire by Law”, p. 6. 55 M. Connor, The Invention of Terra Nullius: Historical and Legal Fictions on the Foundation of Australia, Sydney: Macleay Press, 2005; Fitzmaurice, “Genealogy of Terra Nullius”, p. 5; S. Lindqvist, Terra Nullius. A Journey through No One’ s Land, London: Granta, 2007. 56 International Court of Justice (ICJ), The Indo-Pakistan Western Boundary (Rann of Kutch), 19 February 1968, http://legal.un.org/riaa/cases/vol_XVII/1-576.pdf (accessed 18 September 2018), p. 563 (emphasis added); T. Donovan, “Challenges to the Territorial Integrity of Guyana: A Legal Analysis”, Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law 32 (2004), pp. 661–730; at 691, footnote 152. 57 Wiessner, “Indigenous Sovereignty”, p. 1153–1154 (emphasis added). Furthermore, Federico Lenzerini points out that Spanish colonization was justified at the end of the nineteenth century “on account of the presumed lack of sovereignty of Indigenous Peoples over the lands traditionally occupied by them” and grounded in “the doctrine of discovery” based on the fiction

Terra Nullius vs. Treaty Making

33

territory inhabited by tribes, which have a social and political organization, cannot be, by nature, considered terra nullius”.58 Consequently, the ICJ concluded that terra nullius was “erroneously and invalidly applied against the tribal peoples of the Western Sahara”, which was confirmed by the well-known Mabo vs. Queensland case of 1992 in Australia, which had also “denounced” the doctrine of terra nullius.59 Invented just a few decades prior, historians are indicating the invention of the term as “Error Nullius”60 and “impostor”,61 since such a “revisionism” had “flattened [. . .] the contours of history”62 and likewise raises the question of how Europeans had then lawfully acquired (if so) the Americas and other parts of the world. For the Americas, the historical research results are, furthermore, indicating that the French had concluded “numerous agreements and alliances with various North American nations”, but only “one formal treaty” during the seventeenth and eighteenth century in New France,63 since they instead mainly “simply asked for permission to reside with them [the Indigenous Peoples]”,64 although Robert Miller asserts that the French would have been the co-inventors of res nullius.65 By contrast, the Portuguese would have had justified their colonial appropriation practices in the seventeenth century by “vacant lands” claims, such as resulting from a letter of the governor of Rio de Janeiro in 1640 and a papal bull of 1676 about the northern Rio de la Plata area. Notably, there are no

of terra nullius to justify the “legitimacy of the occupation of the territories newly discovered” (Lenzerini, “Sovereignty Revisited”, p. 164). In addition, Federico Lenzerini confirms the affirmation of the treaty practice by the Court, since the ICJ “emphasized that ‘sovereignty was not generally considered as effected through occupation, but through agreements concluded with local rulers’” (ibid.). See also A. Murphy, “Territory’s Continuing Allure”, Annals of the Association of American Geographers 103 (2013) 5, pp. 1212–1226, at 1220. 58 Gilbert, Indigenous Peoples’ Land Rights, p. 28–29 (emphasis added). 59 E. Daes, “Indigenous Peoples and their Relationship to Land”, 11 June 2001, E/CN.4/Sub.2/ 2001/21, pp. 1–77. 60 Connor, “Error Nullius Revisited”, chapter 4; Fitzmaurice, “Genealogy of Terra Nullius”, p. 4. 61 Fitzmaurice, “Genealogy of Terra Nullius”, p. 14. For the attempt of introducing the related “neologism” of territorium nullius at the end of the nineteenth century in the context of the Berlin/Congo Conference of 1884–1885 (p. 13) and the subsequent try-out to “distill” the concept into “regulations of international law” at the Institut de Droit International Lausanne in September 1888 by German Law Professor Ferdinand von Martitz, which was, however, effectively opposed by French diplomat Édouard Engelhardt, see Fitzmaurice, “Genealogy of Terra Nullius”, pp. 10–11; 13; 19. 62 Fitzmaurice, “Moral Uncertainty”, p. 384. 63 Fitzmaurice, Sovereignty, Property, p. 8. 64 Seed, American Pentimento, p. 22. 65 Miller, Native America, p. 21.

34

Chapter 2 European Colonial Law and Appropriation Practices in the Americas

recorded purchase agreements concluded by both Portuguese and Spanish, whose application of res nullius is likewise disputed.66 Instead, the Spanish discourse is focused on conquest and discovery.

Discovery vs. Occupation The second persistent legal myth of European colonial appropriation concerns the doctrine of discovery, since discovery was also dismissed as lawful means of European colonial appropriation by both Hugo Grotius and Francisco de Vitoria. Accordingly, historians unanimously agree that Vitoria, in 1532, had rejected the “legal fiction” of discovery67 of the papal bulls of Pope Alexander VI (1493)68 by arguing that this “was a question neither of the limits of papal jurisdiction, nor of Roman law, but of the law of nature, the ius naturae, and that the issue was consequently one not of juridical but of natural rights”,69 which had also raised general scepticism about Spain’s “just title in the New World”.70 In this context, Robert Miller suggests that even the papal bulls of Pope Alexander VI of 1493 would have already indicated that discovery had to be complemented by occupation in order to establish a lawful title, since the papal bull Inter Caetera of 1493 had limited the grant to Spain to those areas not “occupied” by “any European monarch”.71 This is substantially confirmed by the examination of the four papal bulls of 1493 of chapter 3. Identically, Hugo Grotius declined the doctrine of discovery as valid legal means of European colonial appropriation since Mare Liberum of 1609,72 as discovery only applies “to those things [sic!] which belong to no one” (res nullius),73

66 Miller, “International Law of Colonialism”, p. 901. 67 Williams, Western Legal Thought, p. 100. 68 Pagden, Burdens of Empire, p. 137; Id., “Dispossessing the Barbarian”, p. 80; Fitzmaurice, Sovereignty, Property, pp. 8; 49; Gilbert, Indigenous Peoples’ Land Rights, p. 9, Doyle, Title to Territory, p. 28; Williams, Western Legal Thought, pp. 80–81; Miller, “The International Law of Colonialism”, p. 859; Lenzerini, “Sovereignty Revisited”, p. 164. 69 Pagden, “Dispossessing the Barbarian”, p. 80. 70 Fitzmaurice, Sovereignty, Property, p. 49. 71 Miller, “International Law of Colonialism”, p. 869. 72 Gilbert, Indigenous Peoples’ Land Rights, p. 10; M. F. Lindley, The Appropriation and Government of Backward Territory in International Law, London: Longmans, Green and Company, 1926, p. 13. 73 H. Grotius, The Law of War and Peace, Book 2, chapter 22 “On Unjust Causes of Wars”, para. IX; Gilbert, Indigenous Peoples’ Land Rights, p. 48.

Discovery vs. Occupation

35

which is, however, not the case for areas of “native rulers”.74 Instead, Grotius determined that “discovery (inventio) needed to be perfected by possession”,75 in order to be lawfully acquired, which would apply “even though the occupant may be ‘wicked, may hold wrong views about God, or may be dull or wit’”.76 The precise European colonial legal provisions for the practice of occupation are examined in chapters 8 (Hugo Grotius) and 3 (Francisco de Vitoria), which were confirmed by the English Common Law of William Blackstone in 1765.77 Meanwhile, colonial and comparative law historians have examined symbolic practices of European occupation or possession taking, such as planting flags and crosses and erecting stone monuments,78 which were applied “across empires”.79 Hence, the Spanish applied those practices against the English and Dutch “in the first decades of the seventeenth century” in northeastern South America to hinder their further advancement inland80 and respond to their “fledgling settlements and simple fortifications” in the mouth of the Amazon,81 same as earlier Spanish explorers, such as Columbus, Vasco Núñez de Balboa, Diego de Almagro, and Ferdinand Magellan.82 According to Lauren Benton, those symbols were mostly established “in estuaries or river junctions” and “near the sea”, as done by the Portuguese in the mouth of the Congo in 1483 (stone column), the French at Caspé harbour in 1534 (cross), Florida,83 and Tahiti in 1768,84 and by the English in the mouth of the Mississippi in 1682 (stone columns and crosses), Cape Henry near Chesapeake Bay in 1607 (cross),85 and in Australia in 1768 and 1776 (marks and inscriptions). Furthermore, the Portuguese have complemented such symbolic acts “with celebrating mass in new lands, and bringing home symbolic items, commonly a handful of dirt, to present to the king”, whereas the meaning of those symbolic

74 Armitage, “Introduction”, p. xv. 75 Pagden, Burdens of Empire, p. 135 (emphasis added). 76 Grotius, The Law of War and Peace, Book 2, chapter 22 “On Unjust Causes of Wars”, para. IX. 77 Banner, “Why Terra Nullius?”, p. 102. 78 Miller, “International Law of Colonialism”, p. 874. 79 Benton, Search for Sovereignty, pp. 57–58. 80 Ibid., See also P. Seed, Ceremonies of Possession in Europe’ s Conquest of the New World, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995. 81 Benton, Search for Sovereignty, p. 58. See J. H. Elliott, Empires of the Atlantic World. Britain and Spain in America, 1492–1830, New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006, pp. 29–56. 82 Miller, “International Law of Colonialism”, p. 874. 83 Benton, Search for Sovereignty, pp. 57–58. 84 Pagden, Lords of All the World, p. 81. 85 Benton, Search for Sovereignty, p. 57–58.

36

Chapter 2 European Colonial Law and Appropriation Practices in the Americas

acts remains debatable, as they are interpreted either as attempts “to establish occupancy and possession” and “allege its ownership”86 or as an expression of the “intention to travel or settle vast, unbounded riverine regions”.87 The legal meaning of those symbolic practices are unexamined, while the European colonial law about the subsequent occupation is generally overlooked. Accordingly, the Dutch evidently rejected a “title on the basis of discovery alone”88 and instead applied occupation as justification practice against the English in North America,89 while the insights about the Spanish practices are inconclusive for the first decades, since both Columbus and Balboa would have had made “first discovery” claims.90 However, the letter patent of Columbus “did not make any claim that the Spanish monarchs in any way owned or had a right to seize the as yet undiscovered lands”91 and the subsequent discovery claim of Magellan of 1520 has contained the order “to discover and take possession of lands in the king’s name”,92 although it remains unclear, how the explorer was supposed to take possession in a lawful manner. Moreover, the Spaniards applied occupation at least since the late 1530s, when discovery was complemented with other means of appropriation, namely conquest, settlement (population) and pacification, although Robert Miller claims that Spain would have initially “vehemently” opposed occupation.93 In addition, the Royal Order of the Spanish king Philipp II in 1573 explicitly instructed “that he [the Spanish king] would not approve any new discovery expeditions until after the lands already discovered ‘shall be settled’”94 and the Spanish acceptance of the Grotian legal requirement of occupation was confirmed in 160995 and likewise used by the Spanish of the Viceroy of Mexico as justification practice against the French

86 Miller, “International Law of Colonialism”, pp. 874–875; 870. 87 Benton, Search for Sovereignty, pp. 57–58. 88 Doyle, Title to Territory, pp. 38–39. 89 Miller, Native America, p. 22. 90 Miller, “International Law of Colonialism”, p. 865. 91 J. Muldoon, “Colonial Charters: Possessory or Regulatory?”, Law and History Review 36 (2018) 2, pp. 355–381, at 357. 92 Miller, “International Law of Colonialism”, pp. 865–866. See also ibid., pp. 870; 874–875; 919 (emphasis added). 93 Ibid., p. 869. 94 Ibid., p. 870. In addition, Robert Miller asserts that Chile in the 1880s likewise made “firstdiscovery claims to the lands around the Straits of Magellan and to Rapa Nui” (Easter Island) (ibid.), although the first European sighting the island was Dutchman Roggeveen in 1722 (G. McCall, “Trade, Slavery, and Colonialism” in: R. Maaka and C. Andersen [eds.], Indigenous Experience: Global Perspectives, Toronto: Canadian Scholars, 2006, pp. 30–45, at 31). 95 Pagden, Burdens of Empire, p. 135.

Discovery vs. Occupation

37

in Florida, since the Spanish king had “feared that if settlements were not quickly established there was a great risk of French settlements being established”.96 Moreover, occupation was applied by the French in the Charter of Acadia granted to Pierre du Gast by Henry IV in December 1603,97 which was predated by the Roberval grant of the French king François I in 1540,98 while the Portuguese used occupation to justify their claims against the French and Dutch in Brazil.99 Arguably caused by the Spanish control over the Crown of Portugal during the period 1580–1640,100 both Portugal and Spain applied occupation also in the South American boundary negotiations, resulting in the Tratado de Límites (Treaty of Madrid) of 1750.101 Most notable, the English in well-researched North America justified their colonial practices by occupation already in the famous letter patent granted by King Henry VII in 1497 to John Cabot,102 which Robert Miller confusingly cites as example for the application of “discovery”,103 although the original grant just contained the order to “conquer, occupy and possess”.104 The means of occupation was likewise stressed in the subsequent letter patents of Queen Elizabeth I to Humphrey Gilbert and Walter Raleigh in 1578105 and 1590106

96 Miller, “International Law of Colonialism”, pp. 870–872. 97 King Henry IV, “Charter of Acadia to Pierre du Gast, Sieur de Monts”, 18 December 1603, Avalon Collection: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/charter_001.asp, Lillian Goldman Law Library, Yale Law School, New Haven. This Charter grants Pierre du Gast “to people and inhabit the lands, shores, and countries of Acadia, and other surrounding areas, stretching from the fortieth parallel to the forty-sixth, and there to establish our authority, and otherwise to there settle and maintain himself in such a way that our subjects will henceforth be able to be received, to frequent, to dwell there, and to trade with the savage inhabitants of the said places” (ibid.). 98 Thereupon, the French established the Compagnie des Isles de l’Amérique in 1642 and 1685 (Lindley, Backward Territory, p. 25). See Jennings, Invasion of America, p. 5. 99 Miller, “International Law of Colonialism”, pp. 870–872. 100 Ibid., p. 855, footnote 28. 101 Ibid., p. 883; D. R. Perez, El Tratado de Límites de 1750 y la Expedición de Iturriaga al Orinoco, Madrid: C.S.I.C. Instituto Juan Sebastián Elcano, 1946. 102 Jennings, Invasion of America, p. 5. 103 Miller, “International Law of Colonialism”, p. 867; Washburn, “Moral and Legal Justifications”, p. 17. 104 Jennings, Invasion of America, p. 5. Hereby, the Cabot grant is determined as “charter of conquest” (ibid.). 105 Lindley, Backward Territory, p. 25. 106 Queen Elizabeth I, “Patent to Sir Walter Raleigh to Settle Virginia”, House of Commons, 14 December 1584, in: Q. Beers (ed.), The Roanoke Voyages 1584–1590, London: The Hakluyt Society, 1955, 1, pp. 126–128, www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Sir_Walter_Raleigh_s_Patent_to_ Settle_Virginia_1584 (accessed 18 September 2018). The grant was given to Walter Raleigh for “the discovery and inhabiting of certain foreign lands and countries” (ibid.).

38

Chapter 2 European Colonial Law and Appropriation Practices in the Americas

for discovery and occupation,107 when “first discovery” had to be explicitly perfected by occupation “within a reasonable amount of time”.108 Both Humphrey Gilbert and Walter Raleigh, however, failed in the implementation of occupation in practice, since the ship of Gilbert “sunk on the return voyage”109 and Raleigh was forced to abandon his attempts in Virginia inter alia due to the “(p)oor relations with the local Indians”,110 whereupon he shifted his attention in February 1595 to the search of “El Dorado” in the South American Guiana.111 In this context, Andrew Fitzmaurice claims that Raleigh had established a “small colony or trading post” in 1604, which was “folded two years later”,112 which remains unconfirmed by the precise examination of the presence and practices of Raleigh in the area (chapters 5). Meanwhile, the English continued to use occupation as colonial justification practice in North America, after the English king James I, in 1607, had accorded a royal grant to merchants of London and Plymouth “to make habitation, plantation, and to deduce a colony of sundry of our people into that part of America, commonly called Virginia [. . .] not now actually possessed by any Christian Prince or people”, which resulted in the establishment of Jamestown (Virginia) as first permanent English colony in North America.113 Moreover, “discovery and plantation” was indicated in the subsequent Charter of May 1609,114 while occupation alone was applied as colonial justification by the Virginia Company in 1622115 and

107 Williams, Western Legal Thought, p. 156; Seed, American Pentimento, pp. 9–11; Queen Elizabeth I, “Charter to Sir Walter Raleigh”, Westminster, 25 March 1585, Avalon Collection: http:// avalon.law.yale.edu/16th_century/raleigh.asp. 108 Miller, “International Law of Colonialism”, pp. 869; 875. 109 Williams, Western Legal Thought, p. 163; 110 Ibid., p. 182. 111 A. Fitzmaurice, Humanism and America: An Intellectual History of English Colonisation, 1500–1625, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009, p. 52. Moreover, Robert Williams points out that Raleigh’s subsequent narrative has established the “fiction [of El Dorado]” (Williams, Western Legal Thought, p. 182). 112 Fitzmaurice, Humanism and America, p. 52. 113 Ibid., p. 201; King James I, “The First Charter of Virginia”, Westminster, 10 April 1606, Avalon Collection: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/va01.asp. The same provision emerges in the Hudson’s Bay Company Charter of 1670 (Miller, “International Law of Colonialism”, p. 869). See Muldoon, “Colonial Charters”, pp. 370–373; Lindley, Backward Territory, p. 25. 114 King James I, “The Second Charter of Virginia”, Westminster, 23 May 1609, Avalon Collection: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/va02.asp. This was predated by significant objections about the lawfulness of the establishment of the Jamestown colony in February 1609 (Banner, How the Indians Lost Their Land, p. 13). 115 Pagden, Burdens of Empire, p. 139.

Discovery vs. Occupation

39

against the competing claims of the Spanish,116 Swedish, and Dutch during the seventeenth century,117 who in turn applied the same colonial justification practice against the English, French, and Dutch in 1640.118 In addition, the Swedes advanced occupation against the Dutch,119 whose Company was established on behalf of the Swedish King Gustav Adolf in December 1624 by the founder of the Dutch West India Company (WIC) Willem Usselincx,120 who established the WIC in June 1621, after the Dutch had entered the scene in New Netherland in 1614.121 Eventually, the English continued to apply occupation as colonial justification practice in the nineteenth and twentieth century, although Anthony Pagden argues that the agriculturalist argument advanced by John Locke’s Two Treatises of Government (1689/90)122 would have presented “the basis for most English attempts to legitimate their presence in America”,123 which was in practice only sparsely applied until the second half of the eighteenth century124 and had even provided “a robust defence of native

116 Miller, Native America, p. 22. 117 Miller, “International Law of Colonialism”, p. 867. 118 Ibid., p. 863. 119 Miller, Native America, p. 22. 120 King Gustav II Adolph, “Warrant for William Ussling to Establish a General Company for Trade to Asia, Africa, America and Magellanica”, Stockholm, 21 December 1624”, Avalon Collection: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/charter_012.asp. 121 The States-General of the United Netherlands, “General Charter for Those Who Discover Any New Passages, Havens, Countries, or Places”, The Hague, 27 March 1614, Avalon Collection (hereafter Avalon): http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/charter_010.asp. See also Avalon, The States-General of the United Netherlands, “Grant of Exclusive Trade to New Netherland”, 11 October 1614, The Hague, https://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/charter_011.asp; The States-General, Charter of the Dutch West India Company”, The Hague, 3 June 1621, in: British Guiana Boundary Arbitration with the United States of Venezuela. Appendix to the Case on Behalf of the Government of Her Britannic Majesty (hereafter BRC), British Foreign Office London: Harrison and Sons, 1898, serial No. 18, p. 46. The foundation of the WIC was predated by the voyage of Henry Hudson along the coast from Newfoundland to Albany (including Manhattan) with the ship “Halve Maen” of VOC Amsterdam in 1609 (Lindley, Backward Territory, p. 25), after the Dutch disengaged with the Spanish monarchy in 1581 (Armitage, “Introduction”, p. xi). 122 Armitage, “John Locke”, pp. 602–627. See also Gilbert, Indigenous Peoples’ Land Rights, p. 89; Doyle, Title to Territory, p. 43; Fitzmaurice, Sovereignty, Property, pp. 24–25; Armitage, Ideological Origins, p. 97; Seed, American Pentimento, pp. 38–39; Banner, How the Indians Lost Their Lands, pp. 39; 43–48; Corcoran, John Locke on the Possession of Land, pp. 8–9; Pagden, “Struggle for Legitimacy”, p. 4. 123 Pagden, “Struggle for Legitimacy”, p. 43. 124 Banner, How the Indians Lost Their Land, pp. 43–8; 58; 80–81; 152; 157–158; Washburn, “Moral and Legal Justifications”, p. 23. Nevertheless, John Locke’s theory still plays a significant role in contemporary political philosophy debate about theories of territory. See, e.g., C. Nine “A

40

Chapter 2 European Colonial Law and Appropriation Practices in the Americas

rights to lands and possessions”.125 Instead, the English advanced occupation against the Spanish in 1790, when they likewise affirmed “that the consent of the natives supported its right to possession”.126 Moreover, occupation was cited in the contested claim to Oregon Country and the Pacific Northwest127 and was likewise applied by Thomas Jefferson in 1813 and 1816, while “first occupation” was several times called upon as justification practice between the 1820s and 1840s. Nonetheless, after the Declaration of Independence of 4 July 1776, the justification for Oregon shifted back to discovery,128 while occupation vanished in the landmark ruling of Johnson vs. M’Intosh (1823),129 when Chief Justice John Marshall had retrospectively declared that “discovery” would have

Lockean Theory of Territory”, pp. 148–165; M. Moore, A Political Theory of Territory, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015; C. Nine, Global Justice and Territory, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012; M. Moore, “Which People and what Land? Territorial Right-holders and Attachment to Territory”, International Theory 6 (2014) 1, pp. 121–140; D. Miller, “Property and Territory: Locke, Kant, and Steiner”, Journal of Political Philosophy 10 (2011) 1, pp. 90–109, and D. Miller, “Debatable Lands”, International Theory 6 (2014) 1, pp. 104–121; A. Banai et al., “Theories of Territory Beyond Westphalia”, International Theory 6 (2014) 1, pp. 98–104; A. Stilz, “Nations, States, and Territory”, Ethics 121 (2011) 3, pp. 572–601; D. Miller, “Territorial Rights: Concept and Justification”, Political Studies 60 (2012) 2, pp. 252–268; A. J. Simmons, On the Edge of Anarchy: Locke, Consent, and the Limits of Society, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993. For differentiated accounts on property and territory, see J. W. Singer, “Original Appropriation of Property: From Conquest & Possession to Democracy and Equal Opportunity”, Indiana Law Journal 86 (2011) 3, pp. 763–778. Similarly, Allen Buchanan indicates that scholars are often “confusing property in Land with Territory” (A. Buchanan, “The Making and Unmaking of Boundaries: What Liberalism Has to Say”, in: A. Buchanan and M. Moore [eds.], States, Nations, and Borders. The Ethics of Making Boundaries, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003, pp. 231–261, at 232). 125 Corcoran, John Locke on the Possession of Land, pp. 3–4. For Locke’s involvement and role in the English colonization of Carolina, see Fitzmaurice, Sovereignty, Property, p. 15; Banner, How the Indians Lost Their Lands, pp. 43–48; Armitage, “John Locke”, pp. 602–627. 126 Doyle, Title to Territory, p. 39. 127 Miller, “International Law of Colonialism”, p. 876. 128 Ibid., pp. 877; 868. 129 Pagden, Burdens of Empire, pp. 133–135; Washburn, “Moral and Legal Justifications”, p. 25; Lenzerini, “Sovereignty Revisited”, p. 265; Banner, How the Indians Lost Their Land, pp. 11; 194–195; Gilbert, Indigenous Peoples’ Land Rights, p. 55; L. Robertson, Conquest by Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005, pp. 3–5; Williams, Western Legal Thought, pp. 2; 29–31; 325; B. Slattery, “Paper Empires: The Legal Dimensions of French and English Ventures in North America”, in: J. McLaren, A. R. Buck, and N. Wright (eds.), Despotic Dominion: Property Rights in British Settler Societies, Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 2005, pp. 50–78, at 50–56.

Conquest and the Question of “Just War”

41

given title to the English,130 which was most notably done in breach with the valid European colonial law of the initial stage of English colonial appropriation. At the same time, this practice had violated the intertemporal law rule.

Conquest and the Question of “Just War” Finally, the doctrine of conquest was unanimously accepted as legal means of European colonial appropriation, which remained valid until its dismissal by the Kellogg-Briand-Pact in August 1928,131 whereas UN resolution 3314 (XXIX) of 1974 highlighted that “titles previously created” should not be affected from the dismissal and only applies to cases, where the previous appropriation was “lawful”.132 In determining the lawfulness of a conquest during the initial stage of European colonization, historians are so far selectively referring to some of the eight reasons constituting a “just war” in the legal writings of Francisco de

130 Gilbert, Indigenous Peoples’ Land Rights, p. 57; Lenzerini, “Sovereignty Revisited”, p. 265. In this context, Anthony Pagden suggests that the Chief Justice in his ruling had acted based on “good political reasons” (Pagden, Burdens of Empire, p. 138). In contrast, the narrative about the historical context of the ruling by Lindsay Robinson has revealed significant economical motives (L. Robertson, Conquest by Law. How the Discovery of America Dispossessed Indigenous Peoples of Their Land, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005, pp. 3–95). Moreover, Jérémie Gilbert points to the subsequent case of Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1830), wherein Chief Justice Marshall would have had “completed” his “legal construction” and created the doubtful “notion of ‘quasi-sovereignty’”, since Marshall had argued that “based on the fact that the Cherokee had signed a number of treaties with the government of the United States, the judge ruled that ‘[t]he acts of our government plainly recognize the Cherokee nation as a state and the courts are bound by those acts’, but at the same time rejected the recognition of the Cherokee’s territorial sovereignty” (Gilbert, Indigenous Peoples Land Rights, pp. 57–58). 131 S. Korman, The Right of Conquest. The Appropriation of Territory by Force in International Law and Practice, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996, p. 7. 132 Gilbert, Indigenous Peoples’ Land Rights, pp. 14–15. Accordingly, Malcolm Shaw defines conquest from a contemporary perspective as “the act of defeating an opponent and occupying all or part of its territory”, which, however, “does not itself constitute a basis of title to the land” (M. Shaw, International Law, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008, p. 500). Instead, “(i)t does give the victor certain rights under international law as regards the territory, the rights of belligerent occupation, but the territory remains subject to the legal title of the ousted sovereign”. Moreover, Shaw indicates that “(s)overeignty as such does not merely pass by conquest to the occupying forces, although complex situations may arise where the legal status of the territory occupied is, in fact, in dispute prior to the conquest” (ibid., pp. 500–501).

42

Chapter 2 European Colonial Law and Appropriation Practices in the Americas

Vitoria.133 At the same time, his seven causes of an “unjust war” are completely overlooked and the legal writings of Hugo Grotius hardly considered. Whereas Anthony Pagden in general argues that “there were no immediate or obvious reasons for considering the European invasions of America as in any sense just”,134 Vitoria, Grotius, and their contemporaries of the sixteenth and seventeenth century had defined several, in part contradictory “just causes” to start waging a war by Europeans and declaring the successful war as a legal means of appropriation by conquest. Accordingly, Jérémie Gilbert is selectively citing four “just” Vitorian causes, namely if Indigenous Peoples had refused (1) “a free passage of their lands” or (2) “to trade among them”, or had declined to (3) “share the wealth of their lands” or rejected the (4) “propagation of Christianity”,135 while Robert Williams focuses on the cause of “idolatry” to establish the argument of the persisting legal pluralism of the time, since Vitoria’s Protestant contemporary Alberico Gentili had excluded idolatry as “just cause”, which had ruled out one of the main legal justifications “used by papist Spaniards for seizing the lands of Indians throughout the New World solely on the basis of non-belief”. Moreover, the well-known European colonial law scholar Williams questions the general applicability of European colonial law to Indigenous Peoples in the Americas prior to the lawful acquisition by Europeans.136 Finally, Cathal Doyle provides a rare reference to the legal provisions of the European colonial law of Hugo Grotius, who had “upheld the notion of a just war where commerce was not permitted”,137 which was rejected by his Portuguese contemporary Serafim De Freitas.138 More precisely, the Dutchman distinguishes three “just causes” in De Jure Belli ac Pacis (1625) as having “legal effect”, namely (a) self-defence, (b) the “recovery of property”, and (c) “the inflicting of punishment”,139 and, for

133 Hereby, conquest is understood in the narrow legal sense of successfully waging war to precisely distinguish the practice from other legal means of appropriation, whereas some scholars are conceptualizing conquest in a broader manner, such as Robert Miller, who defines conquest “as analogy”, which subsumes cases, such as the Spanish’s “merely arriving in new lands” (Miller, “International Law of Colonialism”, p. 919). 134 Pagden, Burdens of Empire, p. 123. 135 Gilbert, Indigenous Peoples’ Land Rights, p. 9. 136 Williams, Western Legal Thought, pp. 195–197. 137 Doyle, Title to Territory, pp. 38–39. 138 Ibid., p. 42. 139 Grotius, The Law of War and Peace, Book 2, chapter 1 “Causes of War”, para. II.

Conquest and the Question of “Just War”

43

example, also rejected the denial of Christianity by Indigenous Peoples as “just” punishment cause for waging war, as “(w)ars cannot justly be waged against those who are unwilling to accept the Christian religion”.140 Hence, the colonial law of both the Salmantine legal theologian Francisco de Vitoria and Dutch lawyer Hugo Grotius are systematically examined in chapters 3 and 8. In practice, conquest was applied by the Spanish, Portuguese and, to a lesser extent, by the English, but not by the French and Dutch.141 Therefore, conquest was used by the Spaniards as justification between the fifteenth and seventeenth century.142 In addition, it was inserted in several Royal Orders. Accordingly, the Spanish king had ordered Pedro de Valdivia in 1541 to conquer the Araucanians of Chile and populate the area, who, however, failed in practice and was killed after “almost constant warfare” by the Mapuche in the battle of Tucapel of 1553, whereupon “European and Chilean expansion south of the Bio Bio River [was paused] for over 300 years”. Similar, the Spanish Council of the Indies (Consejo Real y Supremo de las Indias, established in 1524) named “nine reasons [. . .] for waging just war against the Araucanians” in 1599, before a papal bull of Pope Paul V “authorized a just war against Araucanians” in 1609, which was complemented by royal orders, permitting the enslavement of “all Indians” in 1608143 (revoked in 1610) and 1625 (revoked in 1674).144 In addition, Patricia Seed confirms Spanish conquest orders in the Caribbean by citing the well-known Royal Order of Queen Isabella I of 1503, who permitted to “make war upon the Carib Indians who come to launch armed incursions against them and who eat human flesh” and, thus, connected the causes of “native cannibalism to military resistance”.145 At the same time, the scholar of Latin American colonial history refers to the Royal Order of King Ferdinand of 1509, which permitted “slave raiding from other [Caribbean] islands, because of a shortage of Indians on Hispaniola”, provided the slave raids were undertaken upon “official approval” and the inversion of cannibalism claims to justify “brutal Spanish work

140 Ibid., chapter 20 “On Punishments”, para. XLVIII. This was already emphasized by Hugo Grotius in “Mare Liberum” of 1609 (Grotius, Mare Liberum, pp. 10; 19). 141 Pagden, Burdens of Empire, p. 123. 142 Fitzmaurice, Sovereignty, Property, p. 8. 143 Miller, “International Law of Colonialism”, p. 919. 144 Seed, American Pentimento, p. 104. 145 Queen Isabella I, “Proclamation”, 30 October 1503, in: E. Williams, Documents of West Indian History, Vol. 1, 1492–1655. From the Spanish Discovery to the British Conquest of Jamaica, Port-ofSpain: PNM Publishing, 1963, No. 62, pp. 62–63. See also Seed, American Pentimento, p. 104; Whitehead, Conquest of the Caribs, p. 310; Sauer, Early Spanish Main, p. 161–162; Whitehead, “Carib Cannibalism”, p. 70; Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, pp. 171–172.

44

Chapter 2 European Colonial Law and Appropriation Practices in the Americas

regimes” by Spanish “settler” Juan Ponce de Léon,146 who became known as the second temporary governor of Trinidad. Both practices of enslavement for economical purposes remained legally highly controversial throughout the sixteenth century (chapter 3). In addition, practices of war are also documented for the Portuguese in Brazil. However, those wars were not necessarily conducted for the purpose of conquests, although they were at least partly justified by the “just causes” of conquests. In contrast to Portuguese conquest justifications in Ceuta (1415) and India by Vasco da Gama (1499), the Portuguese in Brazil had, therefore, permitted “the enslavement of any Indians captured in just wars”, “the appropriation of the lands and assets of indigenous peoples” (1595), the enslavement of those Indigenous Peoples, who were “in revolt and at war” (1548; 1570) and “those who habitually attack the Portuguese and eat Christians” (1587). Moreover, military expeditions were also carried out by missionaries in São Paulo in 1606 and as “slave raids against Indians for impeding roads or commerce, failing to pay tribute, refusing to obey calls to work for settlers or the crown, reverting to cannibalism after being Christianized, and impeding preaching of the Gospel”.147 In contrast, conquest claims of the English in North America are limited to two events and the order of the Cabot grant of 1497 to “conquer, occupy and possess”.148 While historians in general tend to argue that North America was appropriated by purchase agreement and conquest,149 they also tend to retrospectively declare both the Virginia massacre of 1622150 and the Pequot wars of 1634 and 1657 as conquests,151 although the Mohegan contested the claim in an “over one hundred years” long lawsuit against Connecticut,152 which was still in colonial times dismissed by the Privy Council in 1772 “(w)ithout reasons”,153 and the Virginia massacre was followed by a ten year war, resulting in an agreement of peace in 1632, another successful attack by the Algonquian of Opechancanough in 1644 and a peace

146 Seed, American Pentimento, pp. 101; 104–105. 147 Miller, “International Law of Colonialism”, pp. 917; 919; 104; 107. 148 Jennings, Invasion of America, p. 5. 149 Williams, Western Legal Thought, pp. 108–120; Jennings, Invasion of America, pp. 15; Banner, How the Indians Lost Their Land, p. 6; Seed, American Pentimento, p. 14. 150 Williams, Western Legal Thought, pp. 208–220; Washburn, “Moral and Legal Justifications”, p. 20. 151 Jennings, Invasion of America, pp. 186–254; Williams, Western Legal Thought, pp. 208–220. 152 Miller, “International Law of Colonialism”, p. 919. 153 M. D. Walters, “Mohegan Indians vs. Connecticut (1705–1773) and the Legal Status of Aboriginal Customary Laws and Government in British North America”, Osgoode Hall Law Journal 33 (1995) 4, pp. 785–829.

Conquest and the Question of “Just War”

45

agreement in 1646.154 Both events are raising the question, when and on which grounds a war is lawfully claimed as conquest155 and what was actually acquired by conquest.156 In sum, the systematic review of historical research on both European colonial law and colonial appropriation practices of the Spanish, English, French, Portuguese, and Dutch in the Americas has most striking revealed that both terra nullius and discovery had not presented a sufficient legal means of European appropriation in the early stages of European colonization, since Vitoria and Grotius had clearly rejected the legal doctrines as sufficient to claim a lawful appropriation. Instead, they are presenting legal myths, created in nineteenth-century North America and twentieth-century Australia. Moreover, the chapter had disclosed that occupation presented a common means in justifying appropriation practices by all European actors, whereas the European colonial law provisions on both occupation and conquest still require a systematic and differentiated examination. Therefore, the following chapter 3 precisely examines the valid Spanish colonial law in the period 1493–1573.

154 J. D. Rice, “Second Anglo-Powhatan-War (1622–1632)”, www.encyclopediavirginia.org/ Anglo-Powhatan_War_Second_1622-1632#start_entry (accessed 17 September 2018); Virginia Places, “The Third Anglo-Powhatan War (1644–46)”, www.virginiaplaces.org/nativeamerican/ thirdanglopowhatan. html (accessed 17 September 2018). See also Jennings, Invasion of America, pp. 58–84; R. Williams, Western Legal Thought, pp. 208–220. 155 That the valid colonial law and appropriation and justification practices needs to be carefully distinguished and examined is demonstrated in several cases of the English in New Zealand and Australia, as the English in New Zealand “enacted legislation [. . .] based on conquest even in instances of British military defeats [sic!]”, after “having been engaged in warfare against the Māori of the Northern Island” (Miller, “International Law of Colonialism”, p. 920). Similarly, the English were, in violation with the Cabot grant, engaged in “massacres” in Australia, such as in the case of the Ngaiawong of Moorundie about 1839 by John Eyre, wherein “a large group” was “mowed down” (Lindqvist, Terra Nullius, p. 8). See also I. Clendinnen True Stories. History, Politics, Aboriginality, Melbourne: Text Publishing, 2008 [1999]; Id., Ambivalent Conquests. Maya and Spaniards in Yucatan, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987 [2003]), despite the order of the English Crown to James Cook in 1768 “not to attempt the conquest of their land, because any such attempt would be unlawful” (Banner, “Why Terra Nullius?”, p. 97). 156 However, the Virginia event of 1622, where Algonquian had killed 350 English colonists, was predated by encroachments of English colonists into Algonquian lands (Jennings, Invasion of America, pp. 58–84; Williams, Western Legal Thought, pp. 208–220), the forceful removal of corn by English colonists (1619), which was considered as an offence by the Algonquian (Banner, How the Indians Lost Their Land, p. 32). See also Williams, Western Legal Thought, p. 220. A careful contextual historical-legal examination of the events is still pending.

Chapter 3 Spanish De Jure Myths (1493–1573) Based on the general findings on European colonial law and appropriation practices, this chapter provides a systematic examination of the valid Spanish colonial law of appropriation during the initial stage of Spanish colonization in the Americas between 1493 and 1573. In particular concentrated on the series of papal bulls, granted by Pope Alexander VI in 1493 in the context of Columbus’ first voyage to the “Indies”, namely Inter Caetera I and II, Eximiae devotionis (formal dates of 3 and 4 May 1493),1 the chapter is also providing an examination of the surprisingly overlooked papal bull Dudum siquidem (formal date of 25 September 1493), which sounded the bell for the significant change of Iberia’s legal means on lawful colonial appropriation and was, thus, paving the way to the Treaty of Tordesillas. The chapter argues that discovery alone has already in 1493 not presented a sufficient means for lawfully appropriating the Americas, before turning to the changing legal provisions of Spain’s subsequent legal debate on enslavement. After tracing the royal and ecclesiastical practices for the cursorily documented period of 1503–1530, the chapter, finally, investigates the famous legal writings of Francisco de Vitoria, which presented the first conclusive account on the emerging Spanish colonial law of appropriation practices in the Americas.

The Discovery Myth and the Papal Bulls of 1493 Excavated in 1797 in the archives of Simancas,2 historians and international law scholars unanimously agree that the papal bull Inter Caetera I (expedited in Rome in April 1493, formal date of 3 May 1493) was the first papal bull granted to the Spanish Crown by Pope Alexander VI in 1493,3 after Christopher Colón

1 Williams, Western Legal Thought, p. 80–81. See also Doyle, Title to Territory, p. 22; Gilbert, Indigenous Peoples’ Land Rights, p. 5–6; Anaya, Indigenous Peoples in International Law, p. 28, footnote 20; Muldoon, “Colonial Charters”, p. 365. 2 This Simancas version of the papal bull Inter Caetera I was discovered by Juan Baptista Munoz in the Archivo General de Simancas in 1797 (S. E. Dawson [ed.], The Lines of Demarcation of Pope Alexander VI and the Treaty of Tordesillas, Toronto: Transactions of The Royal Society of Canada, 1899, p. 485). 3 H. Vander Linden, “Alexander VI and the Demarcation of the Maritime and Colonial Domains of Spain and Portugal 1493–1494”, The American Historical Review 2 (October 1916) 1, pp. 1–20, at 7. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110690149-003

The Discovery Myth and the Papal Bulls of 1493

47

had returned from his first voyage to the Bahamas (Guanahani4), Cuba (Juana), and Hispaniola on 15 March 1493.5 Thereupon Spain requested an ex post facto papal authorization, as the expedition was until then without any “basis under the existing Church doctrine”,6 which resulted in Inter Caetera I and granted the Spanish monarchs King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella I “all and singular, the said lands [sic!] and islands unknown and up to this time discovered”, situated in this cardinal direction, but also those “to be discovered in the future by your messengers [. . .] with all the rights and jurisdictions belonging thereto, to you, your heirs and successors, Kings of Castile and Leon”. Moreover, the papal bull aimed to grant the Spanish monarchs “full, free and absolute power, authority and jurisdiction”, which was based on the claim that Columbus by “navigating in the Ocean-sea in the western regions as it is said toward the Indies”7 would have had “found [there] certain most remote islands and also continental lands [sic!]”.8 Nonetheless, the papal bull had also inserted the overlooked prior requirement of possession taking, since Pope Alexander VI had indicated that “the said islands and lands [. . .] shall be found and possessed [sic!] by your

4 Robert Williams claims that Guanahani is believed to equate with the contemporary Bahamas and was named “San Salvador” by Columbus (R. Williams, Western Legal Thought, p. 78), while Anthony Pagden indicates that it is still not known, which island “Guanahani” represents (Pagden, The Burden of Empire, p. 45). 5 C. Colón (Columbus), “On the recently discovered Islands of India beyond the Ganges”, Lisbon, 14 March 1493, Gilder Lehrman Collection (hereafter GLC) 01427, p. 1, New York. In this letter, Columbus also reports to have received information from Indigenous Peoples about “two more provinces, which I did not visit”, which were situated beyond western Cuba (Juana), one of them named Anan (ibid.). 6 Doyle, Title to Territory, p. 23. 7 Pope Alexander VI, “Inter Caetera I (Vatican version)”, in: J. B. Thacher (ed.), Christopher Columbus. His Life, His Work, His Remains. Vol. II, New York: Putnam’s Sons, 1904, p. 127. In contrast, the Simancas version includes the passage that Columbus would be “a man every way worthy and deserving of great praise, and capable of so great an affair, with vessels and men accustomed to such undertakings, with very great labour, danger and expense, in order that he might diligently seek out those main-lands and remote and unknown islands, in a sea where no person had navigated until now, who with extreme diligence” and also reads “in navigating through the ocean, discovered certain very remote islands, and also main-lands that nobody had as yet found out; the inhabitants of which are numerous, live peacefully, and, as it is affirmed, go naked, and feed not upon flesh; and as far as your aforesaid messengers can opine, the people who inhabit the aforesaid islands and lands, believe that there is in heaven a God Creator” (Pope Alexander VI, “Inter Caetera II [Simancas version]”, in Dawson [ed.], The Lines of Demarcation, p. 532). 8 By contrast, Vander Linden erroneously indicates that the addition of “mainlands” in Inter Caetera II would present a significant difference to Inter Caetera I (Vander Linden, “Alexander VI”, p. 9), but overlooks that “mainlands” was already inserted in Inter Caetera I.

48

Chapter 3 Spanish De Jure Myths (1493–1573)

messengers”,9 wherefore discovery had, already at that point of time, to be perfected by possession taking in order to establish a legal title. This was confirmed by the previous royal orders of the Spanish Crown, granted to Christopher Colón prior to his first voyage by the “Capitulación of Santa Fe” (emphasis added) of 17 April 1492 and the “Privileges and Prerogatives” of 30 April 1492, which were until then the only basis for his voyages and had instructed Columbus to “discover and subdue some Islands and Continent in the ocean” and “discover and conquer [. . .] some Islands in the Ocean”10 and, thus, connected discovery with the legal appropriation means of conquest, whereas Columbus’ narrative of March 1493 likewise confirms the requirement of possession taking. In result, Colón had not carried out the order of conquest,11 but had just offered Indigenous Peoples “whatever [he] had, cloth and many other things, to whomsoever I approached, or with whom I could get speech, without any return being made to me”, and also not “inflicted [. . .] any loss or injury”, as they “took to flight [. . .] when they saw our men approaching”.12 At the same time, Columbus has declared to have made symbolic proclamations in the Bahamas, Cuba, and Hispaniola in order to take “possession of all of them for our most fortunate [Spanish] King”, which was assertively accepted by the Indigenous Peoples of the three islands without “any resistance”.13 However, this claim raises some scepticism, since Columbus had only one interpreter for “Hebrew, Aramaic and some Arabic on board”, wherefore it appears unlikely that his intent was clearly communicated to the respective Indigenous Peoples,14 who had later on destroyed the sole Spanish abode in the Caribbean

9 Pope Alexander VI, “Inter Caetera I (Vatican version)”, p. 131. 10 Archivo General de Indias (hereafter AGI), Queen Isabella I and King Ferdinand II, “Las Capitulaciones de Santa Fe para Cristóbal Colón” (The Capitulations of Santa Fe to Cristóbal Colón), Santa Fe, 17 April 1492, ES.41091.AGI/29.3.1.1//PATRONATO, 8, R.1, p. 1, Seville. 11 This might explain the insertion of Inter Caetera I that those discoveries are serving the purpose of spreading the “Catholic faith and Christian religion”, while “the salvation of souls may [sic!] be secured and barbarous nations subjugated [sic!]” (Pope Alexander VI, “Inter Caetera I [Vatican version]”, p. 125). 12 C. Colón (Columbus), “On the Recently Discovered Islands of India beyond the Ganges”, Lisbon, 14 March 1493, GLC 01427, pp. 1–8, at 5. 13 Ibid., p. 4. 14 The lack of Columbus’ capacity to understand the Indigenous Peoples in the Caribbean is, according to Peter Hulme, also demonstrated with regard to the word “bohio”, which means “house”, but was interpreted by Columbus as “the name of an island” (ibid.). In addition, Columbus himself admitted in his journal entry of 11 December 1492, which reads that “many times, there has been misunderstanding”, despite that “every day we understand these Indians better and they us”. Thereupon, Peter Hulme concludes that a “fairly straightforward communication with the natives” was “hardly the case”, see P. Hulme, Colonial Encounters, p. 20.

The Discovery Myth and the Papal Bulls of 1493

49

(La Navidad), established by Columbus during his first voyage in November 1493.15 Meanwhile, the papal bull Inter Caetera I has reached Spain somewhen before 24 May 1493,16 whereupon Queen Isabella changed Columbus’ previous official designation from “our Admiral of the Ocean, Viceroy and Governor of the islands [sic!] which have been discovered in the Indies”17 into the Inter Caetera I expression of “our Admiral of our islands and mainland, which by our command have been discovered and are to be discovered in the Ocean, in the region of the Indies”,18 and, thus, adopted the error of Inter Caetera I that Columbus would have had “found [there] certain most remote islands and also continental lands [sic!]”,19 although Columbus had de facto just sighted the islands of the Bahamas, Cuba, and Hispaniola, but not any continental land.20 Most likely resulting from Columbus erroneously assumption that the island of Cuba (Juana) “was really continental land”,21 the “mainland” error was kept in all subsequent papal bulls until Columbus corrected the mistake during his second voyage,22 which departed in Cadiz on 25 September 1493.23 Hence, Pope Alexander VI between May and September 1493 promulgated three additional papal bulls, namely Inter Caetera II, Eximiae, and Dudum, while Spain entered into negotiations with Portugal for the conclusion of the Treaty of

15 Chanca, “Letter (c. February 1494)”, in: Thacher (ed.), Columbus, p. 276. 16 Prior, the papal bull was sent to the “nuncio at the court of Spain” [in Rome] on 17 May 1493 by the Pope’s personal secretary Ludovicus “Podocatharus” (Vander Linden, “Alexander VI”, pp. 4; 7–8). 17 Queen Isabella I and King Ferdinand II, “Letter to Cristóbal Colón (24 May 1493)”, in: B. F. Stevens (ed.), Christopher Columbus – His Own Book of Privileges (Facsimile of Manuscript, 1502), London: Chiswick Press, 1893, pp. 170–177), which refines the suggestion of Alexander Vander Linden that the papal bull returned to Spain “till in the last third of that month” (Vander Linden, “Alexander VI”, pp. 7–8). 18 By contrast, Columbus was on 30 March solely designated as Admiralty of islands “discovered in the Indies” (Queen Isabella I, “Letter to Cristóbal Colón [30 March 1493]”, in: Stevens (ed.), Christopher Columbus, pp. 160–162). 19 Vander Linden, “Alexander VI”, p. 9. 20 GLC 01427, C. Colón (Columbus), “On the Recently Discovered Islands of India beyond the Ganges”, Lisbon, 14 March 1493, pp. 1–8, at 5. In addition, Columbus also reported that he had received information from Indigenous Peoples about “two more provinces, which I did not visit”, situated beyond western Juana, one of them named Anan (ibid., pp. 6–7). 21 Thacher (ed.), Columbus, p. 321. 22 Ibid. By contrast, “the papal bull Inter Caetera I has negated [sic!] Columbus’ cannibalism claims” (Pope Alexander VI, “Inter Caetera I [Vatican version])”, in Thacher (ed.), Columbus, p. 127, while the statement as a whole was erased in the last papal bull of this series, namely Dudum (Pope Alexander VI, “Dudum”, in Dawson [ed.], The Lines of Demarcation, p. 539). 23 Thacher (ed.), Columbus, p. 213; Syllacio-Coma, “Letter, 13 December 1494”, quoted ibid., p. 245; Chanca, “Letter (c. February 1494)”, ibid., p. 263.

50

Chapter 3 Spanish De Jure Myths (1493–1573)

Tordesillas in the last part of May 1493.24 However, the chronological order of those bulls remains contested. Accepted by the majority of historians,25 Herman Vander Linden had, therefore, already in 1916 challenged the accuracy of the formal dates of Inter Caetera II and Eximiae (4 May), as the papal chancery had expedited the papal bulls only afterwards, namely in June (Inter Caetera II) and July (Eximiae), wherefore the historian suggests that Inter Caetera II and Eximiae were “ante-dated”.26 Furthermore, an analysis of the spatial markers inserted in the four papal bulls of 1493 indicates a reversed chronological order and strongly suggests that Eximiae was produced before Inter Caetera II, although the preamble of Inter Caetera II is “identical” with Inter Caetera I, while both differ significantly by the insertion of the well-known demarcation line in Inter Caetera II.27 Accordingly, both Inter Caetera I and Eximiae comprise the spatial marker of “continental lands and islands remote and unknown, toward the Western regions and lying in the Ocean-sea discovered or to be discovered hereafter”,28 and incorporate the “regions of Africa, Guinea and the Mine of Gold”,29 which is also referenced in

24 Vander Linden, “Alexander VI”, p. 16. 25 For example, the commentators of the British Guiana-Venezuela Boundary Arbitration at the end of the nineteenth century (Dawson [ed.], The Lines of Demarcation, pp. 485–488), early twentieth-century historians (Thacher [ed.], Columbus, pp. 86–89), and contemporary international law scholars (Anaya, Indigenous Peoples in International Law, p. 36, footnote 19; Doyle, Title to Territory, p. 22; Gilbert, Indigenous Peoples’ Land Rights, p. 4). Only intellectual legal scholar Robert Williams mentions that one of the bulls was “predated”, but does not elaborate this matter further (Williams, Western Legal Thought, p. 80). 26 Vander Linden, “Alexander VI”, p. 8; 18. 27 Pope Alexander VI, “Inter Caetera II (Vatican version)”, in Thacher (ed.), Columbus, pp. 139–153; Pope Alexander VI, “Inter Caetera II (Barcelona version)”, in Stevens (ed.), Christopher Columbus, pp. 189–193. For the first time, the demarcation line emerged in a letter of Queen Isabella I and King Ferdinand II to Columbus on 28 May 1493, wherein the Spanish Crown indicated a line, which runs “(f)rom the Azores TO the Cape Verde Islands, from North to South, from Pole to Pole, so that all which is beyond the said line to the west, is ours and belongs to us” (Queen Isabella I and King Ferdinand II, “Letter to Columbus”, 28 May 1493, in Thacher [ed.], Columbus, p. 109), while the origin of the “100 leagues” remains unknown. Arguably, they were resulting of further negotiations between Spain and Portugal, especially since Portugal was concerned about a “broad reading” of Inter Caetera I (Williams, Western Legal Thought, p. 80). Other scholars are instead suggesting that Columbus was involved in the creation of this spatial marker (Vander Linden, “Alexander VI”, p. 17). 28 Pope Alexander VI, “Eximiae Devotionis”, pp. 156–161 in comparison to both Inter Caetera I (Simancas version) (Pope Alexander VI, “Inter Caetera I [Simancas version]”, pp. 529–534), and Inter Caetera I [Vatican version] (Pope Alexander VI, “Inter Caetera I [Vatican version])”, pp. 125–137. 29 Pope Alexander VI, “Eximiae”, p. 157.

The Discovery Myth and the Papal Bulls of 1493

51

Queen Isabella’s letter to Columbus on 28 May 1493.30 Finally, Eximiae contains the text passage to have “extend and enlarge the grant”,31 which only applies when related to Inter Caetera I, wherefore Eximiae was most likely created after Inter Caetera I. In turn, Inter Caetera II nears Dudum by the insertion of “India”,32 since Dudum determines the “extend[ed] and enlarge[d] [. . .] donation, grant, [and] assignment [. . .] to all and singular islands and continental lands found and to be found, discovered and to be discovered, which in navigating or journeying toward the west or south in this way may be or shall be or shall appear to be existing either in the western regions or in the southern and eastern regions or in India”,33 while the chronological order of Inter Caetera I, Eximiae, Inter Caetera II, and Dudum in general reflects a gradually spatial expansion of the area granted by Pope Alexander VI.34 Despite, the papal bull Dudum siquidem, dated 2535 respectively 26 September 1493,36 contains a completely overlooked surprise, since it declared all previous claims to lands and islands as null and void [sic!], which “have not come into effect by means of actual and real possession”37 respectively “bodily possession”.38 Thus, Dudum in the most explicit manner confirms that discovery alone had already in 1493 not presented a sufficient legal means of colonial appropriation, but was required to be perfected by possession taking. In result, this “curious fact” had with the stroke of a pen erased all previous Spanish claims to the “Indies”,39 except for Columbus’ sole abode La Navidad, which

30 Queen Isabella I and King Ferdinand II, “Letter to Cristóbal Colón (28 May 1493)”, in Stevens (ed.), Christopher Columbus, p. 145. In this letter, the Spanish Crown had emphatically prohibited him to “go to the mine which is held by the most serene King of Portugal, our brother” (Queen Isabella, “Letter to Cristóbal Colón [28 May 1493”], ibid.). 31 Pope Alexander VI, “Eximiae”, p. 161. 32 Pope Alexander VI, “Inter Caetera II (Barcelona version)”, pp. 190–193; Pope Alexander VI, “Inter Caetera II (Vatican version)”, pp. 149–153. 33 Pope Alexander VI, “Dudum”, p. 163. 34 Pope Alexander VI, “Inter Caetera I (Simancas version)”, pp. 529–534; Pope Alexander VI, “Inter Caetera I (Vatican version)”, pp. 125–137; Pope Alexander VI, “Inter Caetera II (Barcelona version)”, pp. 190–193. The same is valid for Inter Caetera II (Vatican version) (Pope Alexander VI, “Inter Caetera II [Vatican version])”, pp. 149–153, Eximiae (Pope Alexander VI, “Eximiae”, p. 161), and Dudum (Pope Alexander VI, “Dudum”, p. 539). 35 Pope Alexander VI, “Dudum”, p. 538. 36 Ibid., p. 164. See also Vander Linden, “Alexander VI”, p. 1–20. The 25 September appears to be more plausible, considering that Columbus left Spain for his second voyage on that day. 37 Pope Alexander VI, “Dudum”, p. 539. This passage is alternatively translated as “actual and positive possession” (ibid., pp. 163–164). 38 Ibid., p. 539. 39 Vander Linden, “Alexander VI”, p. 10.

52

Chapter 3 Spanish De Jure Myths (1493–1573)

was, however, destroyed by several Caciques of Hispaniola just two months after the formal date of Dudum,40 which was issued by Pope Alexander VI in “express” manner41 after Inter Caetera II arrived in Spain from the Vatican on 4 August 1493.42 At the same time, the “secret” matter “in the affair with Portugal” was still without “no determination” on 5 September 149343 and Columbus had requested “whether it was not necessary to modify the ‘bull’”.44 Just before Columbus had left Cadiz for his second voyage on 25 September 149345 to the “Indies” in order “to maintain the lordship and occupation of the said island and mainland, whereof possession has been taken in our name, as to discover others”,46 the papal bull had likewise erased the spread of Christianity as legitimate purpose of possession taking.47 Meanwhile, the legal provisions of Dudum were specified during the negotiations of the Treaty of Tordesillas, in particular in the “Contract of Capitulación of the Division of the Ocean-Sea” of 5 September 1494, which was concluded between Spain and Portugal to resolve “the difference which exists between [the Spanish monarchs] and the said Lord, the King of Portugal [. . .] as to what part belong to us and what part belongs to him of that which up to the present [sic!] is to be discovered in the Ocean-sea”.48 Authorized by the papal bull Ea Quae of Julius II of 24 January 1506,49 the contract had inserted a “limitation of the Ocean-

40 Syllacio-Coma, “Letter (13 December 1494)”, p. 283. 41 Pope Alexander VI, “Dudum”, p. 539. 42 Vander Linden, “Alexander VI”, p. 18. This date is coherent with Vander Linden’s earlier indication that Inter Caetera II arrived in Seville before 19 July (ibid., p. 8). 43 Queen Isabella I and King Ferdinand II, “Letter to Cristóbal Colón”, 5 September 1493, in Stevens (ed.), Christopher Columbus, pp. 162–164. 44 Vander Linden, “Alexander VI”, p. 19. Similarly, Gómez points out that the Spanish Crown on 26 August 1493 had asked for the opinion of cosmographer Jaume Ferrer de Blanes, who “later hastened Columbus to plunge south” (N. W. Gómez, Tropics of Empire. Why Columbus Sailed South to the Indies, Cambridge: MIT, 2008, p. 328). 45 Thacher (ed.), Columbus, p. 213. That Columbus had left Cadiz on this day is confirmed by both the Letters of Syllacio-Coma (Syllacio-Coma, “Letter [13 December 1494]”, p. 245) and Chanca (Chanca, “Letter [c. February 1494]”, p. 263). 46 This second voyage was granted to Colón on 28 May 1493 (Queen Isabella I and King Ferdinand II, “Letter to Columbus [24 May 1493]”, in Stevens [ed.], Christopher Columbus, p. 173), while the “Indies” remained in Columbus official title throughout 1493 and 1494 (for example, Queen Isabella I and King Ferdinand II, “Letter to Columbus [5 September 1493]”, ibid., pp. 162–165), although the spatial marker disappeared in the subsequent papal bulls. 47 Pope Alexander VI, “Dudum”, pp. 163–164. 48 King of Portugal and Algarve, “Letter, 8 March 1494,” in Thacher (ed.), Columbus, p. 177. 49 H. Avalos, “Pope Alexander VI, Slavery and Voluntary Subjection: ‘Ineffabilis et Summi Patris’ in Context”, The Journal of Ecclesiastical History 65 (October 2014) 4, pp. 738–760, at

The Discovery Myth and the Papal Bulls of 1493

53

sea” to determine the prior claim about two mutually recognized spaces for each of the contracting parties by a line running “straight from pole to pole, from the Arctic Pole to the Antarctic Pole, which is from North to South, which mark or line and indication may be drawn and must be drawn straight, as is said, at 370 leagues from the islands of Cape Verde to the West, by degrees or by another manner, as it can be best and most quickly drawn, so that it will not include a greater distance”,50 but on the other hand had also determined the modes of appropriation “within their [respective] limit and boundary”, which were indicated as “discoveries and conquests and contracts”.51 This passage again confirms that it was already at that point of time that discovery alone had not constituted a sufficient legal means of lawfully appropriating the Americas. For his second (1493–1496), third (1498), and fourth voyage (1502–1504) to the “Indies”, Columbus had than reported that the Spanish agent in southern Hispaniola had on 24 March 1495, in alliance with the Arawak Cacique Guacanaagari, attacked “all nations which refused him obedience”, namely the Caciques Guarionex, Behechio, and Higuanama and taken the Cacicue Caonabo

748. Consequently, Alexander VI never authorized the bilateral treaty before his poisoning on 20 July 1502 (Vander Linden, “Alexander VI”, p. 5). 50 The line itself was designated in the “Contract of Capitulación of the Division of the OceanSea” of 5 September 1494, which transferred the line o the papal bullf Inter Caetera II 270 leagues further westwards (King and Queen of Castile and of Leon, etc., “Capitulation of the Division of the Ocean-Sea”, 5 September 1494, in Thacher [ed.], Columbus, p. 183). Hence, all of the islands and mainland that “up to the present may be found and discovered, and which from now henceforward shall be found and discovered by the said King of Portugal, or by his vessels, islands as well as mainland, from the said line above, drawn in the form aforesaid, going by the said Eastern side within the said line to the East or North or South from it, so long as the said line is not crossed, that this may be and remain and belong to the said Lord, the King of Portugal and to his successors for ever after”, while the islands and mainlands in the cardinal directions west, south, and north “after having passed the said line [. . .] all may be and remain and belong to the said Lords, the King and Queen of Castile and of Leon, etc., and to their successors for ever after” (ibid.). In this context, Robert Williams more general concluded that the Tordesillas line would have had “adjusted” the line of Inter Caetera II, by which “Spain took title to all territory west of this line” and effected that “Spain secured virtually all of North and South America, leaving Portugal a fraction of the South American continent now constituting Brazil” (Williams, Western Legal Thought, p. 80). However, he overlooks that the partitioning of the bilateral treaty in itself had not constituted a valid title, but merely determined areas, in which Portugal and Spain let each other exclusively undertake lawful appropriation attempts. 51 Ibid., p. 183. This is confirmed by Mark Lindley, who suggested that “claims over [Indigenous Peoples’] territories were either legitimized through conquest, or consent to cession, as opposed to treating their lands as terra nullius” (Lindley, Backward Territory, pp. 10–45, emphasis added).

54

Chapter 3 Spanish De Jure Myths (1493–1573)

hostage by a trick, after he was “destroying their unwelcome [Spanish] visitors [. . .] [and] casting them out of the islands” in response to the Spanish attempts in “robbing and despoiling the Indians”,52 and in December 1493 replaced the destroyed settlement La Navidad by La Isabella, which was again abandoned for Santo Domingo in 1496.53 Furthermore, Columbus has sighted and visited some of the Leeward and Windward islands, namely Dominica, Marie Galante, Guadeloupe, Santa Cruz (Saint Croix), and Puerto Rico (Burenquen; John the Baptist) during his second voyage to Hispaniola since September 1494,54 whereupon he claimed to have them “annexed [. . .] to the kingdom of Spain”,55 although the Spanish agent had just symbolically taken Guadeloupe and Marie Galante into possession “with the usual ceremonies”.56 In addition, Cristóbal Colón had forcefully captured indigenous women and boys in Guadeloupe (Saint Mary of Guadaloupe)57 and Saint Croix (Santa Cruz), who were claimed to be captives of so-called “cannibals”, and had attacked a canoe with six Indigenous Peoples, brutally killing at least one, before asserting that the island of Saint Croix would belong “to the Caribs” and present another “Cannibal island”,58 same as Dominica and Marie Galante (Marievolente), whose rulers had been determined as “Cannibals”,59 while Puerto Rico was determined as an island, where “(t)he people of the Caribs [. . .] make conquests and [. . .] take many people away”.60 Moreover, Columbus had sighted the islands of Cuba

52 Thacher (ed.), Columbus, pp. 346–349. 53 Syllacio-Coma, “Letter (13 December 1494)”, pp. 283; 266–267; 351. 54 Chanca, “Letter (c. February 1494)”, pp. 264–270; Syllacio-Coma, “Letter (13 December 1494)”, pp. 248–253. 55 Syllacio-Coma, “Letter (13 December 1494)”, pp. 248–251. 56 Chanca, “Letter (c. February 1494)”, pp. 264–270; Syllacio-Coma, “Letter (13 December 1494)”, pp. 248–253. For Marie Galante it was also reported that “the cross of the Saviour” was erected, before the Spaniards had left the islands a couple of hours later without having encountered any Indigenous Peoples, establishing any settlements or leaving any Spaniard behind (ibid.). 57 Chanca, “Letter (c. February 1494)”, pp. 264–265. 58 Ibid., pp. 268–269; Syllacio-Coma, “Letter (13 December 1494)”, in: Thacher (ed.), Columbus, pp. 252–253. 59 While Columbus on Dominica had also spotted “houses had peoples”, Marievolente was described as being inhabited by “Cannibals”, who “(i)n their battles use very strong bows, with which they shoot arrows as long as a walking staff, and pointed with a sharp bone formed with barbs to prevent the head of the arrow from being easily extracted from a wound”, and would be “skillful archers” (Syllacio-Coma, “Letter [13 December 1494]”, p. 250). 60 Chanca, “Letter (c. February 1494)”, p. 270; Syllacio-Coma, “Letter (13 December 1494)”, p. 253. Furthermore, it was indicated for Puerto Rico that the island was settled with “certain fishermen’s houses” and “well populated”, although Columbus had not talked to anyone, since “they all fled away” (ibid.).

The Discovery Myth and the Papal Bulls of 1493

55

(Juana, April˗June 1494), L’Evangelista (Islas de Pintos, June 1494), Jamaica (May and July 1494), and Santa Maria (May 1494),61 before he returned to Spain on 20 April 1494.62 Columbus had then shortly visited Trinidad (Cairi) during his third voyage in 1498, where he had sighted canoes about Galea Point and Sandy Ground,63 before landing about Erin Point, which left him with “no doubt that the island was populated”.64 In addition, Columbus landed on mainland Paria, where the Spanish agent exercised a symbolic act of possession taking on 5 August 1498 “with the usual ceremonies”, which he had erroneously perceived as “island of Gracia”.65 Moreover, the Spaniard had traded with Indigenous Peoples in “wares of barter” between 6 and 8 August 1498, sighted “an infinite number of houses and people” about the point of Aguja (Jardines) and encountered peoples, who were “wearing gold ornaments”, among them “two principal persons with all the village”,66 who had taken Columbus to their “large house, built near two streams and not round like a camp-tent, in the manner of the houses of the islands”, where they “received them very well and made them a feast” and also informed him that the name of the area is “Paria”, where Columbus had “taken [. . .] people who were clothed”. He then continued his voyage, spotted Tobago on 13 August, which he named “Belaforma”, passed “Madame Beata” on 19 August and reached Santo Domingo (Hispaniola) on 30 August 1498.67 Nowadays, the logbook of Columbus of 1493, which accuses the “Caribs” (in fact Arawak) of Hispaniola of being “cannibals” and “man-eating savages”,68 is considered as “the first fable of [the] European beginning in America” and does, therefore, not present “an accurate ethnographic record” or “privileged eye-

61 Thacher (ed.), Columbus, pp. 315–319; 333;335; 624, footnote 1. 62 Ibid., p. 359. 63 Morales Padrón, Spanish Trinidad, pp. 3–4; Boomert, Indigenous Peoples of Trinidad and Tobago, pp. 83–84. 64 In this context, Francisco Morales Padrón refers to “plenty evidence of human presence”, such as “fishing gears and deer tracks [. . .] seen on the ground [. . .] also plants and tall palm trees towered over the land [ . . ., and] wide fields farmed by the indigenous inhabitants” (Morales Padrón, Spanish Trinidad, p. 2). 65 Ibid., pp. 371–372; 388; 390–395; Morales Padrón, Spanish Trinidad, pp. 2–7; Boomert, Indigenous Peoples of Trinidad and Tobago, pp. 83–84. 66 Those two peoples were specified as being “the cacique and lord, and the other [. . .] his son” (Thacher [ed.], Columbus, pp. 392–395). 67 Ibid., pp. 390; 408. 68 Hulme, Colonial Encounters, p. 50; 33.

56

Chapter 3 Spanish De Jure Myths (1493–1573)

witness document”.69 Nevertheless, the cannibalism claims of Colón shaped the practices of Queen Isabella in 1503 and the subsequent century long debate about the lawfulness of the Spanish appropriation practices in the “Indies”, although Pope Alexander VI in Inter Caetera I had negated the cannibalism claims by stating that in the islands sighted by Columbus would “dwell many nations, living peacefully, going naked and not [sic!] eating flesh”.70 The debate between ecclesiastical legal provisions and royal practices in Spain continued until 1532 and was focused on the lawfulness of enslavement, but had likewise touched the more general question about the lawfulness of Spain’s appropriation practices in the “Indies”.

Spain’s Persistent Legal Debate (1503–1573) After Columbus’ return from his first voyage, the Spanish Queen had issued a general prohibition for the enslavement of Indigenous Peoples in March 1493,71 in line with the papal bull of the same year. This led in April 1495, upon the engagement of the Bishop of Bajadoz,72 to the ordered return of the captured slaves and in 1500 to the revocation of Christopher Colón’s governorship in Hispaniola due to his “continued shipment” of indigenous slaves to Spain, which was based on the fear “that such practices were not compliant with the papal bulls and could potentially lead to a revocation of Spain’s privileges”.73 In response, the Spanish Queen, “in accord with the papal confirmation”, instructed the succeeding governor of Hispaniola, Nicolás de Ovando, in March 1503 that 69 Ibid., p. 10. For the first time, Colón’s cannibalism claim emerged in an entry of 23 November 1492, in which he cites the narrative of an Arawak about another Indigenous People, who would “ate them” and were “very warlike” (ibid., pp. 16–17); W. Arens, The Man-Eating Myth, p. 44. 70 Pope Alexander VI, “Inter Caetera I (Vatican version)”, p. 127. For rejections of the colonial cannibalism claim, see Arens, The Man-Eating Myth, p. 181; Myers, “Island Carib Cannibalism”, pp. 147–184, while Neil Whitehead advances a more modest version of the argument (Whitehead, “Carib Cannibalism”, p. 81; Id., Lords of the Tiger Spirit, pp. 172–173; Id., The Conquest of the Caribs, p. ii). 71 Whitehead, “Carib Cannibalism”, p. 70. 72 Seed, American Pentimento, p. 251, footnote 8. In particular, on 13 April 1495, the Bishop had also “rejected the sale of Indian slaves”. The abolition is confirmed by King Ferdinand II in his Royal Cedula of 23 December 1511 (King Ferdinand II, “Royal Cedula [23 December 1511])”, in C. Jesse, “The Spanísh Cedula of December 23, 1511. On The Subject of the Caribs”, Caribbean Quarterly 9 (September 1963) 3, pp. 22–32, at 29. 73 Doyle, Title to Territory, p. 23. See also Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, p. 173; Whitehead, “Carib Cannibalism”, p. 70.

Spain’s Persistent Legal Debate (1503–1573)

57

Indigenous Peoples are to “be made to serve us through work” under the condition that they are “paid a just salary, nor should they live outside of villages”74 and therefore not to be treated as “slaves”.75 On 30 October 1503, Queen Isabella I emphatically repeated the enslavement prohibition in her well-known and often cited royal order,76 by stating that no person or persons [. . .] dare to arrest or capture any [. . .] Indians [. . .]. To bring them to these my kingdoms or to any other places, or to do any harm or evil to their persons or possessions, under certain penalties prescribed in our decree, and [. . .] since certain persons had brought some Indians from the islands to Spain, we commanded them to be taken and liberated, and they were liberated.77

Although contemporary anthropologist impressively agree that cannibalism practices by Caribs were either exacerbated or a complete European invention,78 the Queen in the same royal order of 1503 also inserted contradictorily an exception to the general enslavement prohibition, which was based on a report about an unsuccessful encounter of the Spaniards with Indigenous Peoples in Carthagena and the adjacent islands of Saint Bernard and Isla Fuerte, as the Indigenous Peoples there had “defended themselves with their weapons, and resisted them so that they [the Spaniards] could not enter these islands”, while the report also claimed that “[d]uring this resistance they killed some Christians [. . .] and thereafter they have [. . .] waged war on the Indians who are my vassals, capturing them to eat them as is their custom”.79 As a “punishment” for the “crimes” of

74 Queen Isabella I, “Instructions to Hispaniola Governor Nicolas de Ovando (March 1503)”, in: P. Liss, Isabel the Queen: Life and Times, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004 p. 342; Queen Isabella I, “Letter to Nicolas de Ovando”, 20 December 1503, in: Williams (ed.), Documents of West Indian History, Vol. 1, No. 58, p. 58. 75 Liss, Isabel the Queen: Life and Times, pp. 341–342. 76 Whitehead, “Carib Cannibalism”, p. 70; Seed, American Pentimento, p. 104; Hulme, Colonial Encounters, p. 70. 77 Queen Isabella I, “Proclamation”, 30 October 1503, in: Williams (ed.), Documents of West Indian History, Vol. 1, No. 62, p. 62–63. See also C. Colón, “Memorandum (Proposal for an Aboriginal Indian Slave Trade to Europe”, 30 January 1495, quoted ibid., No. 54, p. 55–56; C. Colón, “Letter (On the Enslavement of Caribs to Queen Isabella I and King Ferdinand II)”, 1494, ibid., No. 53, pp. 54–55. 78 Whitehead, “Carib Cannibalism”, p. 78; Boomert, Indigenous Peoples of Trinidad and Tobago, pp. 85–86; Hulme, Colonial Encounters, p. 71; Myers, “Island Carib Cannibalism”, pp. 177–178; Arens, The Man-Eating Myth, p. 49. 79 Williams (ed.), Documents of West Indian History, Vol. 1, Queen Isabella I, “Proclamation”, 30 October 1503, No. 62, p. 62–63. See also Seed, American Pentimento, p. 104; Whitehead, Conquest of the Caribs, p. 310; Sauer, Early Spanish Main, pp. 161–162; Whitehead, “Carib Cannibalism”, p. 70; Id., Lords of the Tiger Spirit, pp. 171–172; Hulme, Colonial Encounters, p. 70.

58

Chapter 3 Spanish De Jure Myths (1493–1573)

“those Cannibals”, Queen Isabella, therefore, allowed royally authorized persons in cases the Cannibals still resists, and refuse to receive and welcome in their lands the captains and people who at my command go on the said voyages, and to listen to them to be taught the doctrines of our Holy Catholic Faith, and become my vassals owning allegiance to me, they are authorised to capture them to take them to the lands and islands where they live, and to bring them to these my kingdoms and dominions, and to any other parts and places they wish, paying us the share that belongs to us, and to sell them and utilise their services, without incurring any penalty thereby, because if the Christians bring them to these lands and make use of their services, they will be more easily converted and attracted to our Holy Faith.80

In general, the royal decree mentions the Holy Faith for three reasons, namely (1) by indicating the rejection of the Holy Faith by Indigenous Peoples as legitimate cause for the enslavement (of “cannibals”), (2) perceiving the enslavement and transfer of Indigenous Peoples as means of facilitating the conversion of Indigenous Peoples to the Holy Faith, but within the overall prohibition of enslavement and harmful behaviour towards Indigenous Peoples also (3) as means to achieve the general goal to make all persons of the “islands and mainland of the Ocean sea” Christians.81 Most notably, all three reasons of Queen Isabella were either rejected or qualified by the contemporary European colonial law. Accordingly, (3) was refused as legal means in the papal bull Dudum of 1493, which likewise negated cannibalism claims, and also by Pope Julius II in 1510 and Francisco de Vitoria in 1532, who determined the spread of Christianity only in its limited version as “just” cause for commencing a war and taking war captives, namely if Indigenous Peoples are hindering the preaching and conversion, but not for enslavement per se. In contrast, Hugo Grotius (1625) dismissed it completely. Moreover, Vitoria emphatically rejected (1), with the exception of cannibalism. Finally, (2) was never declared as lawful, but already clearly rejected by the ecclesiastical practices in 1495, whereas slavery for economical work purpose was prohibited in 1500. At the same time, the cited incidence in the Carthagena area indicates that the Spaniards expected that Indigenous Peoples give them access, which

80 Williams (ed.), Documents of West Indian History, Vol. 1, Queen Isabella I, “Proclamation”, 30 October 1503, No. 62, p. 62–63. 81 Ibid.

Spain’s Persistent Legal Debate (1503–1573)

59

was, as outlined by Vitoria, only thirty years later and under certain conditions declared as a lawful cause for commencing a war and taking war captives. After Queen Isabella I died in 1504, King Ferdinand II summoned theologians and lawyers to again determine the lawfulness of the enslavement practice.82 According to the cursorily documentation, the participants of the convened meeting disagreed on the matter,83 but finally concluded that the “Indians should be given [to the Spaniards]”.84 This decision had significant consequences for the Indigenous Peoples of the Caribbean, as King Ferdinand II then acceded extensive Spanish slave raids from Hispaniola to neighbouring islands, but also to Veragua, Lucaya, and Terra Firme. They were granted for economic reasons between 1508 and 1510, which prompted significant responses from both Indigenous Peoples and the Church. Accordingly, Pope Julius II in 1510, in line with the papal bull Dudum of 1493, legally nullified the punishment of cannibalism (claims) as cause for enslavement and commencing a war, since although “acts [such] as cannibalism, sodomy and idolatry, being contra naturam [and] were held to be more criminal than, say, simple homicide or blasphemy”, the pope emphasized that “this did not automatically mean that such sins could be punished by man, through force of arms”, which would instead only be the case when “the ‘death of innocents’ were involved.”85 At the same time, the Indigenous Peoples in San Juan (Sant Xoan) responded to the Spanish slave raids with a massive “rebellion” in 1510/11 in which many Spaniards – including Lieutenant Cristóbal de Sotomayor and his nephew –, were killed, two Spanish villages were burnt down and several Spaniards were taken prisoner. According to the Spanish king, the “rebellion” in Puerto Rico was assertively undertaken by “a great number of [. . .] Cariba”, who “came to the aforesaid Island of Sant Xoan”, would have caused “all the other Indians in the aforesaid Island in Sant Xoan rebelled”, and would

82 Pagden, Spanish Imperialism, p. 14. 83 D. Brunstetter, Tensions of Modernity: Las Casas and His Legacy in the French Enlightenment, New York: Routledge, 2012, p. 26. 84 Pagden, Spanish Imperialism, p. 14. 85 Whitehead, “Carib Cannibalism”, p. 72. The name of the Pope is erroneously given with “Innocent IV”, although Julius II was pope between 1503 and 1513 (M. Ott, “Pope Julius II” in: The Catholic Encyclopedia Vol. 8, New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910, http://www.new advent.org/cathen/08562a.htm [accessed 30 September 2018]). In an earlier publication, Whitehead also claimed that the Catholic Church “underwrote” the Spanish Queen’s royal decree of 30 October 1503 (Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, p. 173), which appears not plausible in the light of the Church’s previous and subsequent practices of prohibiting enslavement and declaring the punishment for cannibalism by humans as unlawful.

60

Chapter 3 Spanish De Jure Myths (1493–1573)

have even incited “the aforesaid Indians to commit many evils and abuses”.86 King Ferdinand II, in June 1511 and November 1511, then ordered that the “rebellious Indians” are to be transferred from San Juan to Hispaniola.87 Finally, King Ferdinand on 23 December 1511 issued a royal order, which permitted all authorized persons to make war on the Caribs of the Islands of Trynidad, Varis, Domynica, and Mantenino [Martinique], and Sancta Lucia, and Sant Vicente, and Concebcion, and Barbudos, and Cabaço [Tobago] and Mayo,88 and they may make prisoners of them, and taken them to the places and islands they so desire, and sell them [. . .] not [. . .] outside the aforesaid Indies.

Same as Queen Isabella I in 1503, the royal order of King Ferdinand II of 1511 likewise explained the “punishment” with (1) the rejection of Christianity (“they have not wanted to do [. . .], but rather have sought, and seek to keep themselves from being instructed and taught the matters of Our Holy Catholic Faith”), (2) cannibalism claims (“they are so set in their evil ways, dismembering and eating the aforesaid Indians”), and (3) self-defence claims (“they have continually made and make war on Our subjects and natives, and have killed many Christians”),89 which were clearly violating the legal annulation of Pope Julius II of 1510 and Dudum of 1493 (negation of cannibalism) and the subsequent legal provisions of Francisco de Vitoria (rejection of the Holy Faith) of 1532. Again, the royal order was based on reports about unsuccessful military encounters of the Spaniards with Indigenous Peoples, who were described with the term “cariba”, which had replaced the previous term “cannibals” of Queen Isabella’s I royal order of 1503, but not removed the cannibalism claims itself. Again spatially emphasizing the Indigenous Peoples of Carthagena and adjacent islands (San Bernado; Isla Fuerte), the term of the royal order of 1511 also included the Indigenous Peoples of Varis Island, Domynica, Mantenino, Sancta Lucia, Sant Vicente, Concebcion, Barbudos, Cabaço (Tobago) and Mayo, whereas the caribas were defined as “people known as the Caribs” and people, who “never wanted nor have wanted nor want to listen to them [Spanish Captains and ‘certain friars’] nor receive them”, but instead

86 King Ferdinand II, “Royal Cedula (23 December 1511)”, in C. Jesse, “The Spanísh Cedula of December 23, 1511”, p. 27. 87 K. Anderson-Córdova, Surviving Spanish Conquest: Indian Fight, Flight, and Cultural Transformation in Hispaniola and Puerto Rico, Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 2017, p. 131–132. 88 While Concebcion was the early Spanish name for Grenada, Mayo presents the Italian version. 89 King Ferdinand II, “Royal Cedula (23 December 1511)”, p. 29.

Spain’s Persistent Legal Debate (1503–1573)

61

they have held them off with their arms and have resisted so they have not been able nor can they enter the aforesaid Island where they are, and in the aforesaid, resistance, they even killed certain Christians; and in this contumacy these aforesaid Indians of the aforesaid Islands have persisted, and many others of other Islands who have joined them, making war on the Indians who are in Our service, and taking them prisoners, they eat them, as they really do.90

One day after the royal order of 23 December 1511, Antonio de Montesinos delivered a staggering Dominican objection, which left the church-attenders of the Christmas sermon in Hispaniola in shock and was also in Spain perceived as a “furious attack” and “an assault upon precisely ‘the lordship and the rents [the king] has in these parts’”,91 since the Dominican had not just denounced the cruel enslavement practices of the Spaniards in Hispaniola, but also challenged the legality of Spain’s colonial appropriation of the area by raising the question “(o)n what authority” the Spaniards have “waged a detestable war against these people, who dwelt quietly and peacefully”?92 In response, King Ferdinand II convened the Council of Burgos in 1512 to determine “the basis of Spain’s legal rights in the Indies”,93 which resulted in the 35 Laws of Burgos of 27 December 1512. Although those laws had just occasioned some legal adjustments to be made for improving the conditions for the enslaved Indigenous Peoples in Hispaniola,94 Anthony Pagden argues, based on “fragmentary surviving evidence” of the Council’s proceedings, that the Council had “agreed that the Spanish crown did indeed have rights to both sovereignty and dominium in America”.95 However, the Spanish king in 1513 introduced the requerimiento (Spanish Requirement of 1513), which instead confirms that a prior legal acquisition was still required in practice, as the requerimiento had obliged Spanish explorers to publicly inform Indigenous Peoples about Spain’s right to wage “war against them” in case the Indigenous Peoples would reject “their natural law obligation to hear the gospel” to ensure that “warfare could legally ensue”.96 In this context, Cathal 90 Ibid., p. 27. 91 Pagden, Spanish Imperialism, p. 14–15. 92 Friar A. Montesinos, “Sermon I am a voice crying in the wilderness”, Hispaniola, 1511, in: L. Hanke (ed.), Spanish Struggle for Justice, Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1965, pp. 147–148. 93 Doyle, Title to Territory, p. 24. 94 King Ferdinand II, “Laws of Burgos”, 27 December 1512, http://faculty.smu.edu/bakewell/ BAKEWELL/texts/burgoslaws.html (accessed 27 September 2018). 95 Pagden, Spanish Imperialism, p. 15 (emphasis added). 96 Miller, “International Law of Colonialism”, p. 918. For arguments about the Islamic roots of the Requerimento, see L. Nuzzo, “Law, Religion and Power: Texts and Discourse of Conquest”, in: I. de la Rasilla del Moral and A. Shahid (eds.), International Law and Islam. Historical Explorations, Leiden: Brill, 2018, pp. 199–227. See also Seed, “Taking Possession and Reading Texts”, pp. 183–209. James Anaya points out that the requerimiento would have “expressly

62

Chapter 3 Spanish De Jure Myths (1493–1573)

Doyle, nevertheless, cites an Inca leader, who dismissed the requerimento on general legal grounds, since it would be “absurd [. . .] that the Pope had the power to give away territories which did not belong to him”.97 This perspective was confirmed by the colonial law of Francisco de Vitoria of 1532, who declared the rejection of the Holy Faith as an “unjust” cause of commencing a war. Again objected to by the Dominicans, this time by “an obscure, wandering friar” in 1517,98 the Spaniards in the meantime continued in advancing cannibalism claims, as resulting from the report of Rodrigo de Figueroa in 1520, who continued in advancing a spatial definition of caribas. Notably, anthropologists unanimously agree that term does not equate with the historical Carib-speaking people,99 although the report claims to having been based on “a series of declarations and testimonies from various witnesses, as to sodomy, cannibalism and general barbarity of carib groups”.100 In result, the Figueroa report was in practice repeating the previous royal orders of 1503 and 1511 by determining the “caribes” as “a barbarous people and enemies of the Christians and who eat human flesh”, who had “never sought have always rejected all efforts at conversion to Our Holy Catholic Faith, by the Christians and their Preachers”, which clearly violated the papal bull Dudum of 1493 and Pope Julius’ II legal annulation of cannibalism as legal cause for waging war in 1510. At the same time, the Figueroa report spatially defined “all islands, not yet occupied by Christians, as being occupied” by “caribes” and also inserted several exceptions, namely the already depleted Lucayas (Bahamas) and Gigantes (ABC islands Aruba, Bonaire, and Curaçao), but also Barbados, Trinidad, and Margarita.101 Whereas the exclusion of Margarita was arguably caused by the marriage of the female

invoked the papal donation as it ordered the ‘idolatrous Indians’ to acknowledge ‘the Church as the Ruler and Superior of the whole world and the high priest called the Pope’” (Anaya, Indigenous Peoples in International Law, p. 36, footnote 20). Most clearly, this was rejected by colonial legal writer Francisco de Vitoria in 1532. 97 Doyle, Title to Territory, pp. 24–25. 98 Hanke, “Pope Paul III and the American Indians”, pp. 96–97. 99 N. Whitehead, Of Cannibals and Kings: Primal Anthropology in the Americas, Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2011, pp. 116–117; Whitehead, “Carib Cannibalism”, p. 71. While Neil Whitehead refers to the political and legal advantages for the Spaniards to raise cannibalism claims (ibid.), Arie Boomert crucially points out that the term “carib” has “no specific ethnic significance”, but had “just lumped all Amerindian groups who fiercely opposed the Spanish, justifying their enslavement by accusing them of eating human flesh” (Boomert, Indigenous Peoples of Trinidad and Tobago, p. 86). See also Hulme, Colonial Encounters, p. 10. 100 Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, p. 9. 101 National Archives of Trinidad and Tobago, Port-of-Spain (hereafter NATT), R. de Figueroa, “Report upon the Peoples of the Islands Tierra Firme”, 1520, publication No. 671, pp. 1–2.

Spain’s Persistent Legal Debate (1503–1573)

63

Guayquerí Cacique Isabel to the Spaniard Francisco Fajardo,102 Trinidad was most likely exempted through the intervention of the Dominican Bartholomé las Casas.103 In addition, Figueroa added one “cariba” area on the mainland, namely “the Coast up to the Gulf of Paria and before the Province of the Aruacs”, whereas those Indigenous Peoples “who come from behind the Coast, from a Province named Paracuya [Paragua], are friendly”,104 as are the Indigenous Peoples located “further on in the said Province of Aruac[a]s, [whom] I have to declare the Indians to be friends of the Christians who are well treated there”,105 whereas the “coast below Unari” remained unclassified in 1520, due to a lack of sufficient information.106 In contrast, King Ferdinand II had in 1511 declared the whole mainland as non-caribas, which was confirmed by the Audiencia of Santo Domingo in 1512.107 Finally, the spatial classification of “cariba” and “non-cariba” was rendered meaningless at the end of the 1520s, since the papal bull Intra Arcana of Pope Clement V of 8 May 1529 in general permitted the use of armed force to “compel and with all zeal cause the barbarian nations to come to the knowledge of God, the maker and founder of all things, not only by edicts and admonitions, but also by force and arms, if needful, in order that their souls may partake of the heavenly kingdom”,108 while Charles V issued a royal order in 1530, which had abolished the enslavement of all Indigenous Peoples without any spatial limitation. Transmitted to the Spaniards in the “Indies” on 2 August 1530,109 the

102 Alternative spellings are Waikerí oder Guaiquerí. 103 M. Perri, “‘Ruined and Lost’: The Spanish Destruction of the Pearl Coast in the Early Sixteenth Century”, Environment and History 15 (May 2009) 2, pp. 129–161, at 141. More precisely, Trinidad was indicated as being “now [sic!] inhabited and held by kindly people”, who would be “friends of the Christians” (NATT, Figueroa, “Report upon the Peoples of the Islands Tierra Firme”, p. 1). 104 This assumption had completely changed in response to the interference of the Secret Boundary Commission after 1764 (see chapter 7). 105 Ibid. Those Indigenous Peoples, who were considered Spaniard-friendly, were also determined as “guatiaos”, which means “friend” in Taino (Hulme, Colonial Encounters, p. 17). 106 Ibid., p. 72. 107 Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, p. 74. According to Neil Whitehead, this change was based on economic considerations of the mine owners of Puerto Rico and Santo Domingo, since the pearl coast became increasingly interesting for the Spaniards [in Margarita, Cubagua, and Coche], which had also brought the slave raiders southwards of the coastal mainland (Whitehead, “Carib Cannibalism”, p. 71). 108 Pope Clement VII, “Intra Arcana”, 8 May 1529, in L. Hanke, “Pope Paul III and the American Indians”, Harvard Theological Review 30 (April 1937) 2, pp. 65–102, at 80. 109 Anderson-Córdova, Surviving Spanish Conquest, p. 133; Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, p. 75; Perri, “‘Ruined and Lost’”, p. 140.

64

Chapter 3 Spanish De Jure Myths (1493–1573)

general prohibition coincided with the first Spanish appropriation attempts in Trinidad and the coastal mainland. However, Charles V again rescinded the abolition in 1534, whereupon Fray Hurtado summoned “thirteen other doctors of the University of Salamanca”,110 which had prompted the famous argument of Hispaniola priest las Casas that the enslavement of all “Indians” was unjust111 and brought the Dominican Tlaxcala Bishop Julián Garcés and Bernadino de Minaya of Peru to the scene, who significantly contributed to the promulgation of the famous papal bull Sublimis Deus of 2 June 1537,112 which contains the momentous passage that notwithstanding whatever may have been or may be said to the contrary, the said Indians and all other people who may later be discovered by Christians, are by no means to be deprived of their liberty or the possession of their property, even though they be outside the faith of Jesus Christ; and that they may and should, freely and legitimately, enjoy their liberty and the possession of their property; nor should they be in any way enslaved; should the contrary happen it shall be null and of no effect.113

In sum, the legal debate in Spain about the lawfulness of the Spanish appropriation practices in the Americas, which ensued upon Columbus’ return from his first voyage in 1493, was until the late 1530s focused on the question about the legal validity of three causes for the enslavement of Indigenous Peoples and the commencement of a war against them, namely (1) the spread of Christianity, (2) the “rejection of the Holy Faith”, and (3) cannibalism claims. All three were highly contested and extensively elaborated in the first comprehensive European colonial law of Francisco de Vitoria.

110 Hanke, “Pope Paul III and the American Indians”, p. 67. 111 Whitehead, “Carib Cannibalism”, p. 72. At that time, the argument of Las Casas was based on the reason that “they were not, in fact, cannibals” (Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, pp. 72–73) or “antropophagus” (Morales Padrón, Spanish Trinidad, p. 6). 112 Hanke, “Pope Paul III and the American Indians”, p. 89. Accordingly, the Dominican Bishop Garcés had indicated his serious concern about the enslavement practice and cruel treatment of Indigenous Peoples in mines and encomiendas in breach of the Laws of Burgos and thus requested Pope Paul III “to denounce these crimes in a bull that fines be levied on persons who persisted in such actions” (ibid., p. 67). Bernadino de Minaya then succeeded in personally presenting his objections to the Pope on 5 October 1536, which had “evidently convinced” Pope Paul III to promulgate Sublimis Deus (ibid.). 113 Pope Paul III, “Sublimis Deus”, 2 June 1537, in L. Hanke, “Pope Paul III and the American Indians”, pp. 71–72 (emphasis added). According to Lewis Hanke, Sublimis Deus was reaffirmed by subsequent Popes, such as Urban VIII (1639), Benedict XIV (1741), and Gregory XVI (1839), Hanke, “Pope Paul III and the American Indians”, pp. 94–95.

The Legal Writings of Francisco de Vitoria (1532)

65

The Legal Writings of Francisco de Vitoria (1532) In 1532, the Spaniard Francisco de Vitoria had tabled his famous legal writings “On the American Indians (De Indis)” (1532/1537) and the “Law of War” (1532/ 1539), which provided a significant challenge to Spain’s “just title in the New World”,114 since Vitoria had clearly recognized Indigenous Peoples as “true masters”115 and possessors of “true dominion”116 and had also rejected several previous assumptions, such as that “the barbarians were slaves”,117 which was later confirmed by Sublimis Deus in 1537. At the same time, Vitoria refused the claim that the pope has “jurisdiction over the barbarians” or was “empowered to inflict [. . .] penalties ordained to these sins”.118 Hence, Indigenous Peoples were not bound to accept religious judgments, penalties or punishments, as “not Christians cannot accept the judgment of the pope”.119 Furthermore, the Spaniard refuted plain claims that either the pope would be the “monarch of the whole world”120 (but has “power in temporal things insofar as they concern spiritual things”)121 or the Spanish monarchs would be the “master of the whole world”,122

114 Fitzmaurice, Sovereignty, Property, p. 49. 115 Vitoria, On American Indians, p. 239, para. 4. 116 Ibid., pp. 251–252, para. 23. 117 Vitoria, On American Indians, p. 246, para. 19. Moreover, Vitoria rejected related claims about “mortal sin” or the “sin of unbelief”, since Indigenous Peoples are neither “(1) sinners, (2) unbelievers, (3) madmen, or (4) insensate”. Ibid., pp. 241–243, paras 6 (sinners); pp. 244–245, para. 7; 8 (unbelievers); p. 248, para. 20 (madmen); p. 250, para. 23 (insenate). Therefore, Christians could not advance any “of those arguments to support their title to dispossess the barbarians of their goods and lands” (ibid., p. 246, para. 19). Nonetheless, Vitoria also inserted a particular limitation for the provision of “mental incapacity”, which “strictly speaking” had not [sic!] presented a “just cause” for waging war, but might present a justification that “the princes of Spain might take over their administration, and set up urban officers and governors on their behalf, or even given them new masters, so long as this could be proved to be in their interest” respectively “might be handed over to wiser men to govern”, provided that “everything is done for the benefit and good of the barbarians, and not merely for the profit of the Spaniards”. While Vitoria in this context also indicated that “[a]ll these barbarians appear to fall under this heading”, wherefore “they might be governed partly as slaves” (ibid., pp. 290–291, para. 18), the exclusion of profit-making rules out the enslavement for all economical purposes and is significantly weakened by Vitoria’s general dismissal of the assumption that Indigenous Peoples would be slaves. Later, the enslavement of Indigenous Peoples was completely rejected by Hugo Grotius (see chapter 8). 118 Vitoria, On American Indians, pp. 276–277. 119 Ibid. In addition “the pope cannot condemn or punish them” (ibid.). 120 Ibid., pp. 258–264, para. 27–31. 121 Ibid., pp. 284–285, Question 3, Article 2, para 10. 122 Ibid., pp. 252–258, para. 25–26.

66

Chapter 3 Spanish De Jure Myths (1493–1573)

based on a “special gift from God”.123 Finally, Vitoria declared every war for the purposes of “the enlargement of empire”, “the personal glory or convenience of the prince”, with the intention to “kill innocent persons” or on the basis of a “difference of religion”124 as unlawful.125 In general, Francisco de Vitoria’s legal writings are, therefore, focused on the presentation of eight “just” and seven “unjust” causes of war to determine the lawfulness of both the Spanish appropriation practice and potentially resulting legal titles acquired by conquest.126 Hence, the first “just” cause of waging war refers to “natural partnership and communication” and applies to cases of “offence” and “self-defence”.127 Accordingly, Spaniards, who were encountering Indigenous Peoples in peace and “do no harm to the barbarians”, but were refused “to travel and dwell in those countries”,128 to “trade among the barbarians”,129 or were denied a share of those things “held in common both by their own people and by strangers”,130 such as “if travellers are [not] allowed to dig for gold in common land or in rivers or to fish for pearls in the sea or in rivers”,131 are acquiring the right of redress for those “offences”, wherefore “they may on the authority of their prince seek redress for it in war”.132 However, the Spaniards are to be required to attempt to remove “any cause of provocation by reasoning and persuasion”, which has to be done “not merely in words, but with

123 Ibid., pp. 276–277. 124 Vitoria, Law of War, p. 302–303, para. 10–12. 125 Ibid., p. 314, para. 35. 126 In this context, Sharon Korman assumes that Vitoria “on the suspicion that the Spanish conquest of America had lacked a just cause [. . .] appeared to reject the validity of Spain’s title to the Indies by conquest” would have “depart[ed] somewhat from his insistence that a just cause of war, defined in terms of transgressions against natural law of nations, was the only ground on which Spain’s conquests in the Americas might be justified” (Korman, Right of Conquest, p. 55). 127 Vitoria, On American Indians, p. 278–279, Question 3, Article 1, para. 2. 128 Ibid., p. 278, Question 3, Article 1, para. 2. 129 Ibid., p. 279, Question 3, Article 1, para. 3. See also Vitoria, Law of War, p. 303, para. 3. 130 Ibid., p. 280, Question 3, Article 1, para. 4. 131 Ibid. (emphasis added). In this context, Vitoria continues in referencing to ferae bestiae, which the law of nations (ius gentium) defines as “a thing which does not belong to anyone (res nullius) becomes the property of the first taker”, provided the “thing”, such as gold in the grounds or rivers “has not been appropriated” beforehand (ibid., pp. 280–281, Question 3, Article 1, para 4). This, however, provides “no support for [a legal title to] possession of these lands”, as “the barbarians possessed true public and private dominion” (ibid., pp. 264–265, Question 2, Article 3). 132 Ibid., p. 282, Question 3, Article 1, para. 6.

The Legal Writings of Francisco de Vitoria (1532)

67

proof”133 and “without trickery or fraud and [. . .] inventing excuses to make war on them”,134 and have to have “demonstrate[d] with every argument at their disposal that they have not come to do harm”.135 In addition, the requirement has to be fulfilled that the respective Indigenous Peoples “insist[ed] on replying with violence”, which gives the Spaniards the potential right to self-defence, because “[i]t is lawful to meet force with force”.136 In turn, in case “the barbarians have done no wrong, there is no just cause for war”.137 As this is declared as “a merely defensive war”, a successfully waged war based on this “just” cause does not imply to “exercise the other rights of war against the barbarians such as putting them to death or looting and occupying their communities”.138 Nevertheless, in case the Indigenous Peoples would subsequently continue “to destroy the Spaniards”, Vitoria reasons that the Spaniards may then treat them no longer as innocent enemies, but as treacherous foes against whom all rights of war can be exercised, including plunder, enslavement, deposition of their former masters, and the institution of new ones. All this must be done with moderation, in proportion to the actual offence. The conclusion is evident enough: if it is lawful to declare war on them, then it is lawful to exercise to the full the rights of war.139

Among the seven remaining “just” causes of war are the spread of Christianity,140 the protection of converts,141 and the defence of the innocent,142 whereof the spread of Christianity had, arguably due to the numerous qualifiers, created the most confusion and requires clarification. Accordingly, the only “just” causes of war for spreading Christianity apply, when Indigenous Peoples are hindering the Spaniards in freely “preach[ing] and announc[ing] the Gospel in the lands of

133 Ibid., pp. 280–281, Question 3, Article 1, para. 6. 134 Ibid., pp. 283–284, para. 8. 135 Ibid., pp. 280–282, Question 3, Article 1, paras. 6; 8. 136 Ibid., para. 6. 137 Ibid., p. 270, para. 35. 138 Ibid., p. 282, Question 3, Article 1, para. 6. 139 Ibid., p. 283, Question 3, Article 1, para. 8. 140 Ibid., pp. 284–286, Question 3, Article 2, para. 9–12. 141 Ibid., p. 286, Question 3, Article 3, para. 13. 142 Ibid. pp. 287–288, Question 3, Article 5, para. 15. The other four just causes are (1) the already elaborated case of “mental incapacity”, apply to situations, where (2) a “good proportion” is converted (papal constitution, ibid., p. 287, para. 14), (3) the majority is Christian (voluntary election; ibid., pp. 288–289, para. 16), and when (4) Indigenous Peoples voluntarily requested the Spaniards for an alliance in war (pp. 289–290, para. 17), wherefore the Spaniards “by coming to the aid of their friends and allies”, would be also “profiting from the opportunity to declare just wars, thereby taking possession of new provinces by the laws of war” (ibid., p. 289, Question 3, Article 7, para. 17).

68

Chapter 3 Spanish De Jure Myths (1493–1573)

the barbarians”,143 “after first reasoning with them [Indigenous Peoples] to remove any cause of provocation [. . .] even against their will” and “if they permit the Spaniards to preach, but do not allow conversions, either by killing or punishing the converts to Christ, or by deterring them by threats or other means”, since those actions present “a wrong committed by the barbarians against the Spaniards [. . .] and the latter therefore have just cause for war”, whereupon the Spaniards “may lawful conquer the territories of these people”.144 However, this applies only in the case of a successfully waged war and is significantly qualified, since in case “the resulting war, with its massacres and pillage, obstructs the conversion of the barbarians instead of encouraging it [. . .] this method of evangelization must be abandoned and some other sought”.145 In turn, Vitoria likewise clearly indicates that the Spaniards are having no “just” cause for waging war “if the barbarians permit the Spaniards to preach the Gospel freely and without hindrance, then whether or not they accept the faith, it will not be lawful to attempt to impose anything on them by war, or otherwise conquer their lands”.146 In addition, the rejection of the faith by Indigenous Peoples “however probably and sufficiently the faith may have been announced” still presents “no reason to declare war on them and despoil them of their goods”. Hence, “this title to the conquest of the lands of the barbarians, too, is neither applicable nor legitimate”. Moreover, no “just” cause is given, if Indigenous Peoples allow free preaching, but refuse to listen “to peaceful persuasion about religion”, which would in general “incur unpardonable mortal sin”, but does not apply to Indigenous Peoples, as they “are not bound to believe from the first moment that the Christian faith is announced to them”. The same is the case for Indigenous Peoples’ refusal of believing the Holy faith, since Vitoria had not heard of any miracles or signs, nor of any exemplary saintliness of life sufficient to convert them. On the contrary, I hear only of provocations, savage crimes, and multitudes of unholy acts [of the Spaniards]. From this, it does not appear that the Christian religion has been preached to them in a sufficiently pious way,

wherefore Vitoria concludes that “if the faith is proposed to the barbarians only in this way and they do not accept it, the Spaniards cannot use this pretext to attack them or conduct a just war against them”,147 nor does it present a justification for

143 144 145 146 147

Ibid., p. 284, Question 3, Article 2, para 9. Ibid., p. 285, Question 3, Article 2, para 12 (emphasis added). Ibid., p. 286, para. 12 (emphasis added). Ibid., p. 285, Question 3, Article 2, para 11 (emphasis added). Ibid., pp. 268–272, Question 2, Article 4, para. 33–39.

The Legal Writings of Francisco de Vitoria (1532)

69

enslavement.148 Finally, waging war to force Indigenous Peoples to believe the Holy faith is likewise not a “just” cause, as “the barbarians cannot be moved by war to believe, but only to pretend that they believe and accept the Christian faith [. . .]. It is therefore clear that this title to the conquest of the lands of the barbarians, too, is neither applicable nor legitimate.”149 In other words, in case Indigenous Peoples allowed the Spaniards to preach and convert (without the necessity to believe or listen), the Spaniards had no “just” cause in the name of spreading Christianity. Instead, Francisco de Vitoria even highlights the argument that “the barbarians may not be invaded at all, because of their unbelief or their refusal to accept the Christian faith”.150 Furthermore, the Spanish lawyer enshrined two more relevant “just causes” of waging war, namely the “protection of converts” and “the defence of the innocent against tyranny”. On the one hand, Vitoria declares the “protection” of already converted Indigenous Peoples as “just” cause of war,151 if “their [indigenous] princes try to call them back to their idolatry by force or fear”, whereupon “the Spaniards may on these grounds, if no other means are possible, wage war on them and compel the barbarians to stop committing this wrong”,152 whereas the “defence of the innocent” against “tyranny” refers to the particular case of “human sacrifice practised on innocent men or the killing of condemned criminals for cannibalism”, is considered as “just” basis of war under the condition “they refuse [. . .] to give up such rites altogether”.153 Thus, Vitoria points out that only in cases of a “just war” (and not in an unjust or defensive war), the enslavement of war captives is lawful, since “when the war is such that it is lawful to plunder all the enemy population indiscriminately and seize all their goods, it must also be lawful to enslave them all, guilty and innocent alike”.154

148 Vitoria, Law of War, pp. 302–303, para. 10–12. 149 Ibid., p. 272, Question 2, Article 4, para 39. 150 Ibid., p. 272, Question 2, Article 5 (emphasis added). 151 Ibid. 152 Ibid., p. 286, Question 3, Article 3, para 13. 153 Ibid., p. 287–288, para 15. Hereby, Vitoria refers to two options of application, namely “either on account of the personal tyranny of the barbarians’ masters towards their subjects, or because of their tyrannical and oppressive laws against the innocent”. If Indigenous Peoples refuse to “give up” those practices, Vitoria states that “the laws of war” apply and, in case “there is no other means of putting an end to sacrilegious rites, there masters may be changed and new princes set up” (ibid.). 154 Vitoria, Law of War, p. 322, para. 51.

70

Chapter 3 Spanish De Jure Myths (1493–1573)

Despite Vitoria’s focus on conquest, the Spanish legal writer, nonetheless, also inserted some marginal notes on the two other legal means of appropriation, namely the conclusion of treaties and occupation. Accordingly, Vitoria recognizes the necessity of “voluntary consent by the barbarians”, but rejects the lawfulness of treaty making and consent in armed situations, since a “request [. . .] made by armed men, who surround a fearful and defenceless crowd” would “vitiate any freedom of election” and also points to the aspect that “the barbarians [. . .] do not even understand what it is the Spaniards are asking of them”, before emphasizing that the “barbarians already had their own true masters and princes” and “a people cannot without reasonable cause seek new masters, which would be to the detriment of their previous lords”.155 Moreover, Vitoria mentions the legal means of occupation only for cases, when Spaniards are peacefully residing among Indigenous Peoples and indicates that “if they [the Spaniards] are their [Indigenous Peoples’] subjects, then the barbarians ought to treat them fairly”,156 which suggests, what Hugo Grotius had elaborated some decades later, namely that sovereignty and jurisdiction, in cases of European occupation, remains with Indigenous Peoples. In result, the legal writings of Francisco de Vitoria of the 1530s had significantly limited previous reasons for waging a just war against Indigenous Peoples by reducing the “just” war cause of spreading Christianity to the hindrance of preaching and conversion by Indigenous Peoples and ruling out the rejection to the Holy faith. Along with the “protection” of converts, revenges of offences (trade, travelling and shared resources) and self-defence, Francisco de Vitoria, nevertheless, confirmed cannibalism claims as “just” cause of waging war. In effect, Vitoria’s colonial law had a remarkable influence on the Spanish king Charles V, who had replaced “conquest” by “pacification” (preaching and conversion) in the royal letter patent for Trinidad in 1530. Until August 1552, “conquest” even vanished completely from the royal practices, after Charles V had on 16 April 1550 decreed “the immediate suspension of further conquests” until “the whole question of ‘just wars’ in the Indies was scrutinized more

155 Vitoria, On American Indians, p. 276 (emphasis added). 156 Ibid., p. 279, para. 2. Moreover, Vitoria with regard to trade indicates that “[i]n sum, it is certain that the barbarians can no more prohibit Spaniards from carrying on trade with them, than Christians can prohibit other Christians from doing the same” (ibid., p. 280, para. 3), while in the context of peaceful occupation, Vitoria refers to the case of children “born in the Indies” to a Spanish father and an indigenous mother, those children shall become “citizens (civis) of that [indigenous!] community” and enjoy the advantages of “native citizens born of parents domiciled in that community” (ibid., p. 281, para. 5).

The Legal Writings of Francisco de Vitoria (1532)

71

formally”.157 Prior, Charles V and Vitoria had held several consultations in March 1541,158 before the Spanish monarch enacted the “New Laws of the Indies” in November 1542,159 (again) ordered the abolition of Indigenous Peoples’ enslavement and the encomienda160 in the present form,161 which was lifted in 1552 and 1573,162 and in 1550/51 convened the well-known Valladolid debate (Junta de Valladolid). Hence, Charles V in August 1550 summoned the Crown’s historian Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda and the procurator of Indigenous Peoples at the Spanish Court and Dominican Bartholomé de las Casas to address this issue, which became known as the Valladolid debate. Thus, historian Sepúlveda presented the argument in favour for war based on the “radical thesis” that waging war against Indigenous Peoples “was justifiable on the basis that they lacked rationality, did not have dominion and were natural slaves”,163 indicated that the requierimiento (Spanish Requirement of 1513) as “prior warning” would present “a useless hindrance to conquest” and claimed that instead “the use of force” (without prior notification) would be justified “to save Native souls even against their will” and also provide “the most expedient means to subdue people”,164 in order to conclude that “war should precede practising of the faith” to place Indigenous Peoples under “‘tutelage, with or without their consent’ in order to facilitate their adoption of the faith”. At the same time, Sepúlveda concedes that prior to the Spaniards’ arrival, Indigenous Peoples had been “lords in their own lands” and had “imperium under the terms of the law of nations which grants rights of occupancy to the first settler”.165 In turn, the Dominican Bartholomé de las Casas countered Sepúlveda by arguing that the spread of Christianity is an “unjust” cause of waging war and

157 S. Collier, From Cortés to Castro. An Introduction to the History of Latin America, 1492–1973, New York: Macmillan, 1974, p. 125. 158 E. Nys (ed.), De Indis of Francisco Vitoria, New York: Oceana Publications, 1964, pp. 9–53. 159 A. Schulenburg, “Abolition of Slavery”, in: D. Head (ed.), Encyclopedia of the Atlantic World, 1400–1900: Europe, Africa, and the Americas in an Age of Exploration, Trade, and Empires, Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, 2018, pp. 5–9, at 5. 160 Schulenburg, “Abolition of Slavery”, p. 5. 161 W. Mader, Indians in the Americas: The Untold Story, San Diego: The Book Tree, 2005, p. 63. 162 Collier, From Cortés to Castro, p. 125. 163 Doyle, Title to Territory, p. 34; L. Hanke, All Mankind is One: A Study of the Disputation between Bartolomé de las Casas and Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda in 1550 on the Intellectual and Religious Capacity of the American Indians, DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 1974. 164 A. DeLong, “Disrupting the Discourse of Conquest: The Suppression of Sepúlveda”, http://digital.lib.lehigh.edu/trial/justification/newspain/essay/ (accessed 29 January 2017). 165 Pagden, Spanish Imperialism, p. 19 (emphasis added).

72

Chapter 3 Spanish De Jure Myths (1493–1573)

that voluntary consent by Indigenous Peoples to both the conversion to Christianity and Spanish rule presents the only legitimate title, while the Church had no jurisdiction.166 Moreover, las casas denied “any legitimacy of the Crown’s powers over the natives, on the basis that it had been acquired by force in the absence of consent”, which instead “would be forthcoming without the use of force” and by maintaining “existing native authorities”.167 From 1560 to 1563, the argument of the Dominican was developed by the Salamanca school, most notably by Juan de la Peña, who confirmed that the Spaniards “have no authority over them” and even argued that Indigenous Peoples “could [also] fight just wars against Christians and be entitled to all the rights”. At the same time, the scholar of Salamanca confirmed Francisco de Vitoria’s “just war” cause of cannibalism in stating that “it was legitimate for the Spaniards to prevent such tribes as the Caribs from eating each other by force”.168 In result, King Philipp II sided with the Dominican las Casas and the colonial law of Vitoria by issuing the royal decree Ordenanzas de Descubrimiento, Nueva Población y Pacificación de las Indias (Ordinances of Discovery, New Population and Pacification of the Indies) of 13 July 1573, which confirmed the replacement of “conquest” by “pacification” and completely prohibited the “conquest of the Indians ‘by fire and by sword’”.169

166 B. de las Casas, A Brief Account of the Destruction of the Indies (Brevísima Relacioń de la Destrucción de las Indias), Baltimore: Hopkins University Press, 1996 [1552]. 167 Doyle, Title to Territory, p. 34. Las Casas elaborated this position further in: B. de las Casas, De Thesauris in Peru (Los Tesoros del Peru), Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, 1958 [1563]. 168 Pagden, Spanish Imperialism, pp. 30–31. 169 King Philipp II, “Ordenanzas de Descubrimientos, Nueva Población y Pacificación de las Indias (1573)”, in: F. Morales Padrón (ed.), Teoría y Leyes de la Conquista, Madrid: Ediciones Cultura Hispánica del Centro Iberoamericano de Cooperación, 1979, pp. 489–518.

Chapter 4 Spanish Colonial Appropriation Practices in Terra Firme and Trinidad (1503–1591) In analogy to the analysed Spanish colonial legal provisions, this chapter examines the Spanish practices of colonial appropriation in Trinidad, Paria, and the Orinoco during the yet inconclusive period 1503–1591. Starting with an investigation of Spanish enslavement practices in the “Indies” since 1503, which presented the first encounter between Spaniards and Indigenous Peoples after Columbus, this chapter continues with an examination of the first Spanish colonial settlement attempts in Trinidad by Antonio Sedeño (1530–1534) and Juan Ponce de León (1569–1579), before the first royally sanctioned appropriation expeditions on the coastal mainland are traced between 1530 and 1591 to determine whether Spain’s practices qualified for the acquisition of a valid legal title.

Enslavement in the “Indies” between War and Labour (1503–1537) Predated by the practices of famous Spanish explorers, such as Columbus (1492–1498), Cristóbal Guerra (1499–1502),1 and Rodrigo de Bastidas (1504), who sailed from Santo Domingo to Tierra Firme to forcefully capture “six hundred natives from the mainland to sell them as slaves in Espanola [Hispaniola]”,2 Queen Isabella I in 1503 permitted the enslavement of “canibales” as war captives,3 while King Ferdinand II in 1508 – most notably without any legal basis – acceded 1 Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, p. 29 (emphasis added). This Spanish explorer had declared the mainland coast “infested with caribes” in 1499, shortly before the royal order of Queen Isabella, and therefore, “ravaged” the northern “shores of Terra Firma” between 1500 and 1502 (ibid.). 2 C. Anderson, Old Panama and Castilla del Oro. A Narrative History of the Discovery, Conquest, and Settlement by the Spaniards of Panama, Darien, Veragua, Santo Domingo, Santa Marta, Cartagena, Nicaragua, and Peru, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1911, p. 122. 3 Whitehead, “Carib Cannibalism”, p. 70; Seed, American Pentimento, p. 104; Hulme, Colonial Encounters, p. 70. In this context, Peter Hulme assumes that the decree was “probably swayed by lurid tales of anthropophagous savage actively propagated by slave traders [. . .] as the demand for slaves grew acute” (Hulme, Colonial Encounters, p. 70). In addition, Neil Whitehead reasons that “from the trade in caribes there were more general economic considerations involved in this issue, principally the supply of a labour force” (Whitehead, “Carib Cannibalism”, p. 70; see also Id., Lords of the Tiger Spirit, p. 173), whereas Patricia Seed suggests that the link between “native cannibalism to military resistance allowed Iberian leaders to believe that they https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110690149-004

74

Chapter 4 Spanish Colonial Appropriation Practices

slave raids by the Spaniards in Hispaniola on neighbouring islands for economical purposes, as for example licensed to Diego de Nicuesa and Alonso de Hojeda in June 1508 “to take up to 400 Indians from islands neighbouring Hispaniola in their expedition to Tierra Firme and Veragua” (emphasis added) and granted for “Lucayan Indians resisting their relocation” in 1509. The permission was extended to the Spaniards of Puerto Rico in April and June 1510, assertively resulting in the depopulation of the Bahamas by 1510 and depletion of its “human cargo” by 1518,4 whereupon the slave raiders turned further South, after the pearl oyster beds of Cubagua and Margarita were discovered during the period 1509–1512,5 which had prompted the settlement of Margarita in the period 1525–1527 by Marcello de Villalobos.6 Hence, the major turning point was prompted by the “massive” rebellion of the Indigenous Peoples in Puerto Rico in 1510/1511, which had killed the Spanish Lieutenant Cristobal de Sotomayor, his nephew and “many other Christians” and left two Spanish villages burnt and several Christians taken prisoner. The “rebellion” was assertively incited by “a great number of [. . .] Cariba”, who “came to the aforesaid Island of Sant Xoan” and would have caused “all the other Indians in the aforesaid Island in Sant Xoan rebelled.”7 In response, King Ferdinand II ordered the “rebellious Indians” to be transferred from San Juan to Hispaniola in June and November 1511,8 before the Spanish monarchs issued a royal order on 23 December 1511, which permitted Spaniards to carry out “punishing expeditions” against caribas in Trinidad, Dominica, Varis, Martinique (Mantenino), St. Lucia (Sancta Lucia), St. Vincent (Sant Vicente), Barbados (Barbudos), Tobago (Cabaço) and Grenada (Concebcion; Mayo)9 and to “may make prisoners

did in fact represent a new moral order” to “satisfy the ruler’s consciences that they were justified in ordering slavery” (Seed, American Pentimento, pp. 103–104). 4 Anderson-Córdova, Surviving Spanish Conquest, pp. 131–133. 5 Boomert, Indigenous Peoples of Trinidad and Tobago, p. 85; Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, p. 74; 11; Id., “Carib Cannibalism”, p. 70. 6 Ibid., p. 75. 7 King Ferdinand II, “Royal Cedula (23 December 1511)”, p. 27. 8 Anderson-Córdova, Surviving Spanish Conquest, pp. 131–132. In this context, Arie Boomert asserts that the rebellion would have resulted in the “exodus” of the “Taino”, who had occupied the area “from there to the smaller islands, indeed as far south as Trinidad” (Boomert, Indigenous Peoples of Trinidad and Tobago, pp. 85–86), whereas Francisco Morales Padrón designates those peoples as “Igneri”, that is “Arawak people of [the] southern Greater Antilles”, and likewise indicates that the “Caribs” of the mainland (Kalina) were at that time present in the “northeastern zone” of Trinidad (Morales Padrón, Spanish Trinidad, p. 6). 9 While Concebcion is the Spanish name of Grenada, Mayo presents the Italian version of the same.

Enslavement in the “Indies” between War and Labour (1503–1537)

75

of them, and taken them to the places and islands they so desire, and sell them [. . .] not [. . .] outside the aforesaid Indies”. The order was justified with selfdefence, cannibalism claims, and the refusal of Christianity,10 whereas the latter presented an “unjust” cause of waging war in the colonial law of Francisco de Vitoria of 1532. In practice, Spanish enslavement in Trinidad took increasingly place between 1510 and 1520 (Figueroa report), after the royal permission of both punishment expeditions in 1511 (in breach with the legal provisions of the Catholic church), and slave expeditions for economical purposes in 1508 (without any legal foundation). Most notably, in 1510, the slave trader Juan Bono de Quejo in company of “fifty or sixty other robber-companions”11 had unlawfully [sic!] carried of 185 Indigenous Peoples by force to sell them “in Puerto Rico and Hispaniola” and burnt another “one or two hundred [. . .] alive”.12 In addition, Bono’s precise description reveals that “[t]he Indians received them as they would their own people”, after Bono had declared to “come in peace and to live among them” and, therefore, had “invited” more than 100 Indigenous Peoples in the dwelling [house] built by them on his request.13 Similarly, the Spaniards had also in the “final months” of 1516 switched to attacking and forcefully enslaving all Indigenous Peoples of those in the “large, bell-shaped dwelling” by using “their swords”.14 Those enslavement strategies continued in 1517, when slave raiders repeated Bono’s “mean trick” in Trinidad and “lured with promises of gifts”, before “suddenly drew their weapons and captured a large number of Amerindians, who were carried away as slaves and sold in Hispaniola”.15 In addition, Michael Perri reports for Cubagua that since the year 1518 “coercion” was applied “to acquire slaves” and enslavement was covered “[u]nder the guise of [a licence of] barter (rescate)”,16 whereas the term “rescate” is, same as “armada”, indicating a term of war.17

10 King Ferdinand II, “Royal Cedula (23 December 1511)”, p. 29. 11 NATT, J. Bono, “Account on Enslavement in Trinidad”, 1510, publication No. 556. This account also mentions a Cacique called “Alfonsus” (ibid.). 12 Boomert, Indigenous Peoples of Trinidad and Tobago, p. 86. By contrast, Francisco Morales Padrón narrates the same event as followed: “While on land, another one hundred refugees suffered abuse in the large house that they refused to abandon” (Morales Padrón, Spanish Trinidad, p. 17). 13 NATT, Bono, “Account on Enslavement in Trinidad”, 1510. 14 Boomert, Indigenous Peoples of Trinidad and Tobago, p. 86. 15 Ibid., p. 87; Morales Padrón, Spanish Trinidad, p. 17. 16 Perri, ‘“Ruined and Lost’”, pp. 139–140. In addition, the Spaniards applied the term “rascate” to determine Spanish slave raids in Cubagua (Boomert, Indigenous Peoples of Trinidad and Tobago, p. 85; Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, p. 74). 17 Anderson-Córdova, Surviving Spanish Conquest, pp. 131–133.

76

Chapter 4 Spanish Colonial Appropriation Practices

Eventually, Spanish slave raids on coastal mainland Paria took increasingly place in 1519, after the Spanish Crown in June (1519) “gave license to Miguel de Psamonte, Royal Treasurer of Hispaniola, to acquire Carib Indians from the coast of Paria for his use”,18 while another Spanish slaver in the same year captured and enslaved between 70 or 80 Indigenous Peoples in the Gulf of Paria, based on the claim that they “were war captives of Amerindians, which were considered to be guatiaos”, wherefore “their indigenous enemies could be seen as caribes”,19 which lacked any foundation in the papal legal provisions (see chapter 3). Paria declared as “cariba” by the Figueroa report of 1520, the Indigenous Peoples of the mainland conducted a joined attack upon the Spaniards, whereupon a “punitive expedition” was sent out from Hispaniola to Comaná (Cumana) in 1520, which under the lead of Gonzalo de Ocampo had killed “the Indians who opposed them” and captured “more than 600 Indians”, which in result would have “decimated native populations near Cumaná and Santa Fé, especially the sedentary Tagar”.20 At the same time, a “first [indigenous] rebellion” took place in Cubagua in 1519,21 which was joined by the Arawak of Trinidad in 1520 to resist “the execution of a local Amerindian chief called Melchor”.22 At the same time, enslavement continued in Trinidad, despite the designation of the island as “non-caribes” by Figueroa in 1520 and the general legal papal prohibition of enslavement based on cannibalism claims, as the term caribas was “interpreted freely” and “although Trinidad was inhabited by guatiaos, malicious persons did not hesitate to call them caribes”.23 Furthermore, “the coastal mainland of the Gulf of Cariaco” was “largely decimated” by 1527,24 after enslavement expeditions had “continued throughout the 1520s” in both Tierra Firme and the Lesser Antilles.25 In result, about “40,000” Indigenous Peoples had been violently removed, enslaved, and forced to labour in pearl fisheries,

18 Ibid., p. 132. 19 Boomert, Indigenous Peoples of Trinidad and Tobago, pp. 85–86. 20 Perri, ‘“Ruined and Lost’”, p. 135. At that time, the Tagare were believed to occupy the area “west of Cumaná”, while the Cumanagoto lived “west of Tagare”, bordered by “a lost of politically distinct peoples”, but “linguistically related to the Cumanagoto”, while there were further inland “from east to west” the Indigenous Peoples of the “Warao, Chaima, Coaca, Core and Kari’ña” (ibid., p. 153, footnote 14). 21 Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, p. 75. 22 Boomert, Indigenous Peoples of Trinidad and Tobago, pp. 87–88. 23 Ibid., pp. 85–86. 24 Thus, Michael Perri indicates that “[t]housands of slaves were registered at Cubagua and sent to the Greater Antilles” and, after the “discovery” of Peru in 1531, “hundreds more were exported to Panama, where they worked as porters” (Perri, “‘Ruined and Lost’”, p. 142). 25 Anderson-Córdova, Surviving Spanish Conquest, p. 133.

Spanish Short-Term Settlements in Trinidad (1530–1579)

77

plantations, and mines between 1505 and 152726 and “more than 1,000” Indigenous Peoples died due to “ill-treatment” in Trinidad alone.27 Afterwards, the Spanish slavers proceeded towards Paria (since 1520 declared as cariba)28 and turned the area into a “depopulated backwater of the Spanish Empire”.29 While the papal bull Intra Arcana of 5 May 1529 permitted the use of arms for the spread of Christianity without any spatial limitation, and both Charles V in 1530 and Sublimis Deus of 1537 in general prohibited enslavement, the royal practices of the Spaniards somewhen between 20 May 1530 (capitulación of Diego de Ordás for the Orinoco) and 12 July 1530 (capitulación of Antonio Sedeño for Trinidad) switched from “discovery, conquest and population” to “population and pacification”. The approach was legally supported by Francisco de Vitoria in 1532 and became the general Spanish practice in 1573.

Spanish Short-Term Settlements in Trinidad (1530–1579) Notably, the peak of enslavement in Trinidad and coastal mainland Paria emerged at the moment of the royal abolition of enslavement, as the royal order of Charles V had reached the “Indies” in August 1530,30 when the first Spanish settlement attempt was carried out in Trinidad by Antonio Sedeño. The undertaking was based on the royal capitulación for the “pacification and population of the island” (“pacificación y población de la isla de Trinidad”) of 12 July 1530,31 whereas an earlier capitulación of 1520 to Rodrigo de Bastidas for the “population” (“poblaría”) of Trinidad32 had remained unimplemented33 and the Spanish monarch in January 1530 had rejected the request of Sedeño to insert the royal permission

26 Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, pp. 27–29. 27 Boomert, Indigenous Peoples of Trinidad and Tobago, p. 106. 28 Perri, “‘Ruined and Lost’”, p. 141; NATT, Figueroa, “Report upon the Peoples of the Islands Tierra Firme”, 1520, pp. 1–2. 29 Ibid., p. 130. 30 Perri, “‘Ruined and Lost’”, p. 130. 31 AGI, Charles V, “Capitulación Antonio Sedeño”, 12 July 1530, ES.41091.AGI/29.3.7.1// PATRONATO, 18, N.9, R.1, Seville. 32 D. R. Pérez, Genocidio y Conquista: Viejos Mitos Que Siguen En Pie, Madrid: Real Academia de la Historia, 1998, p. 113, footnote 68. 33 Anderson, Old Panama and Castilla del Oro, p. 122, Accordingly, Rodrigo de Bastidas received another corder in 1521, after Columbus’ son Diego voiced his opposition, which instructed him “to settle and exploit a tract of land extending from Cabo de la Vela westward to the Rio Grande de la Magdalena”, although his expedition had not left Santo Domingo before 1524/1525 (ibid.).

78

Chapter 4 Spanish Colonial Appropriation Practices

to make “prisoners of war when rejecting evangelisation”.34 While the rejection of the Holy faith by Indigenous Peoples was legally refused by Vitoria as “just” cause of waging war in 1532, Charles V already in July 1531, based on his general enslavement abolition of 1530, reminded the Spanish explorer Sedeño that enslavement is strictly prohibited and ordered him to treat the Indigenous Peoples of Trinidad “lovingly and with friendship”.35 Hence, the Spanish king again rejected the sword approach of Intra Arcana of 1529. Despite, Antonio Sedeño, in the same month of July 1531, brought enslaved “Indians from Trinidad” to San Juan,36 where his “warfare and slave-raids” were described as being “even bloodier than those of [. . .] Ortal”,37 who had “attacked the settlement of Orocopón at the Unare River” in union with the Cacique Guaramental around the same time, wherein Cacique Orocopón was killed and all those captured enslaved.38 Again, after landing “his forces in Paria”, the Spaniard Ortal had carried out a massive slave raid and, thus, “depopulated the Province of Paria”, although the Indigenous Peoples were described as “friendly Indians, [who] guarded these frontiers against Caribs”39 and the royal order had prohibited enslavement. Thereupon, another enslavement expedition took place in October 1535, when “Indians [were] taken from Venezuela and sold in Hispaniola”, after in July 1535 the “residents of San Juan even went so far as to request the Crown’s permission to bring Indians from Brazil without paying taxes”.40 Meanwhile, Antonio Sedeño, upon his arrival in Trinidad in November 1530,41 had attempted to fulfil his additional order to populate the island at the frontier to the Dragon’s mouth42 and, thus, approached the Arawak Caciques Maluana (Maruana) of southern Trinidad and mainland Cacique Turipari from the Orinoco confluence Manamó43 with “numerous gifts such as polished ornaments, textiles, Castilian wine, and iron implements” in exchange for “an indigenous

34 Ibid. The validity of the enslavement prohibition of 1530 is also confirmed for Margarita (Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, pp. 76–77) and Cubagua (Perri, “‘Ruined and Lost’”, p. 140). 35 AGI, King of Spain “Information about the treatment of Indians upon request of Antonio Sedeño”, 24 July 1531. 36 Anderson-Córdova, Surviving Spanish Conquest, p. 133. 37 Perri, “‘Ruined and Lost’”, p. 146. 38 Ibid., p. 144. 39 Treasurer of Cubagua, “Report”, July 1535, in: Perri, “‘Ruined and Lost’”, p. 143. 40 Anderson-Córdova, Surviving Spanish Conquest, p. 135. 41 Boomert, Indigenous Peoples of Trinidad and Tobago, p. 89. 42 AGI, Charles V, “Capitulación Antonio Sedeño”, 12 July 1530, ES.41091.AGI/29.3.7.1// PATRONATO,18, N.9, R.1, Seville. 43 Alternative spellings are Turpiari, Tiopiari, and Turuquiare.

Spanish Short-Term Settlements in Trinidad (1530–1579)

79

war captive”. Initially aiming to establish a footing at the coast of the Gulf of Paria in the Carinepagoto area, Sedeño, however, had to face Cacique Bacunar of Cumucurapo on the opposite site of Trinidad and, therefore, just established “a modest mud-walled fortress close to the village of Turipari”, before leaving for Puerto Rico “to enlist new men and collect supplies”. Established on the coastal mainland, the “fortress” was immediately afterwards destroyed by Diego de Ordás, who departed for the Orinoco somewhen between October 153144 and June 1532.45 In contrast, attempts by Sedeño to fulfil the order of “pacification” are neither record nor hinted in any of the historical sources. After Sedeño’s return from Puerto Rico at the end of 1532, the situation in Trinidad had, instead, significantly worsened, since Bacunar, arguably in response to Sedeño’s previous slave raids, had killed 24 of Spaniards earlier sent by Sedeño from Puerto Rico and forced the remaining Spaniards to leave for Cubagua, whereupon Sedeño attacked Bacunar’s village Cumucurapo. The village burnt, “several Spaniards” killed by poisoned arrows and numerous Carinepagotos murdered, only “a few” had “survived the massacre”. Afterwards, Sedeño “took possession of the village”, which, however, was in breach with the royal orders. Moreover, Bacunar returned for a counter-attack in June 1533, which had killed two and wounded 25 Spaniards, before the Cacique of the Carinepagotos undertook another attack in September 1533 with reinforcements of the Caciques Guyma (Guaimá), Pamacoa, Diamaná (Diamainmá), Amanatey, Paraguani, and the “gigantic Utuyaney” from Paria and Trinidad. The exact result is not transmitted, but it is known that the indigenous force withdrew into the hills and Sedeño abandoned Trinidad in August 1534. Thus, the Spaniard left his royal order to populate and pacify Trinidad unfulfilled, mainly due to opposition of Indigenous Peoples “unified under chief Baucunar, a Carinepagoto ‘great man’ living at Cumucurapo”,46 which was followed 35 years later by another (failed) Spanish settlement attempt. Meanwhile, Spanish enslavement expeditions continued based on numerous grounds, despite Vitoria’s legal limitation of the enslavement of war captives. Accordingly, the Spaniards of the island of Cubagua were once again licensed to capture and enslave “rebellious Indians” in 1532,47 which was in particular undertaken by Andrés de Villacorta during the 1530s, who had prompted

44 Boomert, Indigenous Peoples of Trinidad and Tobago, p. 89. 45 R. Schuller, Ordáz and Dortal Expeditions in Search of Eldorado, as Described on Sixteenth Century Maps (with two maps), Washington: Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 66.4, 1916, p. 3. 46 Boomert, Indigenous Peoples of Trinidad and Tobago, p. 89. 47 Perri, “‘Ruined and Lost’” p. 140; Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, pp. 75–77.

80

Chapter 4 Spanish Colonial Appropriation Practices

a “bloody Amerindian uprising”; subsequently, the Spanish Crown limited the permission of enslavement to “specifically licensed” Spaniards.48 Similar, the Spaniards in Hispaniola were again permitted to enslave Indigenous Peoples on 13 September 1533, although “the enslavement of women and of children below the age of 14” remained prohibited, same as “the transfer of Indians outside of their province of origin”, before a royal order of 11 December 1534 had in general prohibited the Spaniards from Hispaniola “from unilaterally permitting raids to Venezuela”, which was reaffirmed on 19 March 1540, in line with the Vitorian legal provisions of 1532. Nevertheless, Indigenous Peoples were still removed from “their places of origin during the 1540s”, as confirmed by the letter of Bartholomé de las Casas to the Council of the Indies on 15 September 1544,49 while the enslavement of women and children also continued in 1558, as illustrated in the case of the slave raid of Father Francisco de Ayala from Margarita and attempted capture of an indigenous girl in the Orinoco, whereupon the relations between the Arawak and Spaniards of Margarita was cut off until 1562.50 Thereafter, the “Caribs” continued their responding resistance against Spanish enslavement and encroachment by conducting attacks upon the Spaniards. Thus, in February 1562, the “Caribs of Guayana” were reported to have murdered “a priest and 14 Spaniards”, while the “Caribs” of Grenada were holding “more than 30 Spaniards as captives in [their] power”.51 In the following year of 1563, the “Caribs of Dominica”, determined as “the most difficult to subdue”,52 along with the “Caribs of Trinidad” attacked the pearl fisheries of Margarita,53 and those of Dominica had again “destroyed two sugar works” in Puerto Rico in August 1574 and attacked a Spanish fleet during its watering stop, where they captured “30 Spaniards and 40 Negroes from Porto Rico, including the son of Juan Ponce Léon”, who was sent out to seek provisions for Trinidad, “where he was established to conquer the island”.54

48 Ibid. 49 Anderson-Córdova, Surviving Spanish Conquest, pp. 133–135. 50 Boomert, Indigenous Peoples of Trinidad and Tobago, p. 93. 51 NATT, Fray F. de Montesinos “Account”, 13 February 1562, publication No. 558. 52 NATT, Missionary account, “The Nation of the Indians called Caribs”, no date, publication No. 800. For a more differentiated account on “cannibalism”, see Whitehead, “Carib Cannibalism”, pp. 69–87. 53 NATT, Montesinos, “Account on the Caribs of Dominica”, 11 May 1562, publication No. 558; Boomert, Indigenous Peoples of Trinidad and Tobago, p. 93. 54 NATT, Bishop of San Juan, “Account on the Caribs of Dominica”, 1574, publication No. 802. Furthermore, this Bishop described the “Caribs” of Dominica as “bellicose Indians”, who would live in “8 pueblos, each with about 50 straw houses”, and would “eat human flesh but

Spanish Short-Term Settlements in Trinidad (1530–1579)

81

Thirty-five years after Sedeño, Juan Ponce de León was the second Spaniard, who attempted to establish a Spanish settlement on Trinidad. Based on his formal announcement of taking possession on 22 December 1569,55 Ponce de León had, thus, carried out some symbolic acts, such as making “a Cross in the sand” and “a large Cross on a tree” in order to take “possession of the Island for Your Majesty with all the necessary official acts and due solemnities, swearing to maintain and defend it in Your Royal Name”.56 Hence, a fort and houses were established until 15 January 1570, situated “just north of the Caroni River”,57 while the Indigenous Peoples had assertively “agreed that we should settle and we trade and exchange goods as friends” and the short-term governor had “ordered that no person whatever shall ill-treat or deal harshly, neither by act nor word, with any Indian under severe penalties”. Moreover, Ponce de León had bartered with Indigenous Peoples on the Gulf of Paria coast of Trinidad upon arrival, where the Spaniard had exchanged “gifts” from Castile with “many Indians in two large pirogues, who were returning from fighting with the Caribs”, and likewise with “15 or 20 Indians” of the pirogue of Cacique Mayroa, who brought “articles of food for bartering”58 and were treated by Ponce de León “with much consideration and civility”.59 Finally, Ponce de León had in “well-populated” Trinidad60 also traded with “the Arawak of south Trinidad” for provisions.61 However, the precise faith of Ponce de León’s settlement attempt is not exactly known, but its abandonment happened most likely in 1579, after he reported, for the last time, from the place of Trinidad that “the galleys of Terra Firme have taken two ships of French corsairs”,62 before the Spaniard

not that of the Christians whom they take to enslave” and would “go to the Island of Trinidad and other parts nearby to capture Indians to eat” (ibid.). 55 At the same time, three unsuccessful attempts to implement royal capitulaciones took place on the mainland. 56 NATT, Fray Miguel Diosdado, “The Conquest and Settlement [of Trinidad]”, 15 January 1570, publication No. 600. This place was named “the Farellons of St. Stephen” (ibid.). 57 Boomert, Indigenous Peoples of Trinidad and Tobago, p. 94. 58 NATT, Diosdado, “The Conquest and Settlement [of Trinidad]”, 15 January 1570, publication No. 600. A settlement of a very similar name was mentioned in the Sketch map of Johann Theodor De Bry of 1599 (J. T. De Bry, “Sketch map of Guiana”, 1599, No. 23, in: BC, vol. 4, p. 59). 59 NATT, Fray Miguel Diosdado, “The Conquest and Settlement [of Trinidad]”, 15 January 1570, publication No. 600. This “people” is, furthermore, described as having a “good disposition, who go naked as they are born, both men and women; they are of noble appearance”, and would number “more than one hundred thousand” (ibid.). 60 Ibid. 61 Boomert, Indigenous Peoples of Trinidad and Tobago, p. 94. 62 AGI, Juan Ponce de León, “Captura de Navíos Franceses: Tierra Firme”, 1579 (emphasis added).

82

Chapter 4 Spanish Colonial Appropriation Practices

became acting governor of Puerto Rico in the same year,63 while his son remained in captivity of the Caribs of Dominica (Dominico), after having been taken on his way from Trinidad to Puerto Rico in August 1574.64 In October 1591, Antonio de Berrio had at the end of his third expedition “overrun all the island”,65 when no trace of the Ponce de León’s settlement was found.

Failed Capitulaciones and the Discovery Myth of El Dorado (1530–1591) Paralleled by the first Spanish settlement attempt in Trinidad, the King of Spain in 1530 had pressed for the appropriation of the neighbouring coastal mainland and until 1569, therefore, issued a series of capitulaciones to Spanish explorers, which all remained unsuccessful, but do reflect the changing legal means of appropriation, applied by the Spanish Crown until King Philipp’s II famous royal order of 1573. The first in line was the capitulación of Diego de Ordás, granted on 20 May 1530 for the “discovery, conquest and population” of “200 leagues”, extending “from the limits of the Cabo de la Vela and the Golf of Venezuela [north of Maracaibo] until the Marañón [Amazon]”.66 Hence, Ordás fitted out his expedition in June 1531,67 before reaching Paria from Tenerife after a detour towards the Amazon about October 1531,68 where the Spanish expedition encountered a “friendly” Cacique “about six leagues” distant from the Sedeño outpost, which Ordás destroyed before the Spaniard departed for the Orinoco about June 1532.69 Nonetheless, the expedition failed soon after sailing up the Orinoco (Huyapari70) at the confluence with the mouth of the Meta (Metacuyu),

63 D. McNally, “Casa Blanca reveals centuries of San Juan history”, web.archive.org/web/ 20090614091530/http://com.miami.edu/parks/sjcasablanca.htm (accessed 20 September 2018). 64 NATT, Bishop, “Account on the Caribs of Dominica”, 1574, publication No. 802. León’s son was “ten years later” still prisoner of the Caribs of Dominica (Boomert, Indigenous Peoples of Trinidad and Tobago, p. 94). 65 NATT, Antonio de Berrio, “Letter to King”, Margarita, 26 October 1591, publication No. 265. 66 AGI, Charles V, “Capitulación to Diego de Ordás”, 20 May 1530, ES-AGI-41091-UD-244728. 67 D. L. Level, Historia Militar Y Civil De Venezuela, Madrid: Sociedad Espanola De Libreria,1917, p. 51. 68 Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, p. 77. 69 Schuller, Ordáz and Dortal Expeditions, p. 3. The departure date is indicated as 23 June 1532 (ibid.). 70 According to the Oviedo sketch map, Huyapari presents the contemporary name of a part of the Orinoco (Gonzalo Fernández de Oviedo, “Huyapari Sketch map”, assumed 1533, in: R. Schuller, Ordáz and Dortal Expeditions, p. 2), while Alexander von Humboldt indicates that

Failed Capitulaciones and the Discovery Myth of El Dorado (1530–1591)

83

since Ordás dismissed “the recommendation of the [captured] Aruacan guides” and continued to navigated the Orinoco further southwards,71 where the boats, according to the rediscovered map of eyewitness Oviedo, were then stopped at a “chain of mountains” and “returned down the same river to the sea”72 without having established any Spanish settlement.73 Instead, Diego de Ordás had encountered at least two indigenous settlements in Upper Orinoco: one indicated as “grande pueblo”,74 situated “two leagues inland from the Orinoco River”, where Ordás arrived “[w]ith 280 men, 18 horses, and one mule” and left his “large canoe” behind.75 Named Aruacay, this settlement is indicated as a “large Arawak village” with “some 200 houses under nine chiefs and led by a ‘chief-priest’”.76 The other settlement was indicated as Cabruta,77 situated “seven leagues” below the Casanare junction”.78 Cabruta arguably equates with the settlement of Chief Baratubaro, which the Spaniards had attacked after having been welcomed “with arrows” and thus killed “many Warao and distribut[ed] their women as slaves among the Amerindians of Aruacay”,79 while an anonymous map of 1560 also reads that the “village of the Indian chief Baratubaro” was “burned [by orders of] Ordáz” and “over 120 of the defenceless Indians perished in the flames”.80

“[t]he river, from its mouth as far as the confluence of the Meta, is called Uriaparia, but that above this confluence it bears the name of Orinucu”, which was derived from the language of the Tamanac, who “dwell south-east of Encaramada” (A. von Humboldt, Personal Narrative of a Journey to the Equinoctial Regions of the New Continent during the Years 1799–1804, London: Longman, 1814, p. 41, Annotations). 71 Ibid., p. 40. 72 Fernández de Oviedo, “Huyapari Sketch map”, p. 2. 73 Matineza, “Letter to King”, in Level, Historia Militar y Civil de Venezuela, p. 53. 74 Fernández de Oviedo, “Huyapari Sketch map”, p. 2. In this map, the ‘large village of Huyapari” is indicated as being “situated two leagues inland from the Orinoco River” (ibid.). 75 Schuller, Ordáz and Dortal Expeditions, pp. 12–13. 76 Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, pp. 12–13. 77 Alternative spellings are Cabuta, Cabritu, Cabrutu. According to Neil Whitehead the settlement is determined as a “Carib” settlement in the province of Meta (Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, p. 59; 13). 78 Fernández de Oviedo, “Huyapari Sketch map”, p. 2. The Spanish original reads “a Cazzanara ay siete leguas”. This partly unreadable map legend also indicates the name “Carranaca”, which might present another indigenous settlement (ibid.). 79 Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, pp. 12, 78. 80 Schuller, Ordáz and Dortal Expeditions, p. 12. This information is derived from an anonymous map of c. 1560, which erroneously indicates the year of this event with “1536” (Anonymous, “Sketch map Orinoco” c. 1570, in: Schuller, Ordáz and Dortal Expeditions, p. 11), as Ordás had died three years earlier during his voyage to Spain (Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, p. 78).

84

Chapter 4 Spanish Colonial Appropriation Practices

Finally, Neil Whitehead states that Ordás has “found human trophies” in “a village near Cabruta” in the Upper Orinoco,81 which might equate with “Carranaca”, mentioned in the partly unreadable map legend of the rediscovered Oviedo map (see Figure 2).82 Next in line, daring “to pursue the discovery of the Orinoco”, were Alonso Herrera in 1533 and Geronimo Ortal,83 the former was killed in the Meta swamps by an Arawak chief with “2.000 Guayanos”,84 after Alonso Herrera85 had “found the settlement of Aruacay deserted”,86 and then attacked a Carib camp, where “all the Caribs” were “put to sword, except two”,87 but was afterwards forced to return due to mutiny.88 Two decades elapsed, before the Spanish King on 11 August 1552 undertook a subsequent attempt to lawfully appropriate the coastal mainland of northeastern South America, which was predated by a report of the Bishop of Cartagena, Fray Gregorio de Beteta before the Council in Madrid in 1540 to “bring peace and the knowledge of Our Lord and obedience to Your Majesty, to the Aruac Indians of the Island of Trinidad and of Guayana and to the other neighbouring nations” and, thus, likewise to ensure that “Indians who are not Caribs, can come in security to bring supplies”.89 With conquest and discovery vanishing from the letter patents, the next capitulación was, therefore, granted to Geronimo de Aguayo at the Castle of Monzón in August 1552 for the “population of the provinces of the Aruacas and

81 Ibid., p. 59. 82 Fernández de Oviedo, “Huyapari Sketch map”, p. 2. 83 Ibid., p. 6. This follow-up expedition claims to have passed the place where Herrera was killed and to have “found true marks of the death”, along with “a little bell and a tin-cup” (Fernández de Oviedo, “Huyapari Sketch Map Legend”, p. 7). 84 Ibid., p. 2; J. Williams, “The Name of Guiana”, Journal de la Société des Américanistes 14–15 (1922), pp. 19–34, at 25. Furthermore, James Williams indicates that the Guayanos are the “Indians of the Province of Guayana” (ibid.), which was for the first time mentioned in an official royal order on 29 July 1549 (AGI, Diego de Serpa, “Application to the Audiencia of Santo Domingo for the position of Governor of Guayana”, 29 July 1549). By contrast, Michael Perri identifies those people as “Achagua Indians”, since the expedition was attacked “with poison arrows” (Perri, “‘Ruined and Lost’”, p. 143). 85 Williams, “The Name of Guiana”, pp. 25–26; Schuller, Ordáz and Dortal Expeditions, p. 6. 86 Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, p. 79. None of the indigenous settlements re-emerged in the subsequent Sketch map of Johann Theodor De Bry in 1599. Although De Bry mentions a settlement named “Arowacai”, this settlement, in contrast to Ordás’ Aruacay, is situated in the vicinity of the Caroni (De Bry, “Sketch map of Guiana”, 1599, No. 23, in: BC, p. 59). 87 Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, p. 79. 88 Fernández de Oviedo, “Huyapari Sketch Map Legend”, p. 7. 89 NATT, Bishop of Cartagena Fray Gregorio de Beteta, “Report to King”, Madrid, 1540, publication No. 185, pp. 1–2.

Figure 2: Rediscovered Oviedo Map of the Ordás and Herrera Expeditions (c. 1733).

Failed Capitulaciones and the Discovery Myth of El Dorado (1530–1591)

85

86

Chapter 4 Spanish Colonial Appropriation Practices

Amazonas”, situated “between the river Orellana or Amazon and the Orinoco”,90 but declared null and void in the following year (1553) for unknown reasons.91 Also not implemented was the subsequent royal order of May 1562 to Fray Francisco de Montesinos for “converting and pacifying the provinces of the Aruacas”,92 which was mentioned for the first time in the report of Rodrigo de Figueroa of 1520, in this context declared as guatiaos (“friends of the Christians who are well treated there”),93 and spatially defined by the Santo Domingo notary Rodrigo Navarrete about 1547 as being bounded by the Corentyn.94 Fray Montesinos, who resided in Margarita in 1540 and Maracapana in 1561, had formed a short-lived “mission among the Arawak in Trinidad” in 1557 and established a monastery in Santo Domingo in 1562 and had indeed embarked to the “province of Aruacs” via Porto Rico and Margarita in the same year of 1562.95 In case that Montesinos ever arrived in the “province of Aruacas”, his stay in the province was, however, very brief, as the Fray had already in 1571 undertaken another unsuccessful missionary attempt in Trinidad,96 before he returned to Maracapana in November 1573.97 In addition, the potential settlement attempt of Fray Montesinos in the “province of Aruacas” was also predated by the above mentioned slave raid of Father Francisco de Ayala of Margarita in 1558, who attempted to capture an indigenous girl in the Orinoco

90 AGI, King Charles V. “Capitulación to Jerónimo de Aguayo”, Castle of Monzón, 11 August 1552, ES.41091.AGI/29.3.11.2//PATRONATO, 29, R.7; British Library, London (hereafter BL), King Charles V, “Royal Capitulación Geronimo de Aguayo for the settlement of the Provinces of the Aruacas (or Arawaks) and the Amazons, from the mouth of the river of Orellana, al. the Amazonas, along the sea coast as far as the river Aoyapara”, Castle of Monzón, 11 August 1552, BL: Add MS 36314, f. 90. 91 AGI, Don Manso Luis Lugo, “Report of Adelantado of the Canary Island and Governor of the New Kingdom of Granada”, 1553, ES.41091.AGI/24.20.14//JUSTICIA, 1102. 92 NATT, Montesinos, “Account on the Caribs of Dominica”, 11 May 1562; BL, Audiencia of Santo Domingo, “Decree by the Audiencia of Santo Domingo of Española, in furtherance of the King’s Instructions to Fray. F. Montesinos”, Espanola, 21 May 1562, BM: 18. f. 105. See also NATT, Audiencia of Santo Domingo, “Decree”, 21 May 1562, publication No. 559. 93 NATT, Figueroa, “Report upon the Peoples of the Islands Tierra Firme”, 1520, pp. 1–2. 94 NATT, Rodrigo de Nabarete, “Report to King”, Espanola, assumed 1547, publication No. 186. Instead, Jonathan Hill indicates the date as 1570s (J. D. Hill [ed.], History, Power, and Identity: Ethnogenesis in the Americas, 1492–1992, Iowa: University of Iowa Press, 1996, p. 24). 95 NATT, Bishop Beteta, “Report to King”, Madrid, 1540, publication No. 185, pp. 1–2; Boomert, Indigenous Peoples of Trinidad and Tobago, p. 93; NATT, Friar Montesinos, “Account on the Caribs of Dominica”, 11 May 1562, publication No. 558. 96 Boomert, Indigenous Peoples of Trinidad and Tobago, p. 93. 97 NATT, Audiencia Santo Domingo, “Letter to the King of Spain”, 14 November 1573, publication No. 801. Maracapana was then described as “without a church” and a “very poor place” containing only a few “huts made from straw” (ibid.).

Failed Capitulaciones and the Discovery Myth of El Dorado (1530–1591)

87

Valley, nota bene in breach with the papal bull Sublimis Deus, and was subsequently killed.98 Despite, some Arawak had hosted the Spaniard Juan Martin de Albújar, who had fled to the province of Aruacas from “Carib” captivity, before proceeding to Margarita in 1576, where the lone survivor of the Pedro de Silva expedition disaster of 1574 had significantly contributed in nurturing the myth about “the gold-land El Dorado”.99 Meanwhile, the Spanish King had undertaken other reinforced attempts to lawfully acquire the coastal mainland by a series of letter patents granted to Spanish explorers in 1568/69. Hence, Philipp II issued a capitulación to Pedro Maraver de Silva on 15 May 1568 in Aranjuez for the “discovery and population of the provinces of the Omaguas, Omeguao [sic!] and the Quinaco”, named Nueva Extremadura,100 and on the same day also granted the letter patent to Diego de Serpa for the “government and population of the provinces of Guayana and Caura and other provinces [. . .] entitled to be named Nueva Andalucía”,101 spatially extending “from the Island of Margarita until the Marañon [Amazon]”, including “the Omaguas and Omegas with the provinces of El Dorado”,102 after

98 Boomert, Indigenous Peoples of Trinidad and Tobago, p. 93. 99 Ibid., p. 97. Since Albújar’s stories indicated El Dorado as “to be found near a lake in the mountainous hinterland in Guiana”, the story prompted “increased voyaging by Spanish traders and adventurers from Margarita into the Orinoco Valley”(ibid.), which is confirmed by the precise indications of the Sketch map of Johann Theodor De Bry of 1599, which reads at the river Essequibo: “Di Volcker So an dem Flus ESSEKEBE wohnen konen in 20 dagen von eingang dises Fluses biss auff einen tagreiss nahe beij den grossen See PARIME schiffen von wanen si alss dan zum ersten ihre Porsiant und dar nach ihre Canoas uber landt bis in obgemelten See dragen ihre hanterung asso zu dreiben” (“The peoples living at the river Essekebe can travel in 20 days from the entrance of the river until a one-day travel distance of the great Lake Parime from where they carry first their provisions and then their canoes over land until the lake drawn [in the map] in order to trade [there]”). Furthermore, the map reads at a river Macawini, situated between Orinoco and Essequibo that “in diesem Fluss Macawini findet man fill goldt im Sandt” (“there is a lot of gold to be found in the sand”) (ibid.), while Johann De Bry repeats the general Spanish claim for the area between Essequibo and Orinoco, namely that the “Arwackas” would be “der Hispanier freundt” (“the friends of the Spaniards”) (De Bry, “Sketch map of Guiana”, 1599, in: BC, No. 23, p. 59). 100 AGI, King Philipp II, “Capitulación of Pedro de Silva, 15 May 1568”, Aranjuez, ES.41091. AGI/23.15.410//INDIFERENTE, 416, L.4, F.1R-6V. 101 AGI, King Philipp II, “Capitulación to Diego Fernández de Serpa”, 15 May 1568, Aranjuez, ES.41091.AGI/29.3.12.1//PATRONATO, 26, R.2. 102 Level, Historia Militar y Civil de Venezuela, p. 62. Accordingly, Fernando de Velasco had also petitioned for a capitulación for Nueva Andalucía, but de Serpa was the successful petitioner (ibid.), whereas Nueva Andalucia, acccording to Michael Perri, represented the “new” name for the Pearl Coast and was inhabited by “hundreds of thousands” Indigenous Peoples (Perri, “‘Ruined and Lost’”, pp. 147–150).

88

Chapter 4 Spanish Colonial Appropriation Practices

the order of May 1567 to the Governadora of Margarita Aldonca Manrrique to “settle” the province of Guayana remained unfulfilled.103 However, both expeditions of Pedro de Silva and Diego de Serpa failed likewise, since de Serpa, after having departed from Spain in August 1569 with 300 soldiers, was confronted with the Cumanagotos and Chacopatas at the Comorocuao in 1570, who attacked him “from all sides” and killed Diego de Serpa along with his Sergeant Major and 160 Spanish soldiers. As a result, the previously founded settlement Santiago de los Caballeros, situated “between the Neverí and Unare rivers”, was abandoned,104 while Pedro de Silva was stopped on his arrival in Margarita in April 1569 by a force of about 300 Commanagotos105 and his subsequent attempt of 1574 “perished” between the Marañon and Orinoco “at the hands of Carib Indians”, whose sole survivor de Albújar reached Margarita via the “province of Aruacas” in 1576.106 Paralleled by the second Spanish settlement attempt of Juan Ponce Léon in Trinidad, the Royal Audiencia of Santa Fé de Bogotá on 28 July 1569 had also approved a third letter patent, granted to the conquistador of Bogotá Gonzalo Ximinez de Quesada of 1568107 for “discovering and populating” the “plains, which are at the exit and after our kingdom [of New Granada]”. Spatially determined to comprising “400 leagues between the Pauto and Papamene river”108 and explicitly excluding the areas granted to de Serpa and de Silva for colonial appropriation, including Guayana,109 the Quesada capitulación is to date treated

103 NATT, Audiencia of Santo Domingo, “Order to Dona Aldonca Manrrique of Margarita”, 14 May 1567, publication No. 806. The order was issued to the Margarita governor, since the island had presented “the nearest permanent Spanish settlement to the River Orinoco”, wherefore she was recommended by “[t]he Audiencia to instruct the most [. . .] suitable and appropriate person to undertake the opening and settlement of the Province of Guayana” (ibid.). 104 Perri, “‘Ruined and Lost’”, p. 149. The procedure is also confirmed for the Spanish in Mexico by Matthew Restall and determined as a chain of conquest, since “[m]ost conquests and newly founded colonies served as stepping stones to other conquest enterprises” (M. Restall, Seven Myths about the Spanish Conquest, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003, p. 123). 105 Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, p. 80. 106 Boomert, Indigenous Peoples of Trinidad and Tobago, p. 97. 107 AGI, Audiencia de Santa Fé, “Nomination of Gonzalo Jiménez de Quesada for the ‘Discovery and Conquest’ of the New Kingdom of Granada”, Santa Fé, 21 May 1547, ES.41091.AGI/ 10.46.6.1//CONTRATACION, 5787, N.1, L.2, F.139V; Audiencia of Santa Fé de Bogotá, “Report”, 28 July 1569, in: Molina, “Historical Bulletin”, p. 430; King Philipp II. “Capitulacion Ximinez Quesada (1568)”, in: J. Buchholz, “De Entre Rios a un Reino Desmesurado: La capitulacion Genesica de la Provincia de Guayana”, Tiempo y Espacio 21 (June 2011) 55, pp. 1–7, at 4. 108 M. A. Donis Ríos, Guayana: Historia De Su Territorialidad, Caracas: Instituto de Investigaciones Hístoricas, Universidad Católica Andrés Bello: Ferrominera del Orinoco, 1997, p. 19. 109 Buchholz, “Entre Rios”, p. 4.

Failed Capitulaciones and the Discovery Myth of El Dorado (1530–1591)

89

as the foundational grant for Spanish colonial appropriation of Guayana,110 although Quesada’s expedition, which left Bogotá in December 1569, had completely failed in establishing any Spanish settlement and, instead returned to Bogotá after “tragic marches” through the plains of the Llanos with 25 of 300 armed soldiers in 1571. In addition, his successor Antonio de Berrio had significantly overstepped the limits of the capitulación, which was granted to him under the same conditions, after the aged Quesada had hastened to modify the terms of his succession, since although the capitulación included an inheritance “for two lives”, Quesada lacked a male successor and, thus, concluded an additional agreement with the Spanish King on 19 February 1571, which extended the concept of “legitimate heirs” by permitting Quesada “to name his successor”.111 Just before the husband of his niece, Antonio de Berrio, took over, the Spanish King Philipp II in 1573 issued his famous royal order, which replaced conquest with pacification and at the same time emphasized that “he would not approve any new discovery expeditions until after the lands already discovered shall be settled”, since “population” was inserted in all royal capitulaciones granted by the Spanish monarch to Spanish explorers for Trinidad and the coastal mainland between 1530 and 1569 (while conquest had ceased since 1552), but was not implemented until then. Thereupon, Antonio de Berrio, husband of Maria de Oruña, succeeded Quesada in 1579, departed from Spain to the New Kingdom in 1580, where he became infected with the El Dorado fever,112 and in October 1582 claimed his inheritance “of the Adelantado Gonzalo Ximinez de Quesada” at the Audiencia of New Granada, whom de Berrio requested for the “same agreement as was arranged with Quesada”. Nevertheless, in the course of the negotiations Antonio de Berrio attempted to modify the initial grant by attempting to extent the inheritance to “three lives, beginning with Antonio himself”, and also to change the permitted means of legal appropriation from “discovering and populating” the area between the Pauto and Papameme to a spatially unlimited capitulación for “conquer[ing] and settl[ing] the Province of El Dorado”. However, this was rejected by the Audiencia, but Antonio de Berrio recognized as legal successor of the Adelantado Quesada113 and awarded with “two lives” of the original grant. Instead, the

110 Donis Ríos, Guayana, p. 19; M. A. Perera, Provincia Fantasma: Guayana Siglo XVII, Ecologia cultural y Antropologia Histórica de una Rapina, 1598–1704, Caracas: Universidad Central de Venezuela, 2003, p. 96. 111 NATT, N.N. “Report about the Agreement between King Philip II and Ximinez Quesada of 19 February 1571”, 25 February 1586, publication No. 262. 112 NATT, Antonio de Berrio, “Report about Claims in the New Kingdom of Granada”, publication No. 261. 113 J. Buchholz, “Entre Rios,” p. 4.

90

Chapter 4 Spanish Colonial Appropriation Practices

Audiencia followed the royal order of Philipp II of 1573 by sticking to the means of appropriation inserted in the original grant, namely to “discover and populate”. Moreover, the “province of El Dorado” was placed within the initially granted area of [sic!] the province between the Pauto and Papamene.114 Nevertheless, during his three expeditions between 1583 and 1591, Antonio de Berrio had not managed to fulfil his order to discover and populate the area between the Pauto and Papamene, as his first expedition in 1583–1585115 was unable to cross the Cordilleras in the vicinity of the Orinoco and Meta junction, where the Achagua attacked the Spaniards twice, as de Berrio had “killed several” and taken others “prisoners” during the first attack, whereupon the Achagua returned “in much greater force” and “with more than 4,000 Indians coming from all directions”, whom the remaining 100 Spanish soldiers “could not repel”.116 Previously, the Spanish explorer had in February 1584 exchanged “shells and beds, salt and dogs, in tool and gowns [. . .] in return for Indian women and child slaves” of other “peaceful Indians” at an Achagua settlement,117 situated “16 leagues away from the cordillera”,118 where de Berrio also received the information “that there was a very large lake in the cordillera on the shores of which there were many towns and numerous people with great riches of gold and jewels” and also “that in the cordillera there were many places in each one of which were much more people than in all the plains”.119 Back in Bogotá, this had not stopped Antonio de Berrio from upgrading his discovery claim for the “cordilleras on the other side of the plains” to the unsubstantial claim to have “discovered” the myth-encroached province of El Dorado, whose “true name [. . .] is Guayana”, which de Berrio presented to the Spanish King until May 1585, although in fact just based on the information of the Acha-

114 NATT, Audiencia of New Granada, “Decree to confirm Agreement between the King of Spain and Antonio de Berrio of 11 October 1582”, Santa Fé, 11 October 1592, publication No. 808. 115 Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, pp. 13; 81 This expedition had left Bogotá in 1583 and reached the Meta Orinoco junction in February 1584, before it returned to Bogotá by the end of 1585 (ibid.). 116 NATT, De Berrio, “Report about Claims related to the New Kingdom of Granada”, publication No. 261. 117 Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, p. 81. 118 According to John Hemming, the Achagua had villages on the Meta, “whose large thatch huts were tightly closed against the myriad mosquitos” (Hemming, The Search for El Dorado, p. 151). 119 NATT, De Berrio, “Report about Claims related to the New Kingdom of Granada”, publication No. 261.

Failed Capitulaciones and the Discovery Myth of El Dorado (1530–1591)

91

gua.120 Subsequently, the Spanish explorer repeated his asserted discovery claim of El Dorado on several occasions, such as in a letter of Doctor Francisco Guillen Chapano on 21 May 1585, who announced that “Captain Antonio de Berrio declares that he has discovered Guayana which is called El Dorado”,121 but also in a letter to the Spanish King, written during his third expedition at the Cassanare in 1590, which had departed from Bogotá in March 1598, after his second expedition had failed after 28 months, and finally made it122 in crossing the cordilleras by water.123 In fact, the Spanish explorer during his third expedition from March 1589 until January 1591 had, however, not managed to fulfil his order to acquire the area between Pauto and Papamene by the legal means inserted in his letter patent, namely discovery and occupation. Instead, de Berrio was significantly overstepping the spatial limits of his grant by descending the Orinoco for “200 leagues” before reaching “a province of Caribs, the villages of which continued for more than 120 leagues as far as the sea”, from where the Spaniards with some “Caribs of Barima” had travelled “for more than 350 leagues [. . .] down the Orinoco” until reaching “the dwellings of the Caroni”,124 who would have also promised to lead the Spaniard “to Guayana, the borders of which by the

120 Ibid. At the same time, Antonio de Berrio asserted before the King that he had “seen there [at the very large lake in the cordillera”] more than 20,000 [people] and there may be another 20,000 or 120,000” (ibid.). 121 NATT, Antonio de Berrio, “Report on the ‘Discovery’ of El Dorado”, 1585, publication No. 560. 122 NATT, Antonio de Berrio, “Letter to King”, Margarita, 26 October 1591, publication No. 265. According to Neil Whitehead, he also encountered Amaigotos at the Lower Cuchivero (Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, p. 15). 123 BRC, De Berrio, “Letter”, Margarita, 1 January 1593, serial No. 1, pp. 1–7, at 4–7. This was undertaken in self-made pirogues (rafts), since “all the Indians assured me that in descending the Orinoco, I should find great settlements of Caribs, and lower still I should find a great river which is called Caroni, which descends from Guayana, and, on account of a great waterfall cannot be navigated; but that there, and a little above, where there is a Chief called Morguita [un prensipal que se llama Morguita], the cordilleras end and the provinces of Guayana begin, and then come successively those of Manoa and El Dorado and many other provinces” (ibid.). According to John Hemming, “Manoa” is the Araucan word of the Achagua for “lake” (Hemming, “How Brazil acquired Roraima”, p. 297). 124 BRC, De Berrio, “Letter”, Margarita, 1 January 1593, serial No. 1, pp. 1–7. Furthermore, de Berrio indicated that those Caribs of Barima had also revealed “great secrets of the country (secretos de la tierra)” and the purpose of their travel: “I asked these Caribs why they took such a long journey with so much labour, when they were so numerous and courageous, and had Guayana so near. They replied that the Guayanese were numerous, and were very near, and can make war upon them by land, and for this reason, they wish to be friendly with them” (ibid.).

92

Chapter 4 Spanish Colonial Appropriation Practices

great River Caroni were more than 100 leagues from the beginning of these villages”.125 Hence, the Spaniard continued for four leagues until reaching “a province called Morequito”, situated “on the borders of Guayana”,126 whose settlement “Chucopare”127 was assumed of being 4,000 people strong in 1583,128 where de Berrio remained for two months, received information about the location of “the great cities and the richest countries”, before being expelled, as Morequito’s people “rose against us and carried off all our provisions”, to which the Spaniards was not able to respond with the remaining 15 healthy soldiers. Thereupon, de Berrio was forced “to travel down the river for another 20 leagues” before having reached the provinces of Barguicana (account of October 1591)129 and Carapana (account of December 1594),130 where the Spaniard again remained for two months in order to wait for the help of the governor of Margarita. While asserting that Barguicana would be “willingly submitted to Your [Spanish] Majesty and gave us food”, de Berrio also reported that the Chief had at the same time attacked the Spaniards, since de Berrio admitted that he “had not ten men able to fight”, and was, thus, again compelled to proceed further, this time “to the sea and from there to Trinidad which is only a day’ s journey”. Without having established any settlement, de Berrio finally reached Margarita in October 1591, after a fleeting visit in Trinidad.131 On the whole, this chapter concludes that no legal title was acquired by Spain in the period between 1503 and 1591, since the Spanish settlement attempts

125 NATT, De Berrio, “Letter to King”, Margarita, 26 October 1591, publication No. 265. At the same time, the Spaniard assumed the “Guayanos” to be “very near” (ibid.). 126 Ibid. 127 Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, p. 13. 128 Ibid., p. 33. This account also refers to the Cacique Mori, whose people would have had comprised about “1000” people and each indigenous Orinoco settlements in general between “500 and 1,000” people (ibid.), who would be all “at war with the Caribs of the Orinoco, who raided them every year, sending flotillas of over forty pirogues”. In addition, there would have been “various villages” along the Orinoco, such as Paraguaqui with a village of 500, Yniquar with a village on the Caroni and Muchapan, whose “leader of a village” would have been situated “some two leagues further along the same river [Caroni]” (ibid., p. 13). 129 NATT, De Berrio, “Letter to King”, Margarita, 26 October 1591, publication No. 265. 130 BRC, Antonio de Berrio, “Report to Spanish King”, 2 December 1594, serial No. 3, pp. 8–9. Both are not mentioned in his expedition report of January 1593 (BRC, Antonio de Berrio, “Letter to King of Spain”, Margarita, 1 January 1593, serial No. 1, pp. 1–7, at 2–3). Carapana was a Nepoio Chief (Boomert, Indigenous Peoples of Trinidad and Tobago, p. 100) and both Carapana and Morequito already in 1583 visited by Spaniard Jorge Grigo from Margarita (Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, pp. 80–81; 13), who were, at that time, “at war with the Caribs of the Orinoco” (ibid., p. 13), wherefore Morequito, most likely, was also not a Carib Cacique. 131 NATT, Antonio de Berrio, “Letter to King”, Margarita, 26 October 1591, publication No. 265.

Failed Capitulaciones and the Discovery Myth of El Dorado (1530–1591)

93

in Paria, the Lower Orinoco, and Trinidad were limited to two short-term attempts in Trinidad (1530–1534; 1569–1579) and no successful conquest, which was replaced in the Spanish royal practice by pacification in 1530 (Trinidad) and 1562 (Province of Aruacas), was recorded for either the Lower Orinoco, Paria, or Trinidad, whereas several enslavement practices had been ordered and carried out in violation of both the valid papal bulls and the Spanish colonial law of Francisco de Vitoria. Hence, the following chapter investigates the lawfulness Spanish colonial practices in Trinidad from the establishment of San Joseph in 1592 until the conclusion of the Treaty of Amiens in 1802.

Chapter 5 San Joseph de Oruña (1592–1802) Predated by the two short-lived settlement attempts of Antonio Sedeño (1530–1534) and Juan Troche Ponce de León (1569–1579), the first permanent Spanish settlement was established in Trinidad in May 1592. Based on the conclusion of the previous chapter that the Spaniards until then had not lawfully acquired Trinidad and the Orinoco area, this chapter examines the Spanish practices of occupation, treaty making (unlawful in the Vitorian sense in times of war), and conquest (in the sense of its legal replacement by “pacification”) in Trinidad since the establishment of San Joseph (1592), including its numerous attacks by the Nepoio, English, Dutch, French, Caribs, and Tivitives until the end of the seventeenth century, before investigating the spatial extensions of Capuchin missions from 1687 until the “conquest” of the Spaniards by the English in 1797, resulting in the (unlawful) Spanish cession of whole Trinidad to the English in the Treaty of Amiens in 1802.

Lines in the Soil (1592–1637) The first Spanish settlement on the island of Trinidad (Cairi)1 was San Joseph de Oruña, which was symbolically established during a founding ceremony in May 1592 with the erection of “a forty feet high wooden cross” and some lines drawn in the soil, the demarcation of proposed sites of the governor’s house, church, cabildo, and prison and the proclamation of Domingo de Vera that “he had [formally] taken possession of this Island in the name of the [Spanish] [k]ing”.2 The proclamation was repeated by the Spaniard

1 Boomert, Indigenous Peoples of Trinidad and Tobago, p. 7. Cairi (Caeril) represents the indigenous people’s name of the island, while Columbus had reportedly named the island Trinidad, after he saw “the summit of three mountains rising above the horizon” on 31 July 1498 (ibid.). 2 NATT, Domingo de Vera, “Account on the Foundation of San Joseph”, 15 May 1592, publication No. 15. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110690149-005

Lines in the Soil (1592–1637)

95

before the two Caciques Maycay and Paraco3 at the “port of Cumucurape”,4 where Domingo de Vera had likewise formally announced “to settle in [Trinidad] one or two or more towns of Spaniards” and promised Spanish protection “against the Caribs”5 in return for their obedience to the King of Spain and “the Holy Faith”. The two Caciques had assertively agreed and indicated their intention “to live in peace”, after they were “decorated with a military sash”, which the Spaniard interpreted as “the formal acknowledgement of possession”.6 However, the establishment of the first Spanish settlement San Joseph on a site, situated “close to the River Caroni”7 and located “three leagues inland from the port they call Port-of-Spain [. . .] where an Indian Cacique Guanaguanare had his settlement”,8 was based on an agreement with the Carinepagoto Cacique Guanaguanare of the “higher land”, who “granted [Domingo de Vera] an area on the highlands where the Spaniards could settle”,9 whereupon the Cacique withdrew “to another part of the Island”.10 While Arie Boomert assumes that Guanaguanare may have been “appeased with Spanish gifts”,11 the conclusion of treaties and agreements was not a legal means of Spanish colonial appropriation in the Americas and rendered as “unjust” by Francisco Vitoria, as was 3 It is unknown, if those two Caciques were from Trinidad or just visiting the port from elsewhere. At the same time, other Caciques of the island, such as Carroari, Taroopanama, Maquarima, and Aterima, were not mentioned in de Vera’s account. Those Caciques, in particular, emerge in the context of the Walter Raleigh attack of 1595 (Boomert, Indigenous Peoples of Trinidad and Tobago, p. 100). 4 Afterwards, this place was named Mucurapo (D. W. Thompson, “Pre-British Place-names in Trinidad”, De West-Indische Gids 39 [December 1959] 2/4, pp. 137–165, at 149–150) and is part of contemporary Port of Spain. 5 This suggests that these Caciques were “non-Carib”. However, it remains unclear in this context, if “Carib” refers to a Carib-speaking group or are indicated the opponents of the Spaniards (caribas). 6 NATT, De Vera, “Account on the Foundation of San Joseph”, May 1592. 7 This river means “water” and carries the same name, as the Caroni River in mainland Guayana. 8 NATT, Licenciado Pedro de Liano, “Letter to King of Spain”, 15 March 1596, publication No. 23. The name of the cacique displays some similarities with the Arawak Guacanaagari of Hispaniola, who had allied with Columbus in March 1495 (chapter 3). 9 NATT, De Vera, “Account on the Foundation of San Joseph”, May 1592. 10 NATT, De Liano, “Letter to King of Spain”, 15 March 1596. Furthermore, the Licenciado declared that the settlement would have to be situated at “the best [site] in the Island because pirogues can sail up the river as far as half league distant from the town” (ibid.). In contrast, Francisco Morales Padron claims that “Vera took possession of the island of Trinidad, the land, and indigenous peoples” (Morales Padrón, Spanish Trinidad, p. 50). 11 Boomert, Indigenous Peoples of Trinidad and Tobago, p. 99.

96

Chapter 5 San Joseph de Oruña (1592–1802)

the application of force during the short intermezzo of Antonio de Berrio as acting governor in Trinidad, whose settlement was in January 1593 still without royal recognition,12 although the request “to occupy the Island” was pursued since October 1591.13 Hence, Antonio de Berrio, in November 1593, had sent another request to the Spanish king, this time for “a hundred” men for “patrol[ing] the coast and protect this Island and go to conquer and settle that [mainland]”,14 although “conquest” was royally prohibited since 1530. Despite, de Berrio insisted that the “70 men” of San Joseph15 would have had faced “more than 6,000 war Indians”,16 ordered Domingo de Vera to “combat the caribes”,17 and emphasized the strategic importance of Trinidad to expel the English, French, and Caribs and prevent attacks by the Caribs of Granada, Dominica, and Matalino. Eventually, Antonio de Berrio, in breach with the Spanish colonial law, proceeded against the Indigenous Peoples of the western part of the island during the period 1593–1595, most likely the Yaio (Jaio), Salvaios (Salvajos),18 and Arawak,19

12 As resulting from a letter of Antonio de Berrio to the Spanish king, where the former stated: “I desire that the fact of its settlement may be proclaimed” (Antonio de Berrio, “Letter to King of Spain”, Margarita, 1 January 1593, in: BRC, serial No. 1, pp. 1–7, at 7). 13 NATT, Antonio de Berrio, “Letter to King of Spain”, Margarita, 26 October 1591, publication No. 265. 14 NATT, Antonio de Berrio, “Letter to King of Spain”, San Josephe de Oruna, 24 November 1593, publication No. 18. 15 The small Spanish settlement had comprised “houses, a large Church and a Franciscan Convent” (ibid.). 16 NATT, De Berrio, “Letter to King of Spain”, San Josephe de Oruna, 24 November 1593. Instead, de Berrio estimated the number as “7,000”, with “so many Indians married that they would exceed 35,000 souls” in October 1591 (NATT, De Berrio, “Letter to King of Spain”, Margarita, 26 October 1591). However, those number most likely represent estimations and no precise calculations and are not including those areas, not yet visited. 17 Boomert, Indigenous Peoples of Trinidad and Tobago. p. 100. Furthermore, Arie Boomert narrates that Antonio de Berrio requested “many Nepoio, followers of Carapana, [to] come over from the mainland” in support for the Nepoio already living on the island (ibid.). 18 W. Raleigh, “The Discovery of the Large, Rich, And Beautiful Empire of Guiana (1595)”, in: N. Whitehead (ed.), The Discovery of the Large, Rich, And Beautiful Empire of Guiana, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1997, pp. 22, 19–20; Morales Padrón, Spanish Trinidad, p. 7. The Yaio settlement at Parico is confirmed by the Griego brothers, in 1582, in the context of their voyage to the Orinoco (Boomert, Indigenous Peoples of Trinidad and Tobago, p. 95). 19 Raleigh, “Discovery”, pp. 22; 19–20; Thompson, “Pre-British Place-names in Trinidad”, p. 147. In addition, the Nepojo area was reported to be situated “to the north of the Arawaks and all along the eastern coast” (Morales Padrón, Spanish Trinidad, p. 7), while the Carinepagotos were located in the area of San Joseph in the northwestern part of the island (Raleigh, “Discovery”, p. 22). In this context, Walter Raleigh indicates that this overview is not exhausted, since “[o]f the rest of the

Lines in the Soil (1592–1637)

97

who vividly traded with the French and English at Paracoa,20 before killing those, who were trading with the English Jacob Whidden21 and bartering with Sir Robert Dudley in January 1595 at Curiapan to be “punished” after Dudleys’ departure in March 1595 “by the soldiers of Antonio de Berrio”,22 although the legal requirements for an “offense” were not fulfilled. Furthermore, the Spanish explorer also ordered that “[t]wo of [the Caciques] were hanged and quartered” and “headmen from all over the island were taken prisoner, including Carroari, Maquarima, Taroopanama, Aterima, and Goanagoanare, the Carinepagoto chief of northwest Trinidad”, which was violating the Spanish colonial law of Vitoria in terms of self-defense and a defensive war. Nevertheless, the five Caciques were soon afterwards released by Walter Raleigh, before, in April 1595, the Englishman allied with the Yaio of Cariapan, Arawak of Cumucurapo,23 and Carinapagoto of liberated Cacique Guanaguanare24 and attacked San Joseph, where they killed 22 Spanish soldiers, burnt the sole Spanish settlement and captured Antonio de Berrio along with Captain Alvaro Jorge.25 As a consequence, the Carinepagoto resettled San Joseph and Raleigh established an English fort at Curipan,26 where he had convened “a great conference” to announce “the end of the Spanish empire” and allegedly placed “Trinidad under the English [q]ueen” (see Figure 3)27 before departing with five boats and his captives Antonio de Berrio and Alvaro Jorge for the Orinoco28 to guide him to the Cacique Moriquite and his secret holdings of gold.

nacions, and of the other ports and rivers, I leave to speake [sic!] [. . .] here, being impertinent to my purpose [. . .]” (ibid.), while Neil Whitehead assumes that the Carinepagotos are a “Caribgroup” (Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, p. 15). 20 According to the Dudley report, this was situated north of a place called “Point la Brea”, which he assumes to be situated “probably at or near San Fernando” (Thompson, “Pre-British Place-names in Trinidad”, p. 150). 21 Boomert, Indigenous Peoples of Trinidad and Tobago. p. 100. 22 Ibid. 23 Ibid., pp. 100; 102. 24 NATT, De Liano, “Letter to King of Spain”, 15 March 1596. 25 NATT, Pedro de Salazar, “Letter to King of Spain”, 10 July 1595, publication No. 20. Previously, Raleigh had killed 14 Spaniards when he arrived on the shore on 4 April 1595. Among them was de Berrio’s nephew Rodrigo de la Hoz (NATT, De Liano, “Letter to King of Spain”, 15 March 1596). 26 Boomert, Indigenous Peoples of Trinidad and Tobago, p. 102. 27 Ibid. The Spaniards recognized this event as defeat, since “the General Guaterral [Raleigh] [. . .] took possession of the Island of Trinidad” (NATT, De Liano, “Letter to King of Spain”, 15 March 1596). 28 Ibid.

98

Chapter 5 San Joseph de Oruña (1592–1802)

Figure 3: Map of the Island of Trinidad and Paria by Walter Raleigh (c. 1595).

Hence, Antonio de Berrio’s governorship in Trinidad came to an abrupt end due to the forceful intervention of Walter Raleigh in union with the Yaio, Arawak and Carinepagoto, since the Spaniard found Trinidad “in an unprotected state” after his release from English captivity on the shores of Cumaná in July 159529 and crossed over to the Orinoco “with ten men” to settle “in the town of the Cacique Moriquito”, situated “a distance of 80 leagues from the mouth of the River”.30 The governorship position of Antonio de Berrio in Trinidad was then also legally revoked in January 1596, after his competitor, governor Francisco de Vides of Cumaná, had successfully challenged the foundational legality of the grant, since Antonio de Berrio had claimed the governorship for Trinidad on the basis of a royal letter patent of 1582, which was de facto issued for the mainland area between the Pauto and Papamene. As a result, in January 1596, the treasurer of Cumaná, Roque de Montes, presented the compromise that Antonio de Berrio would “proceed and explore and conquer [sic!] Guayana”, while Francisco de Vides was “restricted to the conquest [sic!] and settlement of Trinidad”.31 Francisco de Vides 29 NATT, De Salazar, “Letter to King of Spain”, 10 July 1595. 30 NATT, De Liano, “Letter to King of Spain”, 15 March 1596. 31 NATT, Treasurer of Cumaná Roque de Montes, “Account on the Dispute between de Vides and de Berrio”, January 1596, publication No. 95.

Lines in the Soil (1592–1637)

99

then built San Phelipe de Montes, which was fortified in March 1596 for “a good resistance against the enemies who may attack that coast”.32 Nevertheless, after the death of his father Antonio in 1597, Fernando de Berrio had regained the governorship of both San Joseph and Santo Tome in May 1598 and re-founded San Joseph in 1606 with 470 African slaves, who were illegally purchased from the Dutch.33 Furthermore, Don Fernando vividly traded with the English and French, who were sometimes present at the Spanish port with “up to 18 vessels” at a time,34 which in February 1610 had prompted “royal warrants” against him.35 Simultaneously, Governor Fernando de Berrio had gained a position in the enslavement of Indigenous Peoples, which he had forcefully carried off between 1602 and 1623 as far as Tobago36 and sold in Margarita, such as in 1605, when “ten to twelve canoe loads” of slaves from the encomiendas in Trinidad were sold on the neighbouring island of Margarita. Thereupon, in the years 1609 and 1610 Indigenous Peoples were also sold “for thirty ducats each”,37 although his father’s second-in-command Domingo de Vera had in 1592 expressively “warned those present that no one was to make a slave of the Indians of Trinidad nor to give them arms for which they would be liable to the penalty of death”.38 In consequence, the Audiencia of Santa Fé had initiated official investigations against the governor in November 1611,39 whereupon Fernando de Berrio had to face “thirty-

32 NATT, De Liano, “Letter to King of Spain”, 15 March 1596. The precise location is further indicated as being situated “on the south bank, three leagues distant from the sea and from the port called ‘De España’ [Port-of-Spain], on a river they call Caroni [in Trinidad]” (Treasurer of Cumaná Roque de Montes, “Letter to the King of Spain”, 18 April 1596, in: BRC, serial No. 5, pp. 11–14). 33 Boomert, Indigenous Peoples of Trinidad and Tobago, p. 106. 34 Sancho de Alquica, “Letter to King of Spain”, 14 June 1612, in: BRC, serial No. 12, pp. 29–31, at 29. 35 NATT, Licenciado Pedro de Betranilla, “Letter to King of Spain”, 30 November 1609, publication No. 81. 36 In contrast, Domingo de Vera in 1592 had, based on unknown grounds, declared the area within a radius of 50 leagues around Trinidad as “repartimiento”, including “the Islands of Granada, Dominica, Matalino, Tavaco and all others that may be within the said fifty leagues which are similarly taken into possession in the name of the King” (ibid.). However, the only de facto settlement attempt of the Spaniards in those islands was the one by Juan Rodriguez in Toabgo in 1614, which failed four months later (Boomert, Indigenous Peoples of Trinidad and Tobago, p. 116). 37 Ibid., p. 106. In comparison, Domingo de Vera had transported 470 Spaniards in “44 large pirogues” in April 1596 (NATT, Domingo de Vera, “Letter to King of Spain”, April 1596, publication No. 131). 38 NATT, De Vera, “Account on the Foundation of San Joseph”, May 1592. 39 De Alquica, “Letter to King of Spain”, 14 June 1612, p. 29.

100

Chapter 5 San Joseph de Oruña (1592–1802)

eight charges”, among them “the seizure and sale of Indian natives of that province [which was] unjustly [sic!]”,40 and was sentenced by the Council of the Indies on 24 November 1614 with the “perpetual deprivation of his Government”,41 since the governor was identified as “the fountain head” of illicit trade,42 a “seminary of rascals” and “chosen resort of secular criminals, irregular priests and apostate friars” and determined as inappropriately behaving “as an absolute king and Lord of that country”.43 Subsequently, the charge was toned down “by license from Your Majesty”44 into “the exclusion from his provinces” on 29 July 1615.45 Hence, Fernando de Berrio retreated to his “estates” about 70 leagues outside of Bogotá, where he remained until unexpected events caused him to return to the Orinoco in 1618. Prior, the caribas had continued to resist to their enslavement by “constant attacks” against the Spaniards between 1606 and 1613,46 such as in 1606, when “up to fifty pirogues” went “as far away as Hispaniola”,47 and in 1608, when “the caribes (Kalinago) of Dominica, Martinique, Guadeloupe, St. Vincent, Grenada, and St. Lucia” attacked the Spaniards in Trinidad, who afterwards “plainly confessed” that they “knew not how to suppress them”.48 Moreover, an additional attack was undertaken by “a party of Island Caribs from Grenada, Martinique and Dominica” in 1613,49 after the “pearl fishery of Margarita” was raided in 1610 and the African slaves from there taken “to the neighbouring islands, particularly St. Vincent”.50 In response, the Spanish monarch had reaffirmed the previous royal orders of 1503 and 1511 by granting “licenses to make war” against them, whereupon “many Carib prisoners [. . .] were sold off at public auction”. According to Arie Boomert, this had caused “more than 10,000” Indigenous Peoples to leave 40 Ibid., p. 31. 41 NATT, Council of the Indies, “Sentence to Fernando de Berrio”, 24 November 1614, publication No. 170. This decision was based on the recommendation of the investigator de Alquica (De Alquica, “Letter to King of Spain”, 14 June 1612, p. 31). 42 NATT, De Betranilla, “Letter to King of Spain”, 30 November 1609. 43 Council of the Indies, “Report to King of Spain”, 29 July 1615, p. 43; NATT, Council of the Indies, “Account to King of Spain”, 15 March 1611, publication No. 99; De Alquica, “Letter to King of Spain”, 14 June 1612, serial No. 12, p. 31. 44 Ibid., p. 29. 45 NATT, Council of the Indies, “Sentence to Fernando de Berrio”, 24 November 1614. 46 Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, p. 12. 47 Ibid., p. 85. 48 NATT, English explorer Robert Harcourt, “Account”, 1608, publication No. 672. 49 Boomert, Indigenous Peoples of Trinidad and Tobago, p. 108. Arie Boomert also indicates that the Yaio were mentioned in connection with Trinidad in the Dutch Cabeliau report of 1599 (ibid., p. 106). 50 Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, p. 85.

Lines in the Soil (1592–1637)

101

“Trinidad for the mainland”, in particular the “Yaio, Shebaio and numerous Arawaks”, while the Carinepagotos “took refuge in Tobago”.51 Abolished by the “New Laws of the Indies”, the Spaniards in Trinidad had until 1612 also established four encomiendas in the vicinity of San Joseph,52 although Antonio de Berrio had in 1593 announced to have “given out seventy encomiendas to his soldiers as a reward for their services”.53 At that time (1612), the number of Indigenous Peoples in the encomiendas of San Juan, Tacarigua, Arouca, and Caura was estimated as 300 Nepoio or Arouca,54 which remained unchanged until 1626, when Englishman Thomas Warner had emphasized that “most of the some 300 Amerindians in the encomiendas remained unconverted as there was no priest available to take care of them”,55 since “the Bishop of Puerto Rico [. . .] was not supplying clergymen and had only visited the island twice”,56 although Trinidad since 1588 formally belonged to the diocese of Puerto Rico.57 The number of encomiendas then increased to seven by 1637.58

51 Whitehead, “Carib Cannibalism”, p. 73. 52 Boomert, Indigenous Peoples of Trinidad and Tobago, p. 104. 53 NATT, De Berrio, “Letter to King of Spain”, San Joseph de Oruna, 24 November 1593. 54 Boomert, Indigenous Peoples of Trinidad and Tobago, p. 104. The total number of Indigenous Peoples on the island was estimated as “4000” for the year 1612 (ibid.). 55 Ibid., pp. 108–109. 56 Morales Padrón, Spanish Trinidad, p. 129. 57 The diocese of Puerto Rico was formally established by the papal bull Pontifex Romanus of 8 August 1511 of Julius II (M. Ott, “Pope Julius II”, The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 8, New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08562a.htm (accessed 20 September 2018), after the first Spanish settlement in Puerto Rico was established in 1509, the first church built in 1511 at Caparra, and Father Alonso Manso assertively became the first bishop in “the New World”, who arrived in Puerto Rico in 1513 and became “the first Inquisitor General of the Indies” in 1519, who “assigned a number of Indians in the repartimiento made by the Crown”, while “successive bishops had retained a number of natives as Encomiendas to care for the cathedral”, when his jurisdiction became – again without the Spanish having de facto and de jure obtained title to possession-extended by the inclusion of “all the Windward Islands of the Lesser Antilles from Santa Cruz to Dominica, thus rendering the jurisdiction of the bishop coextensive with the civil and military sway of the first governor and colonizer [of Puerto Rico], Juan Ponce de Leon”. The jurisdiction of the diocese was again formally extended to the islands “Margarita and Cubagua [. . .] during the episcopate of Rodrigo de Bastidas”, who succeeded Manso on 6 July 1541, before Trinidad and parts of the mainland followed in February 1588 (W. Jones, “Porto Rico”, The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 12, New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12291b.htm (accessed 30 September 2018). 58 Ousiel, “Account of the Spanish coasts to the West India Company”, 1637, in: BC, No. 25, pp. 83–96, at 87.

102

Chapter 5 San Joseph de Oruña (1592–1802)

In contrast, the Indigenous Peoples outside of the encomiendas, such as the Carinepagoto on the northern coast and the “Arawaks and Nepoio”, would have only rarely keep up “a friendly relationship with [. . .] S[an] Joseph”,59 have avoided visiting the sole Spanish settlement in Trinidad “unless they are fetched” and had “hidden themselves and moved well inland”. However, a Spanish witness had also reported in 1624 that the Arawak were since about ten years “revolting [and] trading ‘freely and openly’ with the English and Dutch”.60 At that time, the Nepoio Cacique Hierreima liberated himself from Spanish enslavement and “more than once joined in expeditions against them [the Spaniards]” and had “killed two Spaniards in some encounters”, before Chief Hierreima, who was considered as “the most famous and powerful among those people”, had in February 1636 offered the Dutch in Tobago his cooperation “for driving the Spaniards out of the aforesaid island [of Trinidad] with 100 or 80 white musketeers and 400 Indians”.61 The agreement was based on the hostage practice “as an assurance of his good intentions and purposes”62 and materialized in a joint attack by the Nepojo and Dutch on San Joseph and Santo Tomé in 1637 in response to the Spanish attacks in Tobago and Trinidad in the previous year 1636.

Battered San Joseph (1636–1699) Joined by two Dutch settlements among the Nepojo and Arawak63 of northeastern Trinidad64 and some Dutch settlers in seven Nepojo settlements until 1636,65 the Spanish governor of San Joseph, Diego Escobar, attacked the Dutch 59 Boomert, Indigenous Peoples of Trinidad and Tobago, p. 109, based on an account of the first Governor of St. Kitts, Thomas Warner (ibid.). 60 Boomert, Indigenous Peoples of Trinidad and Tobago, pp. 106–107. 61 Ousiel, “Account of the Spanish coasts to the West India Company”, 1637, p. 87, This source also stated that Hierreima, once “a slave or encomendado among the Spaniards”, had managed to flee from enslavement about eleven years ago (ibid.). 62 Ibid., p. 88. Thus, the indigenous Chief offered “all their women and children and old men” as hostages until the attack was carried out (ibid.). 63 Ibid., pp. 87–88. 64 NATT, Escobar, “Account”, San Joseph, November 1636. Arie Boomert assumes that this was in the area of Moruga on the southern coast (Boomert, Indigenous Peoples of Trinidad and Tobago, p. 111). However, this could not be verified by the examined historical records. Furthermore, the Dutch settlements were described as being fortified by a “large fort with two redoubts” (NATT, Escobar, “Account”, San Joseph, November 1636). 65 Ibid. Jacques Ousiel also indicated that those Nepojo and Arawak were “especially” friendly to the Dutch and “deadly enemies of the Spaniards” (Ousiel, “Account of the Spanish coasts to the West India Company”, 1637, pp. 87–88).

Battered San Joseph (1636–1699)

103

in September 1636 to eject them “from their present position”.66 In result, the Dutch surrendered and were all taken as “enemy prisoners”, whereas the Nepojo escaped and Governor Escobar, therefore, ordered his Captain to “punishing all the [“rebel”] Indians he came across” and destroying all of “their food supplies,” before he headed to Tobago to attack the Dutch settlement of Jan de Moor on 1 December 1636.67 The Dutch responded promptly and attacked Santo Tome on the mainland in July 1637. In union with the Nepojo Cacique Hierreyma,68 Aruacas, Caribs, and Tibetibes [Tivitives],69 the Dutch in October 1637 also sacked the “principal settlement of the Spaniards” in Trinidad, burnt San Joseph,70 and made the 30 Spaniards flee into the forest.71 The involvement of Caribs, Aruacs, and Tivitives is

66 NATT, Governor Diego Escobar, “Report to Audiencia”, St. Thome, 11 April 1637, publication No. 100. 67 NATT, Escobar, “Account”, San Joseph, November 1636. 68 Boomert, Indigenous Peoples of Trinidad and Tobago, pp. 100; 117. The settlement of the Nepojo Cacique is indicated as being situated “3,5 leagues” eastwards of San Joseph. Arie Boomert in this context also notes that the name of the Cacique “is remarkably similar to that of the later mission village of Arima, first mentioned in the documentary sources in 1699” (ibid., p. 100). 69 Cabildo of Trinidad, “Report concerning the State of the Town of Santo Thomé of Guiana and San Joseph of Trinidad”, San Joseph, 27 December 1637, in: BRC, serial No. 41, Annex, p. 88). Instead, other accounts only refer to the “Caribs, Aruacas and Nepuyos” (Councillor of Trinidad Jacinto de Mendoca, “Declaration”, prior 12 December 1637, in: BRC, serial No. 42, Annex 2, pp. 92–93; Trinidad inhabitant Lorenco Manuel, “Declaration”, prior 12 December 1637, in: ibid., Annex 3, pp. 93–94; Don Juan de Eulate, “Agreement”, Town of the Assumption in the island of Margarita, 12 December 1637, in: ibid., Annex 5, pp. 96–97) or just indicate an alliance “with corsairs of the Carib and other tribes” (Cabildo of Trinidad, “Letter to Margarita Governor Don Juan de Eulate”, San Joseph, 17 November 1637, in: ibid., Annex 4, pp. 94–95, at 94). Furthermore, Arie Boomert also claims an involvement of the Waraos (Boomert, Indigenous Peoples of Trinidad and Tobago, p. 112). 70 Cabildo of Trinidad, “Letter to Margarita Governor Don Juan de Eulate”, San Joseph, 17 November 1637, pp. 94–95. 71 These numbers are based on the accounts of a Spanish eyewitnesses of the attack (De Mendoca, “Declaration”, prior 12 December 1637, pp. 92–93; Manuel, “Declaration”, prior 12 December 1637, pp. 93–94). At that time (1637), the Dutch Jacques Ousiel has described the “town” San Joseph as “open, consisting of 30 houses and 40 to 50 men, sometimes more and sometimes less, inasmuch as some who come there, either sent there by the Dutch or

104

Chapter 5 San Joseph de Oruña (1592–1802)

confirmed by the Cabilbo of Trinidad, who likewise assumed that “the Dutch and Indian Caribs from the River Bervis” had participated in the San Joseph attack.72 In contrast, Cornelis Goslinga more plausible suggests that the Dutch forces were led by private Zeeland trader Aert Groenewegen (“Captain Llanes”73) from Essequibo,74 who – according to the Cooperation of Santo Thomé de Guayana – would have had attacked Santo Tome and with “the same fleet of pirogues” taken “supplies of food at Amacuro [. . .] and from there passed to Trinidad, where the same thing happened an hour before daybreak”.75 With certainty, the Hierreima-Dutch attackers had gained significant support from Indigenous Peoples of the neighbouring Orinoco mouth, wherethe Dutch had increasingly settled since 163676 among the Caribs and Aruacas.77 Furthermore, the Dutch had in April 1637

otherwise, are against their will held there by the Governors, and get away again in canoes when they can, as happened as many as three different times within the 6 months that the writer lay there”, while also indicating seven Spanish plantations situated “[a]bout one mile east and one mile west of the aforesaid town [San Joseph] [. . .] [t]he name of the eastern place is Tacaribe, and for the western Aracao” (Ousiel, “Account of the Spanish coasts to the West India Company”, 1637, p. 86). 72 Cabildo of Trinidad, “Report concerning the State of the Town of Santo Thomé of Guiana and San Joseph of Trinidad”, San Joseph, 27 December 1637, p. 88. 73 C. Goslinga, The Dutch in the Caribbean and the Wild Coast, 1580–1680, Assen: Van Gorcum, 1971, pp. 414–415. This assumption is based on the story about the stolen tabernacle during the Santo Tome attack, which, according to “a prisoner whom we made [. . .] on another occasion”, would be “kept by the Dutch in a house on a river, which is in this coast, which they call Esquebo”, which is [. . .] further protected by 10,000 to 11,000 Caribs”, near whom they reside and who are their allies” (ibid.). 74 Goslinga, The Dutch in the Caribbean and the Wild Coast, p. 414. 75 Cooperation of Santo Thomé de Guayana, “Letter to Governor of Carácas Don Rui Fernandez Fuenmayor”, Santo Thomé de Guayana, February 1638, in: BRC, serial No. 43, Annex 2, pp. 102–105, at 103–104. 76 Don Juan Desolguren, “Memorandum”, 19 November 1637, in: BRC, serial No. 39, pp. 77–82, at 78. More precisely, it was reported that he had established a settlement in the river Orinoco, where since the previous year of 1636 “ten Dutch [were] waiting for reinforcements to fortify themselves” (ibid.). 77 Cooperation of Santo Thomé de Guayana, “Letter to the Royal Audiencia of the New kingdom of Grenada”, Santo Thomé, 11 April 1637, in: BRC, serial No. 44, Annex 2, pp. 109–110, at 109.

Battered San Joseph (1636–1699)

105

established a settlement at the mouths of the Aniavero78 and a fort79 at the Amacuro,80 situated in the area of the Tivitives and Chaguanas.81 In response, the Spanish king ordered the governor Diego Escobar to conduct a “relief expedition” against the Dutch in Essequibo, but had to charge Escobar in January 1640 for his failure to carry out the order,82 as Escobar had remained in mainland Cabruta until 163883 to carry out enslavement expeditions, which were justified by the “infinity of Indians”, who would have been “all [. . .] given as slaves”,84 which clearly violated the legal provisions of Francisco de Vitoria. Assertively, Escobar in August 1639 also entered into “negotiations with the Caribs of the Caura” and proposed a “jointly raid [. . .] for slaves” in the River Pao85 and instructed Major Diego Ruiz Maldonado to deliver “thirty

78 Ibid. This settlement still existed in 1638 (Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, p. 89). 79 Major Diego Ruiz Maldonado, “Accounts of the Great River Orinoco, Meta, and Casanare”, 1638–1639, in: BRC, serial No. 46, pp. 117–129, at 124. This fort was reported to be situated in the mouth of the river, 20 [Spanish] leagues “windward of the Orinoco” (ibid.). 80 Cooperation and Governor of Santo Thomé, “Letter to the Royal Audiencia”, 1638, pp. 115–116. This source confirms “sixteen Dutchman” who are at this river (Amacuro “at the east entrance of the Orinoco”) and settled among “a great population of Carib Indians” (ibid.). In 1638, those Dutch settlements were contemplated by a settlement in “the mouth of the Guayapiche”, where they have made themselves masters of a salt pit which lies between the said river and the creek of Curiaco, and of more than “20.000 head of cattle which they feed in a place they call Oquetay”. Furthermore, the governor claims that “[a]ll these villages are subject to, and under the protection of Essequibo, where the fortress is” (Cooperation and Governor of Santo Thomé, “Letter to Royal Audiencia”, 1638, p. 116). 81 Maldonado, “Account of the Great Rivers Orinoco, Meta and Casanare”, 1638–1639, p. 121. Maldonado also confirms that the Tivitives and Chaguanas are occupying the Orinoco mouth, whereas the Chaguanas were “dwell[ing] about these territories” situated “on the banks large forests”, including “a village of about 1,000 able-bodied men” (ibid., pp. 120–121). This is supporting the indications of the earlier report of Captain Santiago of November 1595, who had stated that “on the banks of all these [Orinoco] mouths mentioned many natives of two tribes, known as the Chaguanes and Tivitives, dwell, both of them living in swamps” (Captain Philip de Santiago, “Report on the Navigation of the River Orinoco to Cumaná Treasurer Roque de Monte for His Majesty”, 1595, in: BRC, serial No. 4, pp. 9–11, at 9). Likewise, the Raleigh map of 1596 had determined Tivitives settlements in the islands of the whole Orinoco mouth (W. Raleigh, “Chart of Guayana”, c. 1595, BC, No. 21, p. 55). According to Neil Whitehead, those Tivitives are further distinguished into “the one called Crawani, and the other Waraweete” (Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, p. 16). 82 NATT, King Philip IV, “Royal Cedula”, 31 July 1640, publication No. 103. 83 Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, p. 89. Prior, Diego Escobar had also shortly taken “refuge in the Sierra Imataca” (ibid.). 84 Governor Diego Escobar, “Letter to King of Spain”, Guayana, 20 February 1638, in: BRC, serial No. 43, Annex 1, pp. 101–102, at 101. 85 Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, p. 90.

106

Chapter 5 San Joseph de Oruña (1592–1802)

Indians, male and female” to Captain Alonso de Aguilar to transport these slaves to Trinidad.86 As a result, Diego Escobar would have had “amused himself” with a party of Lutherans and a Portuguese, instead of returning to Guayana and carrying out the royal order with regard to the “dislodging of the enemy from these places and forts, which is the object for which the help was sent, and to secure that province”.87 In consequence, the Spanish king on 31 July 1640 commanded Escobar “to leave his government physically at the arrival of his successor”.88 One week later, San Joseph faced yet another attack, this time by the English, who had landed on Trinidad with 250 Englishmen on 7 August 1640,89 when at the same time Robert Masham had formed a small settlement in Toco of northeastern Trinidad,90 where the Henry Colt colony had attempted the same already at the end of 1632 before they were destroyed by “fifty Guaiqueri archers”91 in union with the forces of the Spanish governor of Margarita, who captured Henry Colt and put him “to death on Margarita.”92 Similar, the Masham colony of 1640 was chased away “by Island Caribs of St. Vincent and their governor Robert Masham killed”.93 This Carib attack of 1640 was initiated by Cacique Baron of Dominica, who after “extensive preparations” had commenced the “war against the Aruacs who lived in the Island of Trinidad”, which was supported by “a large army of Savages form all the Islands of the Antilles”. In result, Cacique Baron would have had “killed and wounded many Aruacs and as they were unaccustomed to facing firearms, they turned to fly and hide themselves in the mountains leaving the field of battle to the victorious Caribs”. The firearms were provided by the French of Guadeloupe, who had supplied Baron “with good arms and all the ammunition”, after the Carib and the French governor Jean Aubert of Guadeloupe had concluded an agreement of “alliance” in 1640, which was based on “the

86 Maldonado, “Account of the Great Rivers Orinoco, Meta and Casanare”, 1638–1639, p. 119. By contrast, Arie Boomert assumes that those 30 Indigenous Peoples were “Nepoio and their allies”, who were sent “to Margarita and Cumaná for sale as slaves” (Boomert, Indigenous Peoples of Trinidad and Tobago, p. 112). 87 Maldonado, “Account of the Great Rivers Orinoco, Meta and Casanare”, 1638–1639, p. 121. 88 NATT, King Philip IV, “Royal Cedula”, 31 July 1640. 89 NATT, N. N., “Governors of Guayana Escobar and Hoz Berrio y Quesada, including Ciacomare Indigenous Peoples”, 1652, publication No. 121. 90 Boomert, Indigenous Peoples of Trinidad and Tobago, p. 112. 91 Alternative spellings are Waikerí or Guayquerí. 92 Boomert, Indigenous Peoples of Trinidad and Tobago, p. 109. 93 Ibid., p. 112. In the meantime, the surviving English colonists had joined forces with “experienced planters from Barbados and St. Kitts” to establish a “new colony”, which lived in friendship with Nepoio and Arawak and so “flourished for five years” (ibid.) until they were “dislodged” by the Spaniard Juan Pacheco (NATT, N. N., “Governors of Guayana”, 1652).

Battered San Joseph (1636–1699)

107

guarantee of hostages”. Rooted in a confidential and “special” friendship between Baron and first Guadeloupe governor Jean du Plessis, which was “cemented by exchanging their names with each other”, this friendship was, however, damaged by French successor Charles D’Olive, who “had very imprudently made war against the Savages”, in which the Caciques of Dominica took several French “prisoner of war”, who were restored by an agreement with governor Jean Aubert in 1640.94 Nevertheless, in the early 1650s a “virtual war broke out” between the “Caribs” of St. Vincent, Grenada and Martinique and the French, when “raiding parties of up to 300 travelled all over these islands taking French settlements unaware”,95 which resulted in a treaty between the “Caribs” of Saint Vincent and Dominica and the French on 31 March 1660.96 At the same time, the 30 to 40 Spaniards97 and three priests of San Joseph in Trinidad had,98 in response to the Carib and English attacks, “desire[d] to abandon it”, since the shores of the island would be “infested with enemies [so that] no one from these kingdoms dares to trade with these ports as there is so great risk and so little profit”.99 These conditions remained when the Treaty of Münster was concluded (1648) and the new governor Martin de Mendoza y Berrio was able to fulfil the royal order in 1652 to rebuild and fortify the two towns of San Josef in Trinidad and San Thome in Guayana100 to “drive out the enemy”.101 However, the Spanish colonists were “suffering great want” and “their crops are worthless as they have no market for them”, since no “authorized ship went to these parts” during the last “20 years”.102 Before Govenor Mendoza y Berrio died in 1657,103 the Spanish king had also reaffirmed the previous royal orders in 1652 to cease “armed conquest” in favour

94 NATT, N. N., “Account on Carib Cacique Baron of Dominica”, 1640, publication No. 563. 95 Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, p. 97. 96 NATT, King of France, “Instructions to Governor of Martinique”, 21 October 1749, publication No. 320. 97 NATT, N. N., “Governors of Guayana”, 1652. 98 Boomert, Indigenous Peoples of Trinidad and Tobago, p. 113. Boomert indicates the number of Spanish settlers as “not more than 30” (ibid.). 99 NATT, Council of the Indies, “Report to King of Spain”, 30 April 1640, publication No. 268. 100 NATT, N. N., “Governors of Guayana”, 1652. 101 NATT, King Philip IV, “Royal Cedula”, 31 July 1640. 102 NATT, Commission, “Letter to Governor of Barbados relating plantations in Tobago”, publication No. 44. 103 NATT, N. N., “Account on Governors of Guayana Pedro de Viedma and Martin Mendoza de Berrio”, publication No. 270. A detachment of “80 soldiers” sent from the Audiencia of Santa Fe “for defence” had arrived too late (NATT, Council of War, “Report to Spanish king”, Madrid, 10 May 1662, publication No. 803).

108

Chapter 5 San Joseph de Oruña (1592–1802)

of “missionary pacification”,104 while in 1654 the Spaniard Sebastian de Roteta considered it “advisable in the interest of Your Majesty and the benefit of the Indians, to redeem them from slavery and to save their souls”, and with 300 liberated Indigenous Peoples105 from the three remaining encomiendas of Gerónima de Urreiati (101 slaves), Maria de Mier (60), and Captain Fabian de Mier (120),106 “founded the Pueblo called Buenavista near to the town of St. Joseph de Oruna”, whose “spiritual needs were attended to by the Parish Cura of the said town”.107 In 1662, 80–90 of them had remained in San Joseph, since “the others had withdrawn to their native freedom”.108 Reportedly, those Indigenous Peoples were initially captured in the Casanare, based on the justification “that they had been first taken by Caribs”,109 or “ransomed” from “unfaithful Amerindians” in Guiana and Suriname.110 Meanwhile, in May 1662, San Joseph was formally transferred from the Audiencia of San Domingo to the new Kingdom of Granada “on account of the facility with which it could be helped from there and also owing to its being at a distance of 300 leagues from San Domingo by sea”. The number of Spanish colonists then increased from “not more than 40 including Spaniards and Mulattos” in 1659 to “about 80–100 Spaniards” in 1666,111 when Indigenous Peoples were “brought from Brazil” to be placed in “Trinidad, Margarita and Cumaná” for maKing them

104 Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, p. 174. 105 NATT, Council of the Indies, “Report to King of Spain”, 28 January 1737, publication No. 594. Furthermore, Francisco Morales Padrón notes that the Franciscans had “requested to go to the island” in 1569, whereupon “a few clerics [. . .] were stationed in St Joseph” (Morales Padrón, Spanish Trinidad, p. 120), 106 Morales Padrón, Spanish Trinidad, pp. 130–131. 107 NATT, Council of the Indies, “Report to King of Spain”, 28 January 1737. Another village was planned in contemporary Port of Spain “with twenty Amerindians” to “assist a lieutenant with his ship inspections”, but never came into being due to “a lack of resources”, which is wy the former slaves were brought to the parish of San Joseph (Morales Padrón, Spanish Trinidad, p. 164). 108 NATT, Council of War, “Report to Spanish king”, Madrid, 10 May 1662. 109 Ibid, p. 132. In this context, the Council of the Indies in 1737 claimed that “from time immemorial the Caribs have captured Indians to sell them and that they have now become more active in this slavery as they can sell them to the English and Dutch who occupy the Colonies of Essequibo and Suriname, in whose power they lose all liberty either of soul or body” (Council of the Indies, “Report to King of Spain”, 28 January 1737). 110 Morales Padrón, Spanish Trinidad, p. 164. In contrast, Whitehead indicates the number of slaves as “2,000 Caribs, mainly from the Caura and Cucivero Rivers”. Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, p. 30. 111 NATT, Council of War, “Report to Spanish king”, Madrid, 10 May 1662; NATT, N. N., “Description of Careeby (Caribee) Islands”, 1666, publication No 357.

Battered San Joseph (1636–1699)

109

“peaceful”,112 resulting in “an outbreak of war” in December 1666,113 when the first mission of Trinidad “San Francisco de los Arenales” was attacked and “the governor and three Capuchin missionaries were killed”.114 Thereupon, “most residents” had left San Joseph by 1670 “for Cumaná and Caracas”,115 wherefore the settlement became “virtually deserted”.116 As a solution, the Spanish governor Tiburcio de Aspe y Zuñiga in 1678 convened “some 500 chiefs” for “encouraging them to settle in the coastal zone of the island so as to be able to better defend the colony” and “to be controlled with less effort”.117 Nevertheless, the governor was soon afterwards (July 1684) captured by the French and taken by the Caribs to their village in the Aguire,118 after the French had taken “possession of Trinidad and Orinoco” in July 1682119 and “made themselves masters of the fort in Oronoque” in May 1684, where they remained until May 1685.120 They turned then their attention to Cumaná, which was threatened by 200 Caribs in four pirogues in 1688,121 before the French and 300 Caribs destroyed the Dutch post in Pomeroon on 30 April 1689122 and had built “a strong-house” in Barima in October 1689.123 They also “fortified a position on the Guanipa” in 1695, “maintained their presence on the Guarapiche” in July 1696 and made occasional attacks on the missions in Trinidad until 1699.124

112 Don Tiburcio de Axpe y Zuniga, “Report to Secretary of the Council of the Indies Don Antonio Ortiz Otalora”, Madrid, 26 April 1686, in: BRC, serial No. 107, Annex 1, pp. 194–196. 113 NATT, N. N., “Account on Killed Franciscans in Trinidad in December 1699”, publication No. 310. 114 NATT, King Philip V, “Royal Cedula to Governor of Trinidad and Audiencia of Santa Fe”, 1716, publication No. 784. 115 Boomert, Indigenous Peoples of Trinidad and Tobago, p. 113. 116 Ibid. Afterwards, the Spaniards resettled San Joseph only in the 1680s (ibid.). 117 Ibid. See Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, pp. 30; 174. 118 NATT, Alcaldes of Trinidad, “Report to Governor of Margarita”, San Joseph, 15 July 1684, publication No. 565. 119 Commander Essequibo Abraham Beekman, “Letter to the West India Company (WIC)”, 18 July 1682, in: BC, No. 55, pp. 154–155, at 155; commander Essequibo, “Letter to the West India Company”, Essequibo, 18 August 1684, in: BRC, serial No. 100, p. 187. 120 Commander Essequibo, “Letter to West India Company”, Essequibo, 1 May 1685, in: BRC, serial No. 102, p. 188. For a slightly different translation, see commander Essequibo Abraham Beekman, “Report to WIC”, 1 May 1685, in: BC, No. 64, pp. 173–4, at 173. 121 Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, p. 102. 122 Commander Pomeroon Jacob de Jonge, “Letter to WIC”, 6 July 1689, in: BB3, serial No. 22 (Dutch sources), p. 66. See also Council of the Indies, “Report”, Madrid, 1776, in: ibid. (Spanish sources), serial No. 30, Annex 5, pp. 299–305, at 300. 123 Beekman, “Letter to WIC”, 12 October 1689, p. 190. The Dutch original reads “sterck huys” (ibid.). 124 Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, p. 102.

110

Chapter 5 San Joseph de Oruña (1592–1802)

The Spatial Extent of Capuchin Missions in Trinidad (1686–1783) The Spanish governor captured by the French and Caribs and the Jesuits having renounced their service, the Spanish king in 1686/87 appointed the Catalonian Capuchins to conduct missionary work in Trinidad by royal orders of 7 February 1686 and 29 April 1687,125 after having reaffirmed in 1652 that conquest is to be replaced by pacification or “conquista de almas (conquest of the souls)”,126 which was officially practised in northeastern South America since 1552 and became the general Spanish colonial practice in 1573. Moreover, in March 1687 the Spanish monarch exempted converted Indigenous Peoples from “pay[ing] tribute of any kind for twenty years” and prohibited their distribution or order “to labour on estates if they do not wish to do so”,127 after “every sort of bondagecontract of Indians” was abolished in “the Province of Trinidad and Guayana” by the Royal Cedula of 29 May 1682, which was ordered to be executed by the Council of the Indies in April 1686.128 Thereupon, twelve Capuchin missionaries arrived in Trinidad in August 1687 to establish the four Naparima missions Guayria, Savana Grande, Sabaneta, and Montserrat,129 as well as other short-lived missions, such as Careiro (1688–1691) and San Francisco de los Arenales (1688).130 Carrying the same name as Trinidad’s first mission (which was destroyed in 1666), San Francisco again served as the stage for “a major uprising” in 1699, this time undertaken by the Nepoio after they received the news that the Spanish governor had hanged their shamans in the Naparima missions as punishment. They killed the priest and a carpenter, ambushed the governor and fled to the forests, where the Spaniards killed 61 of them, while the women and children were enslaved.131 In addition, the Capuchins had to face occasional raids from the mainland “Caribs” until 1699, the “demoralized” Catalonian missionaries in 1703 “deserted Trinidad completely on a

125 Governor of Cumaná José Diguja, “Report to King of Spain”, 18 December 1761, in: VEN, No. 392, pp. 341–347, at 344. See Governor of Cumaná Don Diguja, “Report”, Cumaná, 15 December 1763, in: BRC, serial No. 391, pp. 1–102, at 96. 126 Boomert, Indigenous Peoples of Trinidad and Tobago, p. 113. 127 NATT, King Philip V, “Royal Cedula”, 1716. 128 Council of the Indies, “Council Minutes about the Royal Cedula of 1682 to Don Francisco de Amolar”, Madrid, 26 April 1686, in: BRC, serial No. 107, p. 193. 129 Boomert, Indigenous Peoples of Trinidad and Tobago, p. 132; Morales Padrón, Spanish Trinidad, pp. 162–165. 130 Boomert, Indigenous Peoples of Trinidad and Tobago, pp. 132–133. 131 Ibid., pp. 135–136.

The Spatial Extent of Capuchin Missions in Trinidad (1686–1783)

111

French vessel” to return in 1718 for “another six years”.132 Instead, Arie Boomert claims that the Capuchins only left Trinidad in 1714 on the Spaniards’ “recommendation” to “withdraw the missionaries” for economic reasons, following a royal order of 1713,133 which contradicts the complaint of the Spanish king in 1716 about the lack of Christianization of the Indigenous Peoples in the encomiendas, as “the Indians remain in a state more pagan than ever before” and “without a visit from a Priest to administer them”., At the same time, the Royal Cedula indicated that “the Indians of the encomiendas, by reason of their freedom, were [. . .] alluring away those already converted and settled in the Missions, as recently occurred with forty families”. In 1716, there were “over 800” Indigenous Peoples in encomiendas in Trinidad,134 including 650 in Naparima.135 In consequence, the Spanish Crown ordered the governor of Trinidad, Cristobal Felix de Guzman, “that all the encomiendas of that Island should be taken over by the Royal Estate (as was done in Cumaná), since the encomenderos hold no valid title for their enjoyment”, but instead “promote their own interests and neglect those of My Royal Estate”,136 resulting in the transformation of missions (pueblos de doctrina).137 Hence, three of the initial four encomiendas of 1612 were transformed into royal estates, while the fourth encomienda (San Juan) vanished. Thereupon, the new missions of San Augustin de Arauca (Aruaca), San Pedro de Pacarigua (Tacarigua), and Partido de Quara (Cuara) emerged in 1716 and were still in place in 1734, when the Capuchins requested an exemption “from the tribute for this year” for the 48 Nepoio, who had “voluntarily” participated in the “expedition” against the “Caribs of the Orinoco”, led by Barima Chief Taricura in the early 1730s.138 By 1760, seven missions had survived, which were all situated either in the vicinity of San Joseph or on the southwestern coast, namely the four Naparima missions and three former encomiendas (Cuara was annexed to Tacarigua),139 whereas the established missions of the royally mandated Aragonese Capuchins of 1744 were all short-lived, such as Mucurapo (Arawak, abandoned 1751), Santa Rosa de Arima (Nepoio, abandoned 1754) and five other attempts of establishing missions between 1758 and 1759, namely Asución (Chaima, Caribs), Arrecifes

132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139

Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirits, p. 109. Boomert, Indigenous Peoples of Trinidad and Tobago, p. 137. NATT, King Philip V, “Royal Cedula”, 1716. Boomert, Indigenous Peoples of Trinidad and Tobago, p. 138. NATT, King Philip V, “Royal Cedula”, 1716, emphasis added. Boomert, Indigenous Peoples of Trinidad and Tobago, p. 138. NATT, N. N., “Account”, 20 July 1734, publication No. 378. Morales Padrón, Spanish Trinidad, p. 162.

112

Chapter 5 San Joseph de Oruña (1592–1802)

(Caribs, Chaima, Pariagoto), Divina Pastora (Warao, Arawak), Cumana (Caribs), and an unnamed mission in the vicinity of the Matura village (Chaima), which continued as “unfaithful” settlements,140 since “the Capuchins left the island again after a few years since the local government was unwilling to support them financially”.141 Six of the “unfaithful” villages still existed in 1773, namely Cumaná Point, Aricuagua, Matura, Naparimas, Siparia, and Toco, whereas Toco had in 1740 served as a “refuge area”142 and Aricuagua, Cumaná Point, and Matura were all settled by Chiama,143 after 150 of them were brought to Naparima in 1739 and 1765.144 For the first time, the Chiama were recorded for the Guarapiche (1684) and re-appeared in the Moruca between 1745 and 1769, when they were concerned by the violent removal of the Catalonian Capuchins of the Lower Orinoco. In 1773, the Spanish governor then assertively “placed a captain” in Toco, Naparimas, and Siparia (Arawak, “five leagues” distant from the Naparimas coast) “to instruct the Amerindians in religious matters, as well as to teach them fidelity to the Spanish [k]ing”. By including the six “unfaithful” settlements, the number of Indigenous Peoples in missions (along with the Naparima and former encomienda missions) increased volatile from 1.241 (1773) to 1.824 (1777) in the years 1773–1777, but decreased again to 1.490 (1783) and 1.124 (1784),145 after the most significant decrease had taken place between 1760 (2.500, 1.700 thereof converted)146 and 1765 (1.277),147 which might have been caused by a smallpox epidemic in 1764.148 Thereupon, the number of forceful removed Indigenous Peoples in those missions remained relatively stable until 1773 (1.241),149 whereas the number of colonists in San Joseph increased from “80” in 1705150 to 234 in 1777, after “72 families” had arrived from Grenada (1774),151 and to 1,093 in 1783,152 after a royal order of the same year (1783) had presented the

140 Ibid. 141 Boomert, Indigenous Peoples of Trinidad and Tobago, pp. 139–140. 142 Ibid., p. 140. 143 Morales Padrón, Spanish Trinidad, p. 162. 144 Boomert, Indigenous Peoples of Trinidad and Tobago, p. 139–140. 145 Ibid., p. 167. 146 Morales Padrón, Spanish Trinidad, pp. 162–167. 147 J. Harricharan, Church and Society in Trinidad, Bloomington: AuthorHouse, 2005, p. 35. 148 Boomert, Indigenous Peoples of Trinidad and Tobago, p. 141. Other smallpox outbreaks took place in 1739, 1741, and 1770/71 (ibid., p. 139–140). 149 Morales Padrón, Spanish Trinidad, p. 165. 150 Boomert, Indigenous Peoples of Trinidad and Tobago, p. 135. 151 Morales Padrón, Spanish Trinidad, pp. 162–163. 152 Ibid., p. 166–167.

The Spatial Extent of Capuchin Missions in Trinidad (1686–1783)

113

prospect of “generous grants of land” for Catholic settlers.153 However, the number of colonists already decreased again to 719 in the following year (1784)154 and rapidly to “24” until 1808,155 after the Spaniards had (unlawfully) ceded the whole island of Trinidad in “full property and sovereignty” to the English by the Treaty of Amiens of 25 March 1802, which was to be effected “within three months”.156 Notably, the cession of Trinidad in property and sovereignty was undertaken in violation of the European colonial law of the time of acquisition, since the Spaniards had only occupied just the limited area in the vicinity of San Joseph in northwestern Trinidad, along with the missions on the southwestern coast. Furthermore, the Spaniards had lawfully just acquired land in property by occupation (and not sovereignty or jurisdiction), since both the concluded agreement of Domingo de Vera with the Carinepagoto Cacique Guanaguanare of 1592 and the “punishment” expeditions of Antonio de Berrio between 1593 and 1595 were unlawful. Instead, the Spaniards acquired the area of San Joseph (established in 1592; interrupted in 1595, 1637, 1640–1652, and 1682–1684) and four encomiendas in its vicinity (transformed into missions in 1716) as property by occupation, which was followed by four Naparima missions (1687–1760) and six “unfaithful” villages (about 1773), whereas the Englishmen Alexander Campbell had still in 1788 indicated that the “Caribs” of Trinidad are of “great [in] number” and occupy “different parts of the Island” and had remained “in the same savage state as they were at the first settlement of the Island”.157 Thus, the Indigenous Peoples of Trinidad remained lawfully in possession of the jurisdiction and sovereignty for the area settled by the Spaniards, while they hold land as property, jurisdiction and sovereignty for all other areas, which was clearly violated by the cession of whole Trinidad to the English in property and sovereignty by the Treaty of Amiens of 1802. Hence, the next chapter analogously examines the Spanish colonial appropriation practices on the coastal mainland, which had commenced with the establishment of Santo Tome in 1595. 153 Harricharan, Church and Society in Trinidad, p. 36. 154 Morales Padrón, Spanish Trinidad, p. 166–167. 155 NATT, N. N., “Slave Trade in Trinidad and Guayana, 1674–1712”, publication No. 767. 156 Napoleon Series, “Treaty of Amiens”, March 1802, Article 3, www.napoleon series.org/research/government/diplomatic/c_amiens.html (accessed 5 October 2018). In this context, Trinidad was not considered as “restored” and presented an “exception” (ibid., Article 2). 157 NATT, Alexander Campbell, “Account”, 1788, publication No. 628. In addition, the governor of Trinidad, on 23 November 1812, also reported about the movement of Caribs from St. Vincent to Trinidad due to an earthquake on the former island (NATT, Governor of Trinidad, “Account on the Movement of Caribs from St. Vincent to Trinidad due to an Earthquake”, 23 November 1812, publication No. 309).

Chapter 6 Santo Tome (1595–1699) Following the myriad of unimplemented Spanish royal letter patents between 1530 and 1591 and the consequent lack of Spanish lawful colonial appropriation until then, the first Spanish settlement took its humble beginning in 1595. Therefore, this chapter investigates the subsequent Spanish colonial appropriation practices of occupation, treaty making (unlawful in the Vitorian, but lawful in the Grotian sense), and conquest, in its Vitorian legal version of “pacification”, in the Orinoco area during the seventeenth century. The chapter starts with the establishment of Santo Tome in 1595 and traces the subsequent Spanish colonial practices until the emergence of the Caribs of Coppenam in union with the French, who kept the Spanish in suspense between 1682 and 1699, after the sole Spanish settlement at the Orinoco was continuously attacked by English, Dutch, French, Guayanos, and Caribs. At the same time, the chapter examines the Spanish “conquest” attempts and enslavement practices of the Spanish governor in the light of the valid European legal provisions of the time.

Santo Tome de Morequito (1595–1637) The first Spanish settlement on the Orinoco had a humble beginning, namely the shelter of Antonio de Berrio “in the town of the Cacique Morequito” about July 1595, after the Spaniard had visited the “province of Morequito”1 at the end of his third expedition in 1591 and encountered the Cacique again between April and June 1595 as captive of Walter Raleigh, who used him as a guide to Morequito’s marvellous golden treasures, after Raleigh had attacked San Joseph in April 1595.2

1 Alternative spellings are Moriquite, Moriquito, Morguita or Muriquite. It remains unclear to which indigenous group this Cacique belongs, although contextual information suggests Arawak or Guayano. 2 Surprisingly, the location of Morequito’s settlement was, most likely to hide the location of the related gold reserves, omitted in Walter Raleigh’s Sketch map (Raleigh, “Chart of Guayana”, c. 1595) but inserted in the Sketch map of De Bry in 1599 (De Bry, “Sketch map of Guiana”, 1599), who had placed Morequito’s settlement in the vicinity of the Orinoco-Caroni junction. Located between the towns of Toparimaca, Onocotana, and Anatopon at the OrinocoCaroni junction, it was part of the province of Aromaia (along with the settlements of Capurepan and Macurguarai on the banks of the Caroni), situated between Emeria and Epuremei to the East and Anabas to the West. Furthermore, the legend at Morequito’s settlement reads: “from this king, Raleigh brought the son to England”, while the map itself was based on https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110690149-006

Santo Tome de Morequito (1595–1637)

115

Raleigh and Morequito then entered into an agreement of friendship, which was based on the hostage practice by exchanging Morequito’s son and three other peoples for two Englishmen.3 While the practice had hedged that Raleigh would return in 1596 “with a thousand men to settle down there”,4 Raleigh’s de facto return in 1618 resulted in a personal and diplomatic disaster. Meanwhile, the Spaniard Antonio de Berrio settled in Morequito’s town, after Raleigh had released him and his Captain Alvaro Jorges from captivity on the shores of Cumaná in June 15955 and the Spaniard had found his Trinidad settlement San Joseph devastated, depopulated, and in an “unprotective state”.6 Consequently, the Spaniard crossed over to the mainland and found shelter “in the town of the Cacique Morequito, a distance of 80 leagues from the mouth of the

information, which were “observed [. . .] by a sailor [who was] on the voyage with Raleigh” (De Bry, “Sketch map of Guiana”, 1599). Neil Whitehead notes that Topiawari was the “uncle” of Morequito, who was “engaged in a struggle with the ‘Lords of Epuremei’” or “rulers of the Guayana highlands” (Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, p. 16). 3 NATT, De Liano, “Letter to King of Spain”, 15 March 1596. This is confirmed by the Treasurer of Cumaná (De Montes, “Letter to the King of Spain”, 18 April 1596, p. 12). In this context, it is, furthermore, indicated that Morequito appeared with “three or four hundred” of his people (NATT, De Liano, “Letter to King of Spain”, 15 March 1596). 4 Ibid. The same source asserted that Morequito would have had also “give[n] up the country to him [Raleigh]” and had “announced obedience to the Queen of England”, and “gave Guaterral [Raleigh] three or four ingots of gold telling him that all that country was his and that they would be happy if he would come and settle there and he would surrender it to him” (ibid.). Moreover, Morequito had brought Raleigh also to “the mine, which was a league inland”, from which the latter “carried away three or four tons of earth from a mountain and put it on board” and the Cacique received “curious things” from England in exchange (ibid.). For the different perception of metals by Indigenous Peoples and Europeans, see N. Whitehead, “Native American Cultures along the Atlantic Littoral of South America, 1499–1650”, Proceedings of the British Academy 81 (1993), pp. 197–231, at 213. 5 NATT; De Salazar, “Letter to King of Spain”, 10 July 1595; NATT, De Liano, “Letter to King of Spain”, 15 March 1596. Prior, the Englishman had also attempted to attack Cumaná on 23 June 1595 with “200 men”, which was, however, assertively compelled by the Spaniards with “15 or 16 men”, since the Spaniards would have killed 80 Englishmen and “[t]he rest escaped by swimming” (ibid.). Another account gives the number of killed English soldiers with six (NATT, De Salazar, “Letter to King of Spain”, 10 July 1595). 6 Ibid. By decree of the Council of the Indies, de Berrio was actually already on 18 January 1594 ordered “to leave the Island of Trinidad to Francisco de Vides to whom it belongs in conformity with the agreement made with him and with the terms and conditions therein granted to him” (NATT, Council of the Indies, “Decree”, 18 January 1593, publication No. 19). This decree was ignored by Antonio de Berrio.

116

Chapter 6 Santo Tome (1595–1699)

River Orinoco”,7 which eventually became his last refuge, since the Spanish explorer had lost the legal dispute with Cumaná governor Francisco de Vides about the governorship of Trinidad in January 15968 and was commanded “to proceed and explore and conquer [sic!] Guayana”.9 Predated by a violent encounter at the Orinoco with de Vides’ Captain Phelipe de Santiago in November 1595,10 who was ordered by the governor of Cumaná to “driv[e] [Antonio de Berrio] away”,11 the Spaniard thus remained at Santo Tome de Morequito, where Antonio de Berrio died in 1597 after a serious illness.12 Beforehand, his Maestro Campo Domingo de Vera in the first half of 1493 was entrusted with an expedition “to penetrate in the interior of Guayana by means of Morequite’s settlement Chucopare”13 to enter the

7 NATT, De Liano, “Letter to King of Spain”, 15 March 1596. In contrast, Neil Whitehead suggests that the settlement was located “on an island in the mouth of the river [Orinoco]” (Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, p. 83). 8 NATT, De Montes, “Account on dispute between de Vides and de Berrio”, January 1596. In this dispute, de Vides had grounded his argument on his royal nomination (AGI, Spanish king Philipp II, “Nomination of Francisco de Vides as Governor and Captain General of the provinces Guayana, Caura and Cardemas including the government of the province New Andalusia [. . .] and the islands of Trinidad, Granada and Tabaco [Tobago]”, Madrid, 12 April 1592, PATRONATO, 293, N.15, R.7), which was granted to him as a “principal reward” (NATT, Audiencia de Santo Domingo, “Report about the Grant of Francisco de Vides”, December 1591, publication No. 114). In contrast, Antonio de Berrio reasoned with his de facto settlement San Joseph, which he had formally established in May 1592 (NATT, Antonio de Berrio, “Report”, after May 1592, publication No. 810) and his (unsubstantial) claim that the disputed area was comprised in his letter patent. However, the letter patent of 1582 had referred to the “discovery and population” of the area between the “Pauto and Papamene” (based on the Quesada capitulación of 1568/69), despite his subsequent (unsubstantial) attempts to equate the Pauto and Papamene with the Orinoco and Amazon (NATT, Domingo de Vera, “Letter to King of Spain”, September 1595, publication No. 94), which was, consequently, rejected by the Council of the Indies (NATT, Council of the Indies, “Report”, 30 January 1599, publication No. 132). 9 Ibid. It was in this context assumed that “Vides is too old and with too much to do so that he would not object to having Guayana and Caura taken away” (ibid.). 10 NATT, De Salazar, “Letter to King of Spain”, 10 July 1595. Phelipe de Santiago had escaped the Raleigh attack on San Joseph of 4 April in Trinidad, fled from there to Cumana. The Captain also confirmed extensive Carib and Arawak settlements on the Orinoco (Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, p. 15). 11 NATT, De Montes, “Account on dispute between de Vides and de Berrio”, January 1596. Furthermore, de Santiago was instructed for the “settling and defence” of Trinidad and resisting “the great number of the enemy’s privateers”, in particular the English and Caribs and ordered also to “took out of the power of the Indians one of the two Englishmen [left by Walter Raleigh]” (De Montes, “Letter to the King of Spain”, 18 April 1596, p. 12). 12 NATT, De Vera, “Letter to King of Spain”, April 1596. 13 Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, p. 13. This referred to the Jorge Griego expedition of 1583 (ibid.).

Santo Tome de Morequito (1595–1637)

117

“rich provinces”14 by barter and “rais[ing] war” against the “Guayanese”.15 And indeed, with 35 soldiers Domingo de Vera16 went to the village of the Nepojo Chief Carapana17 to unload “red bonnets, glass beads, knives, cutlasses, combs and flutes”18 and also visited “the province of Morequito”, situated at the “entry for these large provinces”.19 Nevertheless, after having proceeded for “25 leagues” and passed “many large settlements of Indians”,20 Don Domingo was forced to return, since “the Indians were seeking to kill” him and his men,21 after de Vera under the pretext of “make[ing] friends with the people of these lands” had stolen “17 pieces of worked gold”. However, the outcome had not stopped de Vera from announcing the “definite news that 11 days journey from that place was a very large lake [. . .] in the country round about was very numerous race of people well clothed, very warlike and rich” as success.22 Blocked from re-entering by Cumaná troops of Governor Francisco de Vides, Domingo de Vera went to Spain for 14 De Berrio, “Letter to king”, Margarita, 1 January 1593, pp. 4–7. Antonio de Berrio claimed to have Morequito “in [his] power” and the “other Chiefs of the same entrance” being his “friends”, which is why “the Guayanese have commenced to make war because they are my friends”, while de Berrio in turn intended “with theses few Spaniards and a number of friendly Indians to try to raise war against them and sustain it for some days” (ibid.). 15 De Berrio, “Letter to king”, Margarita, 1 January 1593, pp. 4–7. 16 NATT, De Vera, “Letter to King of Spain”, September 1595. 17 The Cacique Carapana emerged for the first time in the accounts of de Berrio in December 1594 (Antonio de Berrio, “Report to Spanish King”, 2 December 1594, in: BRC, Serial No. 3, pp. 8–9, at 8). By contrast, neither Carapana nor Barguicana were mentioned in his expedition report of January 1593 (De Berrio, “Letter to king”, Margarita, 1 January 1593 pp. 2–3), but was known to the Spaniards since the 1530s (Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, p. 33). At that time, Carapana’s settlement was reported to contain “more than 400 houses, ‘so large that each one houses an entire kin-group’” (ibid.). Therefore, Carapana was, for example, already encountered by Jorge Griego in 1583, who had indicated Carapana’s settlement as being “2,000 people” strong, but “was said to rule over ‘many more’” (ibid.). In addition, Jorge Griego mentions a Warao settlement at the Cotopi, numbering 3,000 people. This Spanish explorer had departed to that “unofficial” expedition from Margarita, where Antonio de Berrio resided between January 1591 and 1593, before moving to San Joseph in Trinidad (see chapter 5). Furthermore, the settlement of Nepojo Chief Carapana was indicated in 1596 in the Sketch map of Raleigh as being situated on the southern part of the Orinoco mouth towards the Amacura, just behind the islands between the Orinoco and Amacura (Raleigh, “Chart of Guayana”, c. 1595). Moreover, the English explorer Raleigh connects “the province of Carapana” with “Emeria” in his reports (Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, p. 16). 18 Boomert, Indigenous Peoples of Trinidad and Tobago, p. 100. In 1596, Carapana was reported to be “‘sicke, olde, and weake’”, and had died by 1610 (ibid., footnote 34). 19 De Berrio, “Letter to king”, Margarita, 1 January 1593, pp. 4–7. 20 NATT, De Vera, “Letter to King of Spain”, September 1595. 21 De Berrio, “Letter to King of Spain”, Margarita, 1 January 1593, pp. 1–7. 22 Ibid., pp. 4–7.

118

Chapter 6 Santo Tome (1595–1699)

advancing his plan “to settle and occupy” respectively “pacify and conquer” the “great provinces”.23 Therefore, in September 1595, the claim was repeated before the Spanish king to ask for a license “to collect a thousand [sic!] men from Spain”24 in order to “complete the entry by settling towns”. Hence, the Spanish monarch approved “600 bachelors and 400 married men with their wives and children” are to be sent25 and conveyed by “a number of flyboats”, financed by a loan from the Royal Treasury. In result, Domingo de Vera and 1,500 Spaniards crossed the Atlantic Ocean and reached Trinidad in April 1596, whereupon they intended to cross over to Antonio de Berrio at the Orinoco.26 However, the enormous settlement attempt turned into a huge disaster, since a significant number of the 1500 Spaniards27 perished during the crossing from Trinidad to Orinoco, either through drowning in the Gulf of Paria or through the attack of “a fleet of Caribs from Dominica and Grenada”. In addition, those Spaniards who made it to Morequito’s town, soon after deserted “by twenties and thirties and went away down the river and this practice spread among those left”, who followed in deserting and were killed by unspecified Indigenous Peoples in response to “the outrages committed by the Spaniards”, in particular the seizure and maltreatment of indigenous women, while others went lost, since “[t]hey were not skilful at this navigation which is divided into many streams and as there was little food, of all these numerous people, very few got through in these seven months”.28 In result, Domingo de Vera was sued for “his lack of foresight and his bad government”, which had caused the loss of peoples “without having

23 NATT, De Vera, “Letter to King of Spain”, September 1595. In addition, de Vera intended to “divide the lands between us [Spaniards], as was done in Peru and New Spain which were settled in this way” (ibid.). 24 Ibid. More precisely, de Vera claimed that he had “made the entry” to the “immense provinces so long desired” and also “made a post with a sergento mayor and some soldiers at Carapana and Muriquite [Morequito]”. In addition, he indicated that he preserved “friendship [. . .] confirmed by barter” with him (ibid.). 25 NATT, Council of the Indies, “Report”, 30 January 1599. 26 NATT, N. N., “Account on the ‘El Dorado’ Expeditions of Antonio de Berrio”, publication No. 113; NATT, De Liano, “Letter to King of Spain”, 15 March 1596. 27 In comparison, the Spaniard Pedro de Mendoca in 1535 went to the Río de la Plata with “two thousand men and thirteen ships” (Benton, Search for Sovereignty, p. 46). 28 NATT, De Vera, “Letter to King of Spain”, April 1596. At the same time, Antonio de Berrio undertook one final attempt to find El Dorado under the command of his Captain Alvaro Jorge, but after Jorge died, the soldiers ill-treated the Indigenous Peoples encountered and took “the daughters and wives”, whereupon the Indigenous Peoples had “killed 350 men”, the remnants “escaped to join the pirate enclaves on the Caribbean coast” (Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, p. 83).

Santo Tome de Morequito (1595–1637)

119

gained any positive knowledge of what these lands contained”29 and charged with frauds on 30 November 1609.30 Prior, Antonio de Berrio was, after his death in 1597, succeeded by his son Fernando on 22 April 1598, who nominated himself as governor for “La Nueva Guipuzcoa del Dorado” at a place determined as “Ciudad de S. Thomas Riberas del Rio Orinoco”31 and introduced himself as the “Marques of Weyana [Guyana] in 1599”32 with an abode named Santo Tome de Morequito33 and a couple of remnants of Domingo de Vera’s disastrous large-scale settlement attempt.34 Until August 1599, Santo Tome remained a “hamlet” with “60 horsemen and 100 musketeers”,35 who by 1603 even decreased to “60”,36 arguably due to war victims, since Fernando de Berrio in August 1599 had made “daily attempt[s] to conquer the [. . .] Weyana [Guayanos], but cannot conquer the same either by the forces already used or by any mean of friendship”. Instead, “the nation named Charibus [Caribs]” would daily offer the Spaniards hostile resistance with their arms, which are hand bows, and they shoot poisoned arrows therewith, which are so poisonous that if any one is hot by them so that blood flows, he must per force die within twenty-four hours unless a remedy is immediately applied, and all his flesh would drop from his bones, so that the Spaniards greatly fear that nation and their arrows, for in battle they stand unmoved, and will not budge, and they have maintained their ground up to the present, and the Spaniards seeing that they can win nothing there.37

While the Spaniards of Cumaná in February and March 1605 turned their means of appropriation from negotiating “peace with the Caribs” to “full scale military conquest”, after a Cumaná expedition to the three Caciques Aguareba (Guanipa Hills), Ingles (Guarapiche) and Aruaca, who was “dominant in the region near Santo Tomé” had produced “fruitless” results, in particular in the Guarapiche

29 NATT, Council of the Indies, “Report”, 30 January 1599. 30 De Alquica, “Letter to King of Spain”, 14 June 1612, p. 29. Nevertheless, still in March 1611 de Vera owed the Royal Treasury the “greater part” of the 70,000 ducats loan (ibid.). 31 NATT, Fernando de Berrio, “Appointment of Fernando de Oruña y de la Hoz, Governor of La Nueva Guipuzcoa del Dorado and Pedro de Beltranilla to be Contador Juez Official”, Ciudad de S. Thomas Riberas del Rio Orinoco, 22 April 1598, publication No. 19. 32 A. Cabeliau, “Report to the States General”, 3 February 1599, in: BRC, serial No. 8, p. 20. 33 Alternative spellings are San Tomé, Santo Thome, S. Thomas or Cuidad de S. Thomas. 34 NATT, De Vera, “Letter to King of Spain”, April 1596. 35 Cabeliau, “Report to the States General”, 3 February 1599, p. 20. This hamlet was, furthermore, described as being “60 horsemen and 100 musketeers strong” (ibid.). 36 Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, p. 85. 37 Cabeliau, “Report to the States General”, 3 February 1599, p. 20. This was narrated by the Dutch expedition, which had then navigated the Orinoco with two ships, inspired by Walter Raleigh’s (Walther Halley) expedition report (ibid.).

120

Chapter 6 Santo Tome (1595–1699)

and Orinoco and thus turned to warfare,38 the governing Spaniard on the Orinoco, Fernando de Berrio, instead turned his focus at least since 160539 on enslavement expeditions and slave trade, wherefore he also illegally traded with Dutch, English, and French, who were present at the port of Santo Tome with “up to 18 vessels at a time.”40 After “royal warrants” were proclaimed in February 161041 and an official investigation undertaken,42 the Council of the Indies sued Don Fernando, who unsuccessfully attempted to escape his “thirty-eight charges” of 20 November 1614 by voyages to Margarita43 and Santo Domingo. Among the charges was “the seizure and sale of Indian natives of that province unjustly [sic!]”, which confirms the spatial limitation of the royal license of 1608 “to make war [. . .] against the caribes of Dominica, Guadeloupe, Martinique, Grenada, St. Vincent and St. Lucia”,44 while enslavement on the Orinoco mainland, Trinidad, and Tobago remained prohibited. In result, Don Fernando was sentenced with the “perpetual deprivation of his Government”,45 which was watered down “by licence from Your Majesty” on 29 July 161546 to “the exclusion from his provinces”.47 Hence, de Berrio proceeded to his “estates” (70 leagues distant from Bogotá) until the ban was surprisingly rescinded in 1618. Meanwhile, the English had in May 1614 settled in the Orinoco mouth and in October 1614 also established a presence “[i]n the country of the friendly Indians the Aruacas” situated “not far from Margarita on the coast of the mainland” with the “favour of the Caribs”, whereupon the Spanish governor of Margarita requested royal permission “to subdue the Caribs and drive the English from

38 Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, p. 84. However, Governor Pedro Suárez Coronel had contended “himself with seizing a few Carib prisoners” before turning northeast to Aguareba, with whom Campos attempted an agreement for the establishment of the Spanish fort San Felipe de Austria, but recalled the Captain in mid-1607 to control a Cumanagoto rebellion on the Aragua River (ibid.). 39 NATT, N. N., “Account on the Contraband trade of Governor Fernando de Berrio”, publication No. 80. 40 De Alquica, “Letter to King of Spain”, 14 June 1612, p. 29. Furthermore, the investigator claimed that Santo Tome had become a “seminary of rascals” and “chosen resort of secular criminals, irregular priests and apostate friars” (ibid.). 41 NATT, De Betranilla, “Letter to King of Spain”, 30 November 1609. 42 De Alquica, “Letter to King of Spain”, 14 June 1612, p. 31. 43 NATT, Governor of Margarita Bernardo de Vargas, “Letter to King of Spain”, 11 July 1611, publication No. 118. 44 Whitehead, “Carib Cannibalism”, p. 73. 45 De Alquica, “Letter to King of Spain”, 14 June 1612, pp. 29–31. 46 NATT, Council of the Indies, “Sentence to Fernando de Berrio”, 24 November 1614. See also De Alquica, “Letter to King of Spain”, 14 June 1612, pp. 29–31. 47 NATT, Council of the Indies, “Sentence to Fernando de Berrio”, 24 November 1614.

Santo Tome de Morequito (1595–1637)

121

their settlement” and “the Lieutenant of Morequito” on 30 May 1614 likewise received “assistance in ejecting [the] Carib-supported English settlements” in the Orinoco mouth.48 However, the Arucas were still in December 1615 reported to have “thrown off the obedience [to the King of Spain]” and are instead “allying themselves with the enemy”. The royal permission for a reinforcement “to reduce the rebellious natives” was then approved by the King of Spain on 9 August 1621,49 after the English had in December 1617 received significant support by the returning Walter Raleigh, who brought from England “a large military force and installed himself, once again, on Trinidad”. Hence, his son Wat and Lieutenant Lawrence Keymis were immediately dispatched to proceed to the Orinoco50 and attacked Santo Tome in union with the Guayanos, who were situated “nearest to the town” and on 1 January 1618 “at once rose in rebellion”.51 Conducted in violation of the Peace Treaty of London (1604), the joint attack killed both Diego Palomeque de Acuña, Spanish governor of Santo Tome since 12 December 1615,52 and Raleigh’s son Wat53 and had left the town of Santo Tome, monasteries, and the church “burned to their foundations”.54 Lost by the Spaniards,55 the English remained in Santo Tome for “26 days”. In the meantime, Keymis had “stripped Morequito of its guns and took his troops up river as far as Cabruta, where he established friendly relations with [the] Caribs trading there”.56 Meanwhile, the Spaniards were preparing a counter-attack. In result, the two Captains Juan de Lezana and Jeronimo de Grados, “24 soldiers” and “60 Indians” proceeded to Santo Tome to expel the English, who then returned to the Orinoco mouth, but also “exited and raised all the native Indians in rebellion”, in particular the “Aruacas, Chaguanas and Caribs of that province, who renounced obedience to S.M. [your Spanish Majesty]”. In consequence, Captain Grados received a “battlefield promotion” and troops “to capture Caribs, for slaves, on the Essequibo and Barima Rivers” in November 1618, which resulted

48 Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, p. 86. 49 King Philip IV, “Royal Cedula”, Madrid, 9 August 1621, in: BRC, serial No. 21, Annex 4, pp. 57–58. 50 Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, p. 86. 51 Cooperation of Santo Thomé, “Report about the Walter Raleigh attack to King of Spain”, c. 1621, in: BRC, serial No. 20, pp. 49–53, at 49. 52 Procurator of Santo Thomé and San Joseph Captain Juan de Lezama, “Minute of Council”, 21 July 1621, in: BRC, serial No. 21, Annex 1, pp. 53–54, at 54. 53 Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, p. 86. 54 Cooperation of Santo Thomé, “Report about the Walter Raleigh attack to King of Spain”, c. 1621, p. 49. 55 De Lezama, “Minute of Council”, 21 July 1621, p. 54. 56 Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, p. 86.

122

Chapter 6 Santo Tome (1595–1699)

in his capture and had killed six Spaniards, while “no Caribs were taken”. At the same time, Lezana was ordered “to rebuild the fort at Morequito” with reinforcements from Cumaná.57 Surprisingly, the Spanish king also unexpectedly rescinded the ban of Fernando de Berrio, who was pardoned and ordered back to government, since Don Fernando was perceived as “persona grata to the Indians” and instructed to draw them back “to the Spanish side and so make it more difficult for the English to return [. . .] and make fortifications”.58 However, upon his arrival in Santo Tome in November 1618, the new Spanish governor was immediately received by the “Caribs”, who made their representation with “30 pirogues”, attacked Santo Tome and also killed “many of the friendly Indians nearby”.59 It was probably this event that had caused the Spanish attack of 1618 on the “Caribs” (Kalinago) of Dominica, St. Vincent, and the Orinoco, in which many Englishmen were killed, but also 25 Caribs from a “village on the Orinoco”, where also “many” had been enslaved because of “their attacks on Spanish settlements and their ‘cannibalism’”.60 Moreover, in September 1619 Fernando de Berrio had “put aside other matters” in order to again “deal at once with these Caribs” of Barima.61 Indicated as “punishment” for their “latest outrage and the capture of Captain Grados the previous year”, Don Fernando thus went to the Barima, but remained unsuccessful, since the English were still present in the Orinoco mouth and had “captured all but six of these troops” and had also in union with the Guarapiche Caribs destroyed the beginnings of a Spanish fort at Punta de Galera in Trinidad.62 Nonetheless, Fernando de Berrio dared a second attempt in 1619, this time against the “Province of Aruacas”, whom the Spaniard intended to “reduce”, as the province had cancelled “their former obedience [to the Spanish king]” and “six of the enemy’s ships” trading there would do “all in their power to dissuade them from acknowledging your Majesty’s jurisdiction, and urging them to kill all the Spaniards of the town”. However, de Berrio was again unsuccessful, as five Spaniards were killed “in the encounter [. . .] with the Indians”

57 Ibid., pp. 85–86. 58 NATT, N. N., “Account on J. de. Lezama and Fernando de Berrio”, publication No. 209. 59 NATT, N. N., “Account on Raleigh, Fernando de Berrio and San Thomé”, publication No. 214. This was done after Fernando de Berrio has left his “estates” in June 1618 (ibid.). 60 Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, p. 87. 61 NATT, N. N., “Account on Raleigh, Fernando de Berrio and San Thomé”. 62 Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, p. 87.

Santo Tome de Morequito (1595–1637)

123

and one Spaniard “carried off” by the English, who had transmitted that they “were only awaiting the end of the truce” to “devastate” Santo Tome.63 This story turned into reality, but unfolded without Fernando de Berrio, who had in 1620 requested yet another royal permission to proceed against the Caribs to restore “a great number of natives in the said provinces of Guayana”, as “there would be no [other] means of bringing them to acknowledge of the holy Catholic faith, and numbers of Spanish villages would remain unpeopled”.64 The request was approved by King Philip III on 12 May 1620 and de Berrio ordered “to bring the Caribs back to obedience” by endeavouring to punish “the principal leaders [with] suitable means and admitting the rest to pardon”.65 However, Don Fernando never carried out this order, but (in violation of royal orders) departed to Spain and was during the Atlantic crossing “taken prisoner by the Moors”66 and transported to Argel (Algiers), where he died in captivity in May 1623 along with his brother, the Venezuela governor Francisco de Berrio.67 Meanwhile, the Aruacas, Caribs, and Chaguanes on the other side of the Atlantic (see Figure 4) in 1621 remained in “disobedience” to the Spanish Crown68 and Santo Tome was again attacked in 1629, this time by the English and Dutch,69 who had just recently settled in the Essequibo and Berbice and on the island of Tobago. The attack had again left the Spanish town burnt down to the ground, killed Governor Luis Monsalbe and took “many slaves on the return journey to Essequibo”,70 while the “defenceless residents [. . .] abandoned [it] and withdraw to the woods”. Again threatened by a “squad-

63 Cooperation of Santo Thomé, “Report about the Walter Raleigh attack to King of Spain”, c. 1621, p. 50. 64 Ibid., p. 52. 65 NATT, King Philip III, “Royal Cedula”, 12 May 1620, publication No. 217. 66 NATT, N. N., “Agreement related to Trinidad”, publication No. 219. 67 NATT, N. N., “Account”, Madrid, 24 May 1623, publication No. 222. In contrast, Arie Boomert gives the year 1622 (Boomert, Indigenous Peoples of Trinidad and Tobago, p. 108) and Neil Whitehead claims that Antonio de Berrio died in 1629 at the Atures Rapids (Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, p.87). 68 Cooperation of Santo Thomé, “Report about the Walter Raleigh attack to King of Spain”, c. 1621, p. 49. 69 Marques de Sofrage, “Report to King of Spain”, Santa Fé, 8 July 1631, in: BRC, serial No. 31, pp. 70–71. Instead, the Sketch map of Raleigh places the province “Aromaia” and the settlement Awraona on the Orinoco mainland (Raleigh, “Chart of Guayana”, c. 1595). 70 Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, p. 88.

124

Chapter 6 Santo Tome (1595–1699)

ron of corsairs” in July 1631,71 Santo Tome was rebuilt in 1637 on “a site named Usupamo” in the vicinity of the Caroni mouth.72

Santo Tome de Usupamo (c. 1637) Due to attacks by the Caribs, English, Guayanos, and Dutch between 1599 and 1631, Santo Tome was moved to the mouth of the Caroni in 1637, but remained under serious threat, after Governor Cristóval de Aranda was in June 1636 lamenting that “the natives [were] in rebellion” and the Spanish forces were so reduced that “barely 30 could bear arms”.73 The next attack on battered Santo Tome took place in July 1637,74 followed by another raid on San Joseph in October 1637 in response to the Spanish attacks on Dutch settlements in Trinidad and Tobago in 1636. The Dutch attack on Santo Tome in 1637 was carried out in alliance with Caribs “from the Essequibo and Caroni”75 and had left Santo Tome again “taken, burnt, and plundered”,76 as the Dutch-Carib alliance would have arrived “in such strength”77 and “entered so suddenly” before daybreak that “they devastated and sacked it, leaving it so poor and wretched, both as regards the churches and the governor and residents” and even had “carried off the Most Holy Host, and burnt the temples and the images of the Saints”.78 Although the Cabildo of Trinidad assumed that the Dutch forces were led by “the Dutch and Indian Caribs from the River Bervis [Berbice], and other tribes from Orinoco, Amacuro, and Essequibo”,79

71 De Sofrage, “Report to King of Spain”, Santa Fé, 8 July 1631, p. 70. The Audiencia of Santa Fé responded with a reinforcement of fifty men (ibid.), but could not prevent the next series of attacks in 1637. 72 Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, p. 88. Despite the series of attacks, the number of Santo Tome inhabitants was constantly indicated as 60, such as in 1603 (Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, p. 85), November 1609 (NATT, De Betranilla, “Letter to King of Spain”, 30 November 1609), and 1637 (Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, p. 88). 73 NATT, Escobar, “Account”, San Joseph, November 1636. 74 Escobar, “Letter to King of Spain”, February 1638; Escobar, “Letter to King of Spain”, Guayana, 20 February 1638, p. 101. See also Cooperation and Governor of Santo Thomé, “Letter to the Royal Audiencia of the New kingdom of Grenada”, 1638, pp. 115–116; Maldonado, “Account of the Great Rivers Orinoco, Meta and Casanare”, 1638–1639, p.121. 75 Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, p. 89. 76 Cabildo of Trinidad, “Report”, San Joseph, 27 December 1637, p. 88. 77 Cooperation and Governor of Santo Thomé, “Letter to the Royal Audiencia of the New kingdom of Grenada”, 1638, p. 115. 78 Ibid., p. 114. See Maldonado, “Account of the Great Rivers Orinoco, Meta and Casanare”, 1638–1639, p. 125. 79 Cabildo of Trinidad, “Report”, San Joseph, 27 December 1637, p. 88.

Figure 4: Indigenous Settlements along the Orinoco Mouth, as indicated by Walter Raleigh.

Santo Tome de Usupamo (c. 1637)

125

126

Chapter 6 Santo Tome (1595–1699)

Cornelis Goslinga argues in a plausible manner that the attack was undertaken by the private Zeeland trader Aert Groenewegen of Essequibo, who then proceeded to Trinidad. Meanwhile, Santo Tome had at least until February 1638 faced “unexpected attacks every day”, which had left “the people so exhausted and so desirous to abandon it”.80 At the same time, the Dutch since 1636 had built settlements in the Orinoco, after Dutch colonies were established in Essequibo, Berbice, Tobago, and Trinidad. Accordingly, “sixteen Dutchman” had then settled in the Orinoco mouth among “a great population of Carib Indians” in 1636,81 who were reinforced in April 1637, when the Dutch had also established a fort82 on the Amacuro83 and had also settled in the mouth of the Aniavero (Amavero) “among the Caribs and Aruac nations”.84 Furthermore, the Dutch in 1638 Dutch had established a salt pit between “the mouth of the Guayapiche” and the creek Curiaco and established the cattle farm Oquetay with “more than 20.000 head of cattle”.85 Already in April 1637 it was also reported that the Dutch were united with the Indigenous Peoples in Trinidad, who are “all [. . .] in revolt” and were “approach[ing] nearer to this town [of Santo Tome]” and are collecting all the nations of those parts, all the coast of Guayana and the River [Orinoco] and propose to come and attack this said town [of Santo Tome], which is quite unprovided with men, arms and ammunition and everything, for there is not one that has a shirt, as it is many years since a vessel came from Spain.86

80 Cooperation of Santo Thomé de Guayana, “Letter to Governor of Carácas”, Santo Thomé de Guayana, February 1638, pp. 103–104. Moreover, Neil Whitehead claims that there was yet another attack by the Caribs and Dutch in 1639 (Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, p. 90), but overlooks that the related report referred to the previous attack of the Dutch in July 1637. 81 Cooperation and Governor of Santo Thomé, “Letter to the Royal Audiencia of the New kingdom of Grenada”, 1638, pp. 115–116. 82 Maldonado, “Account of the Great Rivers Orinoco, Meta and Casanare”, 1638–1639, p. 124. This fort was reported to be situated in the mouth of the river, 20 Spanish leagues “windward of the Orinoco” (ibid.). 83 Cooperation and Governor of Santo Thomé, “Letter to the Royal Audiencia”, 1638, pp. 115–116. 84 Maldonado, “Accounts of the Great River Orinoco, Meta, and Casanare”, 1638–1639, p. 124. This settlement still existed in 1638 (Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, p. 89). 85 Cooperation and Governor of Santo Thomé, “Letter to the Royal Audiencia of the New kingdom of Grenada”, 1638, p. 116. Furthermore, it is indicated that “(a)ll these villages are subject to, and under the protection of Essequibo” (ibid.). 86 NATT, Escobar, “Report to Audiencia”, St. Thome, 11 April 1637. According to Arie Boomert, the strength of the Nepoio and Arawak was estimated by the Dutch as being over 600 ablebodied men (Boomert, Indigenous Peoples of Trinidad and Tobago, p. 111).

Santo Tome de Usupamo (c. 1637)

127

Prior, the Yaio vanished from the historical record. Mentioned for the last time in Trinidad in 1598 after the “punishment” expeditions of Antonio de Berrio between 1593 and 1595, the presence of the Yaio (Iao) in the Orinoco was confirmed in November 1595, in particular in the Lower Orinoco between the Orinoco mouth and Caroni,87 when the Chaguanes and Tivitives (further distinguished as Crawani and Waraweete) were occupying “the swamps” of the Orinoco mouth, situated “on the banks of all these [rivers]”88 and islands,89 while both banks further up the Lower Orinoco were seamed by the “various territories of [. . .] the Aruacas, Yayos, Sapoyos, Caribs, and Napuyos [Nepoio]” until “the territories of the Province of Guayana are reached [. . .] one of them that is entered is the Province of Morequito”.90 Furthermore, Yaio (Iao) settlements are confirmed by the Sketch map of De Bry of 1599 for the whole “Wild Coast” between the Waini (Wayemi) and Arowary River, including the indigenous settlement Maburesa on the Essequibo mouth, where the Sketch map reads “Iaos en arw[akas]” (see Figure 5).91 At the same time, some Yaio were forced to escape Spanish-Arawak slave raids by moving southwards, such as the Yao (Iao) Cacique “Warao”, who led his people from the Moruca along the coastal mainland to the Caw River about 1593/94, after Arawak had guided several Spanish enslavement expedition to his settlement, who “had taken many Yaio women and children”, among them ‘his best wife’, wherefore the Cacique “burnt his houses, destroyed his fields and fled to the east, leaving his country ‘to be possessed by the Arawaccas.’”92 Similarly, Arie Boomert narrates the story of Cacique Weepackea, who was born on the Orinoco and settled in in the Maron (Marowijne)

87 De Santiago, “Report on the Navigation of the River Orinoco to Cumaná Treasurer Roque de Monte for His Majesty”, 1595, p. 9. Furthermore, it is reported that from there onwards is “the large Indian town of the natives of Guayana”, which is spatially defined as extending “from the bank of the said River Orinoco along the windward side as far as that of the Marañon, so that they lie between these two mighty and celebrated rivers” (ibid.). 88 Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, p. 16. 89 Raleigh, “Chart of Guayana”, c. 1595. 90 De Santiago, “Report on the Navigation of the River Orinoco to Cumaná Treasurer Roque de Monte for His Majesty”, 1595, p. 9. Moreover, the report describes the Caribs of Caura as “friendly towards the Spaniards” and also indicates that “upstream from the said Province of Caura” would be “the territories of the Amaivas”, where “there is a great number of natives, and it is very rich in gold, although in this province the natives are very much persecuted by the Caribs, who every year descend upon them in fleets, and also upon the others inhabiting these territories in the neighbourhood of the new kingdom” (ibid., p. 10). 91 De Bry, “Sketch map of Guiana”, 1599. 92 Boomert, Indigenous Peoples of Trinidad and Tobago, pp. 104–106. This Cacique also indicated that the Yaio are “a ‘mightie people’ [who] of late time were Lorde of all the sea coast so farre as Trinidado, which they likewise possessed” (ibid., p. 106).

128

Chapter 6 Santo Tome (1595–1699)

in 1610 to escape the torture of “slave raids” by mainland Arawaks and Spaniards from Margarita and Caracas. Subsequently, the Yao and Sapoyo disappeared from Maldonado’s 1638 report on the Orinoco,93 which confirmed Tivitives and Chaguanas in the Orinoco mouth who were very “docile” and “like the Spaniards much”.94 Moreover, the Spanish Major Maldonado in the early 1640s mentioned a “village of the Guayanos” in the Orinoco mouth, situated “on this bank [of the Tivitives]”, whom he likewise determined as “belong]ing] to His [Spanish] Majesty”, since they would have had “rendered succour” during “all the [Lutheran] invasions of Guayana”, had themselves “not united with them” and instead had supported the Spaniards “with provisions on the occasions that have presented themselves”,95 which stands in stark contrast to their involvement in the Santo Tome attack of Wat Raleigh in January 1618. Likewise, Maldonado mentions a “town of the Aruacas” in the Orinoco mouth, situated “on the other side of the river” from the Tivitives and Guayanos, who were described as “a very powerful people”, while “(n)one of these have any knowledge of the law of God.” Again, those Arawak were asserted to be “all enemies of the Caribs and friends of the Spaniards”,96 which also contradicts with the involvement of the Arawak in the attack on the Spanish settlement in Trinidad in October 1637.97 Finally, the Spaniards still in 1638 were exposed to the threats of the “Caribs” in the Orinoco mouth and along the coastal mainland, who are “united with the heretics”, whom they grant “great security”, whereas the Spaniards, who “ascent from the Island of Margarita and Cumaná up the coast to Trinidad or Guayana” had to travel “with an escort of soldiers” and would “even with

93 Ibid. Neil Whitehead assumes that the “major migration” of the Yao (Suppoya and Paragoto) from Trinidad “to eastern Guayana” was the result of “European influence” (Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, p. 18). 94 Maldonado, “Accounts of the Great River Orinoco, Meta, and Casanare”, 1638–1639, p. 121. The Spanish Major also indicated that none of the Indigenous Peoples had been “instructed in the Faith”, because “the Bishop of Puerto Rico is so distant from Trinidad and Guayana” (ibid., pp. 120–121). 95 Ibid., p. 120. In addition, the report suggests to the Governor to send “pirogues with Guayanese and Mapoyes Indians” to “the port of Casanare” (ibid., p. 122). While the precise date of the Maldonado report was not given, the content of the report clearly indicates that it was written after 1642. 96 Maldonado, “Accounts of the Great River Orinoco, Meta, and Casanare”, 1638–1639, p. 120. 97 Neil Whitehead indicates that the Arawak would have been “in a majority” on the Orinoco mouth, “as well as on the sea board as far as the Essequibo River, interspersed with Warao” (Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, p. 12).

Santo Tome de Usupamo (c. 1637)

Figure 5: Sketch-map of Guiana by Theodor De Bry (1599), including the indication of the indigenous town Maburesa at the Essequibo mouth.

129

130

Chapter 6 Santo Tome (1595–1699)

this protection [. . .] generally perish”,98 as there are along the way “some ports in which the Caribs hide themselves, for the purpose of making their raids on the Indians or Spaniards whom they endeavour to murder, and then roast the quarters and store it for provision”.99 Repeating his cannibalism claims, the Spanish Major Maldonado also narrates that the “Caribs”, who are “met with at every creek”,100 had “from the mouth of the Orinoco to the windward [. . .] united with the heretics” and would “every year [. . .] during the summer” with a significant “number of pirogues [. . .] murder and rob along the entire coast”, such as in the case of Father Sedeño, who “was carried away with all the others” on his way from Cumanagoto to Cumaná before Paria, as well as other perishing sailors and passengers. At the same time, Maldonado reported that the Caribs between Cabruta and Caracas were still not “domesticated” (1638) and that the Caribs “settling the plains of San Sebastian” had threatened the Spaniards, causing “some” to leave for the province of the Cumanagoto,101 where the “iron hand of Juan de Orpin” had caused “heavy causalities” between 1635 and 1639. In addition, in the 1630s the Spaniards had also conducted several “armed entradas” against the “cannibals” of the Guanipa and Guarapiche, which had killed “over 200 and taking many more as slaves”, who were “shipped to Margarita and Trinidad”. In response, a “solid Carib resistance” was formed in the Guarapiche to block the Spaniards from further encroachments,102 which was supported by the French since the 1650s.

98 Maldonado, “Accounts of the Great River Orinoco, Meta, and Casanare”, 1638–1639, p. 124. According to Maldonado, the Caribs would also barter with the Dutch in “spices” (ibid., p. 124) and “Indian women”, whom “they steal from the villages” (ibid., p. 120). 99 Ibid. According to Maldonado, those hiding places of the Caribs between Cumaná/Margarita and Guayana/Trinidad would have been situated in the vicinity of a settlement “of brave Indians”, who are “Christians” and whose “Encomendero (sic!) is a resident of Margarita”, who would have an abundance of provisions (cassava-bread, plantains, maize, fruits, fish, and fowl), and which “they give all to the passengers who put in there, or exchange it with merchants for knives and hatchets and other articles with good-will” and “the dwellings inhabited by people of Margarita” (ibid.). The Spanish settlement may have been established on the site of the “coastal outpost called Nueva Ecija de los Cumanagotos”, which was determined by Michael Perri as having been established by “some poor Spaniards” about “32 kilometres west of Cumaná”, who “made a living smuggling tobacco to European interlopers, primarily the Dutch” (Perri, “‘Ruined and Lost’”, pp. 147; 149). 100 Maldonado, “Accounts of the Great River Orinoco, Meta, and Casanare”, 1638–1639, p. 121. 101 Ibid. 102 Ibid. About the same time, Carib settlements were indicated by a Dominican friar in 1648 for “Essequibo, Amacuro, Aguire, Cuyuni and Barima”, the mouth of the Orinoco and “across the Llanos to the south” and Guarapiche, where they border the Cumanagoto and Palenque on the Guere and Unare Rivers (Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, pp. 12–16).

Carib and French Intervention (1651–1699)

131

Prior, the Spanish Major Diego Ruiz Maldonado had in the early 1640s103 suggested to “effectual” proceed against the coastal Caribs, to wage war against them and “apprehend [them] for slaves” because “they are such cruel butchers of human flesh, and have destroyed many villages of the natives of the coast committed to the charge of residents of the four governments [Caracas, Cumaná, Cumanagoto, and Margarita]”, which would promote “their removal from [the] alliance with the Lutherans” and also remove the present “hindrance” to the spread of Christianity, since “neither the Bishop dare undertake the journey, nor will the priests go up”. Consequently, their enslavement would produce the result that “the natives will become more tractable and embrace the Faith, and the Caribs will soon cease from killing the miserable Indians in cold blood, and eating human flesh”, wherefore “it will be a great service to God and reduce many settlements and lead the more to Heaven”, as the Caribs would “by degrees become reduced to the Law of God”.104 However, it was Martin de Mendoza de la Hoz Berrio y Quesada, last heir of the Quesada and Berrio family and sole survivor of the capture by the Moors,105 who had resumed his office as “governor of Trinidad, Guayana and El Dorado” in August 1642106 and by 1652 had just managed to “rebuild the two towns of San Josef in Trinidad and Santo Tome in Guayana”107 and fortify “a position at Moitaco”.108

Carib and French Intervention (1651–1699) Thus, Governor Martin Mendoza followed instead the royal order of Philip IV of 1652, which had reaffirmed the cessation of “armed conquest” and replacement

103 The account of Maldonado does not bear any precise date, but since the text contains the passage “at the present time, during Don Martin de Mendosa’s government” (Maldonado, “Accounts of the Great River Orinoco, Meta, and Casanare”, 1638–1639, pp. 117–129, at 125), it is apparent that the report was written after 1642. 104 Ibid., pp. 121; 124–125. 105 Mendoza had commenced to raise “claims of succession” since August 1626, after his father Francisco and uncle Fernando both died in captivity of the Moors. 106 Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, p. 91. 107 NATT, N. N., “Governors of Guayana Escobar and Hoz Berrio y Quesada, including Ciacomare Indigenous Peoples”, 1652, publication No. 121. Notably, this took place after the conclusion of the Treaty of Münster between the United Provinces and Spain on 30 January 1648. By contrast, Neil Whitehead states that Mendoza already in 1642 would have had “completely refurbished the fort of Usupamo” (Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, p. 91). 108 This place was established opposite to the large Carib settlement at the Pao mouth, assertively without Carib resistance (ibid., p. 99).

132

Chapter 6 Santo Tome (1595–1699)

with pacification.109 He ordered the Carib Cacique Macuara of the Orinoco to be baptized by the two French Jesuits110 Denis Mesland and Pierre Pelleprat, who were established on the Guarapiche since 1651 in alliance with “Caribs” from Grenada and Saint Lucia,111 who were well connected to the Caribs of Tierra Firme. Nonetheless, pacification through baptism was not prevailing long, since Santo Tome was again attacked by the Dutch in 1658,112 while a detachment of 80 soldiers sent by the Audiencia of Santa Fé “for defence” came too late, as Governor Mendoza was already dead.113 Martin Mendoza was succeeded in August 1658 by Governor Pedro Viedma,114 who changed the focus back to enslavement, war, and “punishment”, nota bene in breach to the royal orders of 1652 and orders of the previous century. Accordingly, Viedma conducted a “punishment” expedition in Trinidad in April 1661, since the Indigenous Peoples “were in rebellion, and did not wish to serve the Spaniards”, wherefore he aimed to “compelling them for their subjection and instruction to settle on the outskirts of the town [San Joseph]”, but had to admit “that my orders had not been complied with”. At the same time, the Caribs of Caura in alliance with the Guaiqueries (Guayqueries) and Mapoies (Nepoio) raised “a general rebellion” and had “killed all the people that were among them, more than thirty persons”,115 whereas an English account of the 1660s confirms Carib settlements between “Wina [Waini] to the upmost part of Awarabish, on the west syde of Oranoque, Poraema, and Amacora”, along with “Warooes” (Warouws) in the Orinoco islands, “neare the mouth of that river [Orinoco] and also in Maroca

109 Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, p. 206. See M. Watters, “The Colonial Missions in Venezuela”, The Catholic Historical Review 23 (July 1937) 2, pp. 129–52, at 132. 110 Council of War, “Consulta to King of Spain”, Madrid, 10 May 1662, in: BRC, serial No. 72, pp. 156–162, at 158. 111 Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirits, p. 97. The “Caribs” of Saint Lucia had retired to the mainland, since the French were “usurping their lands”, whereupon some 140 had left the island “in three pirogues” to join the “Caribs” of the Guarapiche in order to plan their vengeance (ibid.). 112 Ibid., p. 99. Therefore, Mendoza had failed in fulfilling his order to “dislodge the enemy from [. . .] these parts” (NATT, King Philip IV, “Royal Cedula”, 31 July 1640). 113 NATT, Council of War, “Report to Spanish king”, Madrid, 10 May 1662. While a historical source indicates the year of his death as 1657 (NATT, N. N., “Account on Governors of Guayana Pedro de Viedma and Martin Mendoza de Berrio”), it appears more plausible that Mendoza died during the attack of 1658 (Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, p. 91). 114 Council of War, “Consulta to King of Spain”, Madrid, 10 May 1662, p. 158. 115 Pedro de Viedma, “Letter to King of Spain”, Guayana, 20 March 1662, in: BRC, serial No. 71, pp. 152–156, at 154–155.

Carib and French Intervention (1651–1699)

133

[Moruca] and Wina [Waini]”,116 while the “great powerful nacions” of the “Occowyes [Akowaio],117 Shawhouns [Wapishana] and Semicorals”118 are settled “200 [English] leagues south-east from St. Thome”, in “the uplands of Guiana, either under the [Equator] line or in south latitude” and “in a most fertile countrey and cover a vast tract of land, beginning at ye mountaines of the Sun on the west and north, and extending themselves to Rio Negroe”.119 Hence, Viedma emphasized in a letter to the King of Spain that he would “not grant them [Spanish colonists] the licenses they desire, and today more so by the rising of these Indians”, but “if some remedy does not come to them within a year”, Santo Tome would have to be abandoned.120 Nevertheless, the Spanish governor had led “armed entradas against the Caura Caribs” – many of them “were transported to Trinidad as slaves” – and also provided some Aragonese Capuchins with “an armed escort”. In result, the first mission was established in 1662 (Pilar), filled with the people of Cacique Macuare and 600 captured Caribs from Caura. Beforehand, the French had entered the scene in October 1656 when they built fort Ovantique at Guarapiche,121 which served as the starting point for several joint attacks with the Caribs between 1664 and 1684, destroying the missions Juan Bautista (1664, Cacique Ocapra, Coacas),122 San Francisco (August 1669, Caribs),123 and the Spanish Fort San Carlos. Shortly expelled, the French returned in 1673 and undertook several raids on attempted missions124and Spanish settlements, before “the rebellion collapsed”. Hence, the French temporarily withdrew and joined the “independent 116 J. Scott, “Description of Guayana”, after 30 April 1668, in: BRC, serial No. 77, pp. 167–171, at 169. Those Warouws [Warooes] were described as “the only shipwrights of those partes, for all the great periagoos [pirogues] are made by them” (ibid.). 117 The various names of the Acowaio are indicated by anthropologist Audrey Colson as: “Waccawaes”, “Wacawaios”, “Waccewayes”, “Awacoways”, “Occowyes”, “Akuwayas”, “Acoway”, Acquewyen/ Akawai (Colson, Land: The Historical Record, pp. 21–26). 118 Crucially, Colson had identified that the term “Semicorals” presents “a corruption of ‘Kanukus’ (Kanucus etc.) referring to the people of the mountains of this name, which divide the North Rupununi Savanna (of the Makushi Pemong) from the South Rupununi Savanna (of the Wapishana)”. Therefore, the anthropologist concludes that the “Semocorals are the Serekong, the upper Mazaruni basin Akawaio” (ibid.). 119 Scott, “Description of Guayana”, after 30 April 1668, p. 169. 120 De Viedma, “Letter to King of Spain”, Guayana, 20 March 1662, pp. 155–156. 121 Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, p. 97–99. 122 Ibid., p. 99. Beforehand, the Cacique Ocapra had left the mission due to tensions with the Coacas. 123 Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, pp. 99–100. 124 Council of the Indies, “Minutes”, Madrid, 26 April 1686, p. 193.

134

Chapter 6 Santo Tome (1595–1699)

Carib settlements of the Orinoco”125 due to events in Trinidad and on the Orinoco in August 1684,126 after they had in union with 300 Caribs in 1679 proceeded against the Jesuit missions, established at the junction between the Orinoco and Casanare and the Meta and Atures. The Jesuits then abandoned their missionary work on the Orinoco and in Trinidad because three missionaries had been killed and another missionary attempt had also failed in 1693,127 after the Bishop of Bogotá denounced “all” Jesuit military approaches and ordered the missionaries to pull back. Thereupon, the Jesuits only returned to the Orinoco “fourty years” later.128 Meanwhile, the peak of joint Carib and French attacks in the Orinoco was yet to come, since both Santo Tome and San Joseph were blockaded and taken into possession by the French and Caribs of Coppenam in July 1682,129 before Santo Tome was attacked in September 1683, after the Spanish settlement had been previously been attacked by the English in June 1662.130 Hence, the Spanish garrison of Santo Tome had fled in September 1683, leaving the Commandant “as a prisoner in the Chapel”,131 whereas Governor Zuñiga was captured in July 1684 and taken “to the Carib village in the Aguire”,132 after they had

125 At the same time, the Chiama “retreated to the lower Guarapiche”, which was characterized by its “mass of small creeks and channels” (Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, pp. 100–102), and re-emerged about 1745 in Moruca (chapter 12) and Trinidad until the 1760s (chapter 5), after having been chased and forcefully removed by the Catalonian Capuchins of Lower Orinoco (chapter 7). 126 Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, pp. 100–102. 127 Jesuit Father Joseph Gumilla (Superior of missions of Casanare, Meta, and Orinoco), “Report on the means of Preventing the Hostilities suffered by the Colonies of the great River Orinoco from the Caribs and the Dutch, and means of attaining this End”, signed by Secretary of State in Madrid, 9 December 1745, in: BRC, serial No. 391, Book 2, Annex 3, pp. 83–88, at 84. 128 Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, p. 102. 129 Commander Essequibo Abraham Beekman, “Letter to the West India Company (WIC)”, 18 July 1682, p. 155; commander Essequibo, “Letter to the West India Company”, Essequibo, 18 August 1684, p. 187. 130 Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, p. 99. Beforehand, the Spanish Governor Viedma in March 1662 had lamented that the settlement was still harassed by Dutch and English (De Viedma, “Letter to King of Spain”, Guayana, 20 March 1662, pp. 152–154). Governor Viedma was replaced by Don Tiburcio Axpe y Zuñiga about the year 1665 (German Captain Clemente Gunter, “Declaration on Trade and Entering the Orinoco”, 7 March 1666, in: BRC, serial No. 74, Annex 3, pp. 164–166, at 165). 131 NATT, Francisco de Vinera Galindo y Torralves, “Letter to Spanish king”, 12 September 1683, publication No. 580. 132 NATT, Alcaldes of Trinidad, “Letter to the Governor of Margarita”, 15 July 1684.

Carib and French Intervention (1651–1699)

135

made themselves “masters of the fort in Oronoque” in May 1684,133 which was resumed by the Spaniards in May 1685.134 Thereupon, the Caribs of the Orinoco raised in a “great rebellion”, proceeded to the Guarapiche and Golfo Triste and successfully raided the Spanish Fort San Carlos, which was responded by the Spaniards with a failed attempt of Sancho Fernández de Angulo y Sandoval in May 1686 to raise “a war against the Caribs”.135 Instead, the Caribs in 1688 also threatened Cumaná with 200 Caribs,136 before the French and 300 Caribs of Coppenam on 30 April 1689 attacked the recently established Dutch post in Pomeroon.137 Established in the Barima (October 1689),138 Guarapiche and Guanipa (July 1696), they also occasionally attacked the first Capuchin missions in Trinidad (until 1699), while Santo Tome hit rock bottom and the Spaniards seriously struggled to maintain their presence on the Orinoco. In sum, this chapter has traced the Spanish colonial appropriation practices on the Orinoco from 1595 until 1699 to conclude that Spanish occupation was limited to Santo Tome, which evolved from the residency of Spaniard Antonio de Berrio among the people of Morequito, before it was transferred to the Usupamo (1637) and several times destroyed by attacks of English, Caribs, French, and Guayanos in 1618, 1629, 1631, 1637, 1658, and 1682–1685. In addition, several attempts to “conquer” the Guayanos (1599), Caribs of Barima (1618/19), and the Province of Aruacas (1619) by Fernando de Berrio failed, while unlawful capture, enslavement and trade with Indigenous Peoples continued. Consequently, the Spaniards had just lawfully acquired land as property for the area of Santo Tome. Hence, the next chapter examines the lawfulness of Capuchin and Spanish colonial practices from 1682 to 1817.

133 Commander Essequibo, “Letter to the West India Company”, 1 May 1685, p. 188; Beekman, “Report to WIC”, 1 May 1685, p. 173. 134 Commander Essequibo, “Letter to the West India Company”, 1 May 1685, p. 188; commander Essequibo, “Letter to WIC”, 1 May 1685, in: BB3, serial No. 14, p. 60. For a slightly different translation, see Beekman, “Report to WIC”, 1 May 1685, p. 173. 135 Sancho Fernández de Angulo y Sandoval, “Letter to Don Antonio Ortiz de Otalora”, Madrid, 2 May 1686, in: BRC, serial No.107, Annex 2, pp. 196–199, at 198. 136 Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, p. 102. 137 Commander Pomeroon Jacob de Jonge, “Letter to WIC”, 6 July 1689, p. 66. 138 Beekman, “Letter to WIC”, 12 October 1689, p. 190.

Chapter 7 Violent Capuchin Removal and Spatial Extensions (1682–1817) After several unsuccessful Spanish attempts to conquer and pacify Indigenous Peoples, and just one established settlement in Lower Orinoco (Santo Tome) throughout the seventeenth century, the Spaniards on the Orinoco were on the rocks. Therefore, this chapter is tracing the subsequent colonial appropriation practices of the Spaniards and emerging Capuchins until Venezuela’s Independence in 1817. In particular, the chapter is focused on the legally debatable Capuchin practice of violent removal, applied after the first permanent Capuchin mission was established on the banks of the Orinoco in 1724. Thereupon, the spatial extensions of Capuchin mission in the Caroni area are subsequently traced until the abandonment of the Caroni missions about 1817 in relation to the peaks of Carib attacks in the early 1730s and throughout the 1750s, before the spatial extensions of Spanish settlements since the 1760s were investigated in the context of the Secret Boundary Expedition and the question is prompted, if the violent removal practice of the Capuchin’s presents a form of “pacification” and equates with the practice of a lawful conquest.

From Deportation Plans to Violent Removal (1682–c. 1788) Since the French and Carib alliance had kept the Spaniards in check throughout the 1680s and 1690s, the former captive Don Tiburcio Axpe y Zuñiga and the founder of destroyed San Carlos, Sancho Fernández de Angulo y Sandoval, had a score to settle with the Caribs. Therefore, the tabled plan of the Aragonese Capuchins came just right, since the Capuchins of Cumaná, in response to the royal abolition of “every sort of bondage-contract for Indians” in Trinidad and Guayana on 29 May 1682,1 had advocated to connect the abolition with the condition that “at the same time a remedy should be provided against the Carib Indians on account of the mischief they do to those provinces, and that they should be taken from there, and transported to other parts”. Proponents for the Capuchin deportation plan were thus quickly found, who advanced reasons and ideas for implementing the plan, after the royal reaffirmation to replace “conquest” with “pacification” in 1652. 1 Council of the Indies, “Minutes”, Madrid, 26 April 1686, p. 193. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110690149-007

From Deportation Plans to Violent Removal (1682–c. 1788)

137

Accordingly, former Cumaná governor Sancho Fernández de Angulo y Sandoval suggested to transport male and female Caribs “above the age of 14”2 as “prisoners” to Puerto Rico, Santo Domingo, New Spain, or Havana to place them there “in the neighbourhood of Spanish settlements” in order that “by change of climate, and by being held in subjection on all sides, they may [. . .] be better educated in the Catholic faith and doctrine”, which would be “necessary by the character of the Indians”.3 In result, the deportation would eliminate the Caribs from the mainland, where they were “very numerous” and occupy “various places”, such as the “Amana, Pao, Caura, and all the coast from the River Orinoco to the Marañon”4 and also “in the Island of St. Vincent”,5 which is why it appeared “impossible to conquer them all owing to their great number and the various territories6 they occupy in a space extending over 300 leagues in length”.7 Similar, in April 1686 governor Axpe y Zuñiga favoured the “measure for removing the Carib Indians from their present place”, by indicating that the Indians in those regions withdraw and defend themselves in order that they may not be compelled to settle [in missions]; and they regard the proposal to convert them as a snare, for they say that it is only for the purpose of making them work; and so His Majesty is continually defrauded, without any advantage, in his primary rights to extension of territories and feudal dues.8

2 De Axpe y Zuniga, “Report to Council Secretary Otalora”, Madrid, 26 April 1686, p. 196. 3 De Angulo y Sandoval, “Letter to Don Antonio Ortiz de Otalora”, Madrid, 2 May 1686, pp. 194–198. 4 De Axpe y Zuniga, “Report to Council Secretary Otalora”, Madrid, 26 April 1686, pp. 194–196. 5 De Angulo y Sandoval, “Letter to Don Antonio Ortiz de Otalora”, Madrid, 2 May 1686, p. 198. In this context, the Caribs of St. Vincent are described as being “[. . .] proud, valiant, warlike, and the arbiters of peace and war, and trample on the other nations”, while the accounts again mentions that they would “eat human flesh generally, and every year at a fixed time they gather together and go to the districts of the River Orinoco to make war on other nations, and they eat the Indians whom they kill” (ibid.). 6 The Spanish original reads “territorios” (ibid.). 7 De Axpe y Zuniga, “Report to Council Secretary Otalora”, Madrid, 26 April 1686, pp. 194–196. At that time, the Caribs of the Guarapiche and Golfo Triste were, by contrast, then perceived as being “few in number” and, therefore, “easily attacked”, while “the others who, upon the attack against their nation, might retire to other places should be left alone” (ibid.). 8 Ibid., p. 195. The latter was proposed under the condition that the converted Indigenous Peoples should “remain subject to the missionaries for the space of ten years, and should afterwards be under the Royal Crown, and that, in recognition of vassalage, a small tax be placed upon them, not exceeding 12 reals yearly” (ibid.). However, the taxation was still not introduced one century later, which the Capuchins quoted their argument that both the Capuchins and Indigenous Peoples remained independent from the Spanish Crown.

138

Chapter 7 Violent Capuchin Removal and Spatial Extensions (1682–1817)

Thus, the governor continued that instead the “conveyance” of the Caribs “to another part [. . .] would change their habits, as we have experienced with those who were brought from Brazil [in 1666]” to Trinidad, Cumaná, and Margarita would be now “peaceful”,9 which contradicts the “outbreak of war” in Trinidad in December 1666.10 Afterwards, the deportation practice was with certainty applied by the Capuchins as a threat, since the Dutch planter Christian Finet in December 1748 had transmitted to the Dutch commander in Essequibo that the Spaniards would “continually” take the Indigenous Peoples of Cuyuni and Mazaruni “by surprise in their dwellings and carrying them off; with their wives and children, to send them to Florida”.11 While Alexander von Humboldt later concluded that “[t]he voice of the Gospel is heard only where the Indians have heard also the sound of firearms”,12 the Dutch planter in 1748 continued to indicate that the Chief of the Spaniards [. . .] had placed before his eyes the unfairness of this treatment, as well as the consequences of it, but that the latter had replied that the whole of America belonged to the [k]ing of Spain, and that he should do what suited himself, without troubling about us.13

However, the implementation of the deportation practice is not recorded.14 Instead, plenty of evidence is available for a modified version, namely the violent removal of Indigenous Peoples from their settlements by escorted missionaries to forcefully bring them into missions (entradas),15 which had as early as 1721 replaced the royal Spanish “punishment” expeditions. Accordingly, Franciscan friar José Jurado in 1721 carried out “entradas” on the Pao and Guere to form the missions San Buenaventura de Panapotar in 1723 and San Joacquin de Pariri in 1724,16 after Governor Don José Carreño had until 1720 carried out an expedition for “punishing the offenders”, namely the two Caciques Maturin and Tuapocan 9 Ibid., pp. 194–196. 10 NATT, N. N., “Account on Killed Franciscans in Trinidad in 1699”, publication No. 310. The report refers to an event and place of 10 December 1666. 11 Commander Essequibo, “Letter to WIC”, 2 December 1748, in: BB3, serial No. 85, p. 90. Similar practices had been reported for the Portuguese in December 1746 (commander Essequibo, “Letter to WIC”, 7 December 1746, in: BB3, serial No. 78, pp. 87–88). 12 Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, p. 147. 13 Commander Essequibo, “Letter to WIC”, 20 July 1746, in: BB3, serial No. 77, p. 86; the same letter also in: BRC, serial No. 232, p. 45. 14 For the deportation practice in the opposite direction during the sixteenth century, see chapter 4. 15 D. Robinson, “The Syndicate System of the Catalan Capuchins in Colonial Southeast Venezuela”, Revista de Historia de América 79 (January–June 1975), pp. 63–76, at 68. 16 Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, pp. 109–110.

From Deportation Plans to Violent Removal (1682–c. 1788)

139

from the Guarapiche, English and French,17 who in 1719 had burnt the Spanish settlements San Félix and raided Aragua in the province of Cumaná, after the Franciscans had undertaken a missionary attempt in Aragua in 1718. In result, the Spanish fort of Maturin was established in 1722, whereupon “many Caribs” were forced to “abandon the Guarapiche” and proceeded to the Tigre and Orinoco. At the same time, the Cacique Maturin was killed in a Spanish attack and Tuapocan was captured and “taken to Cumaná to be baptised”, while the Franciscan mission Panapotar was abandoned in 1728 and Pariri destroyed by Cacique Yacabai, who was seized on the Tigre, but managed to escape in 1736 and on his return had in August 1737 “burnt it to the ground”. In response to “the threat from the Caribs” in the Orinoco,18 Spanish governor Carlos de Sucre had, shortly after the attacks of Barima Carib Taricura, divided the “vast country” among the three congregations of the Catalonian Capuchins,19 the Franciscan Observant Fathers of Piritu, and the Jesuits of Santa Fé in July 1734,20 after Guayana had been formally annexed to Cumaná in 1731. Thus, Sucre designated to the Catalonian Capuchins, who were “situated until then around the city of Guayana”, an area of “eighty-three leagues”, running from “the mouth of the Orinoco and Angostura and thence drawing a line up to the Marañon or Amazon rivers”. Moreover, the subsequent area of “one hundred leagues from the Angostura to the mouth of the Cuchivero river, with their corresponding land between them and the Amazon river, was formally declared as belonging to the Franciscan Observant Fathers” and “the rest, to the sources of the Orinoco (then unknown)”21 to the Jesuits (see Figure 6).22 At the same time, the spatial

17 Diguja, “Report”, Cumaná, 15 December 1763, p. 6. 18 Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, pp. 109; 113–114. 19 Council of the Indies, “Report”, Madrid, 1776, p. 300. 20 NATT, Spanish king, “Royal Cedula on Jesuit missions in Trinidad”, 25 July 1734, publication No. 379. At that time, this formally divided area was “unknown and unexplored” (commander Guayana, “Letter to Secretary of State”, 11 November 1773, in: VEN, No. 424, pp. 410–413, at 412). Until then, the Spaniards had, consequently, not established legal title of appropriation. 21 Commander Guayana, “Letter to Secretary of State”, 11 November 1773, p. 412. 22 This spatial partitioning was endorsed in 1736 (Prefect of Capuchin missions of the Lower Orinoco Fray Benito de la Garriga, “Report to King of Spain”, Alta Gracia (Guayana), 6 July 1769, in: BRC, serial No. 463, pp. 19–25, at 23), 1743 (Governor Don Carlos Sucre, Jesuit Reverend Father Joseph Gumilla, Capuchin Prefect of missions Reverend Agustin de Olot and Franciscan Reverend Friar Francisco de las Llagas, “Agreement about the Spatial Division of Guayana”, 1743, in: VEN, No. 352, pp. 286–294, at 292) and 1763 (Diguja, “Report”, Cumaná, 15 December 1763, p. 68) and remained as such until “it was discovered [. . .] that the upper Orinoco, Rio Negro, and Casiquiare are in reciprocal communication [wherefore] that territory was found to be too extensive for only one mission”(commander Guayana, “Letter to Secretary of State”, 11 November 1773, p. 412). In consequence, the territory of the Jesuits was reduced to the “one hundred leagues which they

140

Chapter 7 Violent Capuchin Removal and Spatial Extensions (1682–1817)

division was intended to resolve the boundary conflict between the Jesuits and Capuchins, as the whole province given to the Jesuits had “been abandoned [. . .] since the last century to the discretion of the Missionaries”23 and the Capuchins demanded “to prevent any other Missionaries entering to found a Mission or establish a house in that area other than the Capuchins.”24 Prior, the Catalonian Capuchins had established their first permanent mission in Lower Orinoco in 1724, namely La Purisima Concepcion de Nuestra Señora de Suay,25 which was situated between two and three leagues26 west of Santo Tome and 15 leagues east

had assigned as far as the rapids of the Atures and Maipure” (ibid.), the latter dividing the “river into the Upper and Lower Orinoco” (Council of the Indies, “Report”, Madrid, 1776, p. 301) and the Andalusian [sic!] Capuchins charged “to attend to the reduction and conversion of the Indians of the upper Orinoco and Rio Negro” and later with “catechizing the settlements left by the Jesuits of Orinoco, [when] everything was afterwards abandoned” (commander Guayana, “Letter to Secretary of State”, 11 November 1773, p. 412). Until September 1771 (Council of the Indies, “Report”, 16 February 1776 and 26 April 1777, in: BRC, serial No. 549, Annex 5, pp. 148–160, at 152), another change took place in the former Jesuit territory after their “expulsion” (Council of the Indies, “Report”, Madrid, 1776, pp. 299–305), when the Jesuits had “evacuated” their missions (Council of the Indies, “Report”, 16 February 1776 and 26 April 1777, pp. 148–160) in Upper Orinoco and Rio Negro (commander Guayana, “Letter to Secretary of State”, 11 November 1773, p. 412) and the Andalusian Capuchin’s were likewise charged “with the spiritual care of the villages” of the Jesuits (ibid.). However, the Andalusian Capuchins “abandoned the whole of it immediately [. . .] after the general flight of their brethren, and the [. . .] death of the Prefect” (Andalusian Capuchin Reverend Father Hermenegildo de Vich, “Table of the missions of the Reverend Father Capuchins of Catalonia of the Province of Guayana sent to Father Fray Joseph Cervera”, 31 August 1788, in: BB3, serial No. 37 [Spanish sources], p. 324). Thereupon, the Jesuit missions were handed over to the present Governor Centurion before July 1772 (Council of the Indies, “Report”, Madrid, 1776, p. 299) and a Franciscan Father ordered to “constantly going up and down the Orinoco, Casiquiari, and Rio Negro, to assist as far as possible with spiritual aid in all the villages deserted by the Andalusian Capuchin’s in both territories” (Council of the Indies, “Report”, 16 February 1776 and 26 April 1777, p. 152). 23 Council of the Indies, “Report”, Madrid, 1776, p. 301. 24 NATT, Spanish king, “Royal Cedula on Jesuit missions in Trinidad”, 25 July 1734, publication No. 379. 25 Prior, the Capuchins had made some sporadic, failed attempts in 1638 (Diguja, “Report to King of Spain”, 18 December 1761, p. 344) and 1703, before they returned to the Orinoco in 1724. In contrast, Robinson erroneously equates Suay with the subsequent headquarter of the Catalonian Capuchins San Antonio on the Caroni (Robinson, “The Syndicate System of the Catalan Capuchins in Colonial Southeast Venezuela,” pp. 67–68), which had replaced Suay as headquarter in another location, after the mission was burnt in 1766. 26 The indicated distance between Suay and Santo Tome varies between two (Diguja, “Report to King of Spain”, 18 December 1761, p. 344), “2 ½” (Diguja, “Report”, 15 December 1763, p 356), and three Spanish leagues (Anonymous, “Sketch Map of the Capuchin missions in the Province of Guayana”, about 1735, in: BC, No. 72, p. 173).

From Deportation Plans to Violent Removal (1682–c. 1788)

141

of the Caroni. Initially filled with violently removed Guayanos,27 Suay served as “the base of armed entradas” until 1766,28 when the mission was burnt29 and ousted by the mission of San Antonio de Caroni,30 which served as headquarter until the Catalonian Capuchins had established their last new mission Tumeremo (Cantuario) with violently removed Caribs in 1788.31 Hence, the first recorded violent removal practice of the Catalonian Capuchins took place in 1734, when Governor Carlos de Sucre had “directed [. . .] that the missionaries should be provided with [. . .] escorts and supplies as could be obtained, which enables the missionaries to push inland”,32 whereupon violent removals peaked in Cuyuni between 1769 and 1770 and took place on the seacoast between 1752 and 1794, when the captured Carib Chief Paripa from Aripiaba in Upper Pomeroon was released by his son from the Capuchin mission of Tupuquen. Crucially, the Capuchin missionaries acted on the basis of their own authority in their violent removals, as was particularly evident in the context of an incident at the Moruca post in February 1769, when two Capuchin missionaries yet again requested the Dutch postholder for permission to search for Indigenous Peoples assertively “belonging to the Missions of the Capuchin Fathers of Catalonia” and on 28 February 1769 had signed a Certificate, which stated that the Capuchin missionaries would act “by mandate of our Superior [the Prefect]” and mistakenly also “[with] permission of the Honorable Commandant-General of the River Orinoco, Don Manuel Centurion”,33 which had caused a serious problem between King Charles III and the Capuchins. The Capuchin Prefect then admitted in a letter to the Spanish monarch in July 1769 that the Fathers did not act well in mistakenly giving to the Dutchman of the post a paper, in which they stated that they were sent by order of the above-named Commandant, when it was by my order. I am sure that I should not have complied with my obligations and the duty of my office, if I had not sent the said Fathers on that mission, and as to what they have done in bringing the Indians to the Mission, I consider it is quite lawful.34

27 Prefect of Capuchin missions Fray Carlos de Barcelona, “Memorandum as to Condition of Capuchin missions in Guayana”, 12 September 1770, in: VEN, No. 417, pp. 398–402, at 398. 28 Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, p. 113. 29 Commander of Guayana Manuel Centurion, “Report about the Conduct of the Capuchin missionaries of Catalonia”, Guayana, 29 July 1771, in: BRC, serial No. 500, pp. 90–84, at 90–91. 30 De Barcelona, “Memorandum”, 12 September 1770, p. 398. 31 Governor Miguel Marmion, “Letter to Knight of Malta Don Antonio Valdes”, Guayana, 7 July 1788, in: BRC, serial No. 625, enclosure, pp. 52–67, at 56–57. 32 Diguja, “Report”, Cumaná, 15 December 1763, p. 22. 33 Friars Felix de Carradar and Joseph Antonio de Cerrera, “Certificate of the Capuchin Fathers”, 28 February 1769, in: BRC, serial No. 456, Sub-enclosure, p. 9. 34 De la Garriga, “Letter to King of Spain”, Alta Gracia (Guayana), 6 July 1769, pp. 19–20.

Chapter 7 Violent Capuchin Removal and Spatial Extensions (1682–1817)

Figure 6: The Spatial Division of Missions by Jesuit Gumilla in 1741.

142

Capuchin Missions and “Carib” Responses (1724–1813)

143

The dispute with the Spanish governor in Orinoco ongoing in the period 1761–1817, the Catalonian Capuchins had also not received any financial support from the Spanish Crown, although “[t]he Capuchins should have been paid by the Crown a Royal Treasury ‘assignment’, a sum of money usually paid annually for the benefit of missionaries actively engaged in colonizing or serving secular communities, but [. . .] this was practically never paid to the Caroní missions”.35 Although the “military escorts” of the Catalonian missionaries were provided by the Spanish Crown in 176336 and 1776/77,37 the violent removal practice was clearly differentiated from the practice of “conquest”, as missionary escorts were responsible for “the conversion and pacification” and the troops “sent by their commandant directly, and under their own officers, to the frontiers or to conquests”.38 Instead, the Catalonian Capuchins from 1724 to 1788 established missions eastwards of the Caroni with violently removed Indigenous Peoples, whose spatial extent was reduced by the responding attacks of the Caribs.

Capuchin Missions and “Carib” Responses (1724–1813) Headquartered in Suay since 1724, the Catalonian Capuchins during the 1730s extended their missions mainly southwards by establishing San José de Cupapuy (Guayanos/Pariagotos,39 1733),40 San Francisco de Alta Gracia (Guayanos, Pariagotos,41 1734) and the Divina Pastora cattle farm (1737).42 Established twenty

35 Robinson, “The Syndicate System of the Catalan Capuchins in Colonial Southeast Venezuela”, p. 69. 36 Governor Don Miguel Marmion, “Report to Don Antonio Valdez”, Guayana, 10 July 1788, in: BRC, serial No. 625, enclosure, pp. 50–66. 37 Council of the Indies, “Report”, Madrid, 1776, p. 302. 38 Ibid., p. 302. 39 Prefect of Capuchin missions Fray Carlos de Barcelona, “Memorandum as to Condition of Capuchin missions in Guayana”, 12 September 1770, in: VEN, No. 417, pp. 398–402; Capuchin Fray Carlos de Barcelona, “Map of Capuchin missions of Guayana” (map legend), 1771, in: BC, No. 73, p. 175). 40 Alternative names are San Joseph de Capapui or simply Capapui. 41 De Barcelona, “Memorandum”, 12 September 1770, p. 402; De Barcelona, “Capuchin missions of Guayana” (map legend), 1771, p. 175). 42 Capuchin Father Buenaventura de Sebadel, “Table of the Capuchin missions in the Lower Orinoco”, 1799, in: BRC, serial No. 670, p. 171. Instead, the account of 1813 is confusing the foundational years of the missions Divina Pastora and Palmar (N. N., “Table of Capuchin missions of Guayana in the Lower Orinoco”, after 1813, in: BB3, serial No. 46 (Spanish sources), p. 356).

144

Chapter 7 Violent Capuchin Removal and Spatial Extensions (1682–1817)

Spanish leagues south of Suay43 and 4,5 leagues south of Alta Gracia, the mission Cupapuy was filled with violently removed Guayanos (same as Alta Gracia)44 and represented the furthest mission in this direction until the 1740s (see Figure 7), while both Alta Gracia and Cupapuy were in general the most continuous Capuchin missions, as they remained uninterruptedly in existence until 1813.45 In contrast, the four additional missions established during the 1730s in the vicinity of Suay were all short-lived, since Tupurma (Tiparua) and Casacayma (Payarayma) were both destroyed during the English invasion of 1740 and the Asayma rebellion of 1742,46 while San Antonio de Caroni, situated seven Spanish leagues westwards of Suay and eight leagues distant from the Caroni river,47 and San Miguel

43 De Barcelona, “Capuchin missions of Guayana” (map legend), 1771, p. 175. 44 Reverend Father Hermenegildo de Vich, “Table of missions of the Reverend Father Capuchins of Catalonia of the Province of Guayana sent to Father Fray Joseph Cervera”, 31 August 1788, in: BB3, serial No. 37 (Spanish sources), p. 324. 45 By contrast, “Divina Pastora” disappeared from the accounts since December 1761 and was functionally most likely replaced by the newly emerging Guarimna cattle farm (Diguja, “Report to King of Spain”, 18 December 1761, No. 392, pp. 345–346; Francisco Antonio Moreno Escandon “Notes relating a map of the Viceroyalty of Santa Fé by Juan Aparicio to King of Spain”, 1762, in: VEN, No. 393, pp. 347–348), which was again superseded by the new mission Divina Pastora in 1770, as this mission emerged, when Guarimna disappeared (De Barcelona, “Memorandum”, 12 September 1770, p. 402). Strictly speaking, this new “Divina Pastora” of 1770 presents a new establishment, since it was “filled” with Guayanos, instead of the Caribs of the former Divina Pastora (ibid.; De Barcelona, “Capuchin missions of Guayana”, 1771, p. 175). In addition, the new Divina Pastora received the affix “de Yacuario” (De Barcelona, “Memorandum”, 12 September 1770, p. 402) and was also situated in another place (De Barcelona, “Capuchin missions of Guayana”, 1771, p. 175; Prefect of Capuchin missions Fray Mariano de Sebadel, “Account of the Distances between the Villages of this mission”, 15 January 1776–9 March 1776, in: BB3, serial No. 31 [Spanish sources], pp. 305–306; Capuchin Prefect Mariano de Sebadel, “Account of the Distance between the Villages of Capuchin missions”, Guayana, 15 January 1776–9 March 1776, in: BRC, serial No. 540, pp. 138–139). 46 Prefect of missions Fidel de Santo, “Account of Capuchin missions in Guayana”, 26 February 1761, in: VEN, No. 390, pp. 338–339, at 339. Both missions disappeared from the accounts of 1761 (Diguja, “Report to King of Spain”, 18 December 1761, p. 345) and 1762 (Escandon “Notes relating a map of the Viceroyalty of Santa Fé”, 1762, pp. 347–348). They also disappeared from all later reports of 1770, 1788, 1799, and 1813 (De Barcelona, “Memorandum”, 12 September 1770, p. 402; De Vich, “Table of the missions”, 31 August 1788, p. 324; De Sebadel, “Table of the Capuchin missions”, 1799, p. 171; N. N., “Table of Capuchin missions of Guayana in the Lower Orinoco”, after 1813, p. 356). 47 De Barcelona, “Capuchin missions of Guayana” (map legend), 1771, p. 175. The distances were indicated as “7 leagues” from Suay to San Antonio mission, “15 leagues” between Suay and the Caroni river, and the distance between the Caroni and Santo Tome (ibid.).

Capuchin Missions and “Carib” Responses (1724–1813)

145

de Unata48 were both destroyed by the Caribs in September 173549 in the context of the great Carib “rebellion” of Barima Carib Cacique Taricura.

Figure 7: The First Capuchin Missions of Guayana (c. 1733).

His age unknown, Taricura was the son of “war-chief” Yaguaria,50 who “came up from the sea in years gone by, with more than sixty pirogues”51 and had kept the whole Orinoco in suspense between 1733 and 1742, commencing with an impressive fleet of 19 pirogues and 20 canoes “full of warriors” from Barima, the Araguacas (Arawak), Cachipo (Gure) Caribs, Anapiri (Pao, Captain Marawana), Curumutopo (Cuyuni River), the Most Illustrious Bishop Labrid [sic!] called Cabayn, Araruana (brother-in-law of Taricura), Tauca (Caroni River), Puruey (Caura 48 San Miguel is probably mission Z, indicated in the Barcelona map of about 1779 (Capuchin Fray Carlos de Barcelona, “Capuchin missions of Guayana”, c. 1779, in: BC, No. 74, p. 177). 49 De Santo, “Account of Capuchin missions in Guayana”, 26 February 1761, p. 339. San Antonio re-emerged only in December 1761, filled with the captives of Suay, who had been transferred in result of the authority dispute between the Capuchins and Spanish governor of Santo Tome, while San Miguel de Unata was re-established in 1779. Although San Miguel de Unata emerged in the transfer order of the Governor of Guayana, based on Royal Order of 5 June 1762, along with the missions of Tipurma, Payarayma, and Piacoa, the map of the Prefect of Capuchin missions of January 1771 confirms only the transfer of Tipurma, Casarayma (probably Payarayma), and Piacoa in 1768 (De Barcelona, “Capuchin missions of Guayana”, 1771, p. 175), it was neither listed in the Memorandum of Capuchin missions of December 1761 (Diguja, “Report to King of Spain”, 18 December 1761, p. 345), the maps of 1762 (Escandon “Notes relating a map of the Viceroyalty of Santa Fé”, 1762, pp. 347–348), and 1771 (De Barcelona, “Capuchin missions of Guayana”, 1771, in: BC, No. 73, p. 175) or the Memorandum of Capuchin missions of 1770 (De Barcelona, “Memorandum”, 12 September 1770, pp. 398–402). Instead, San Miguel de Unata emerged only in 1799 (De Sebadel, “Table of the Capuchin missions”, 1799, p. 171) and 1813 (N. N., “Table of Capuchin missions of Guayana in the Lower Orinoco”, after 1813, p. 356) with the establishment date of 1779. 50 Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, p. 66, 115. 51 Neil Whitehead assumes that this took place during the “1680s” (ibid., p. 119).

146

Chapter 7 Violent Capuchin Removal and Spatial Extensions (1682–1817)

River), Marichal (Tigre River, Captains Acabari of Marayuari) and another Carib Cacique from Barima (Araguacare), who were also joined by twenty canoes from his village in Barima, carrying “over 200 warriors”.52 The fleet then proceeded upstream the Orinoco and had mainly destroyed Jesuit missions, among them Santa Barbara de Curucay on the Aragua, which was used for “(m)ultiple entradas along the Orinoco”,53 and Santa Maria de Los Angeles,54 where the Saliva Cacique Chabiruma and “many of his men” were killed,55 but also attacked San Joseph de Otomacos, plundered Mapoyo, Otamac, and Salivas, where they were assertively “assisted by some Dutch”.56 Moreover, they in 1734 successfully convinced the Saliva-Carib Cacique Aritana and the Saliva Caciques Caro and Tabari in Santa Teresa to “desert the Mission”,57 who was examined by the Dutch in 1755 in Barima. Nonetheless, the Spanish governor’s undertakings to “punish” Taricura by fitting out an armed expedition carried out by Lieutenant Augustin de Arredonda, 112 Spaniards and Nepojo of the Capuchin missions in Trinidad on 28 July 1733 failed,58 since the expedition returned “without having obtained the body they had expected”,59 whereas an attempt in 1734 to “wean the Orinoco Caribs from the influence of Taricura” by offering “3,800 knives, 4,000 axes, and 4,200 flasks of rum” also remained unsuccessful.60 Instead, Taricura again attacked missions in 1735 by burning San Miguel, taking San Antonio de Caroni, and storming the recent mission of Mamo with “some thirty pirogues from the Caura and Barima, carrying over 400 warriors”, leaving a missionary and a significant number of Waraos death.61 In 1742, the Caribs in union with the English also destroyed the Capuchin missions Payarayma (Casacayma) and Tipura (Tupurma, Tiparua) and had created “a great tumult” and “much restlessness”,62 after Santo Tome de

52 Ibid., p. 66. 53 Council of the Indies, “Report”, Madrid, 1776, p. 300. 54 Diguja, “Report”, Cumaná, 15 December 1763, p. 97. 55 Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, p. 119. 56 NATT, N. N., “Report”, September 1733, publication No. 592. 57 Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, p. 119. 58 NATT; N. N., “Report”, September 1733. 59 NATT, N. N., “Account”, 20 July 1734. 60 Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, p. 114. 61 Diguja, “Report”, Cumaná, 15 December 1763, p. 97; Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, p. 114. 62 Diguja, “Report”, Cumaná, 15 December 1763, pp. 97–98; Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, p. 124.

Capuchin Missions and “Carib” Responses (1724–1813)

147

Usupamo was jointly attacked in 1740, leaving the only Spanish settlement burnt and “not immediately rebuilt”.63 Thereupon, the Catalonian Capuchins between 1746 and 1753 extended their missions in the southeastern direction by establishing the missions64 of Palmar (Guayanos/Caribs; Pariapo/Caribs, 1746), Miamo (Caribs, 1748), Puedpa (1749), Carapo (Caribs, 1751/52), Ayma (1753, Guaicas/Camaragotos),65 Cunuri, Curumo, Matanambe, and Tupuquen (all before 1750).66 While Ayma, located 30 leagues south-east of Cupapuy,67 has demarcated the furthest Capuchin mission in the southern direction between 1753–1757, Tupuquen presented the furthest mission in the southeastern direction until 1750, since the Carib attacks, which reached their second peak during the 1750s, had significantly limited the spatial extent of Capuchin missions in both directions. Thus, Curumo, Cunuri,68 Tupuquen69 and, according to some accounts, also Matanambe and Miamo, were destroyed by 820

63 Diguja, “Report”, Cumaná, 15 December 1763, p. 97; Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, p. 123. Simultaneously, the English landed on the Paria peninsula, while the French were trading with Waraos, Parias, and Caribs in the Orinoco delta. 64 This is confirmed by all detailed lists of Capuchin missions between 1762 and c. 1813 (Escandon “Notes relating a map of the Viceroyalty of Santa Fé”, 1762, pp. 347–348; De Barcelona, “Memorandum”, 12 September 1770, p. 402; De Vich, “Table of the missions”, 31 August 1788, p. 324; De Sebadel, “Table of the Capuchin missions”, 1799, p. 171; N. N., “Table of Capuchin missions of Guayana in the Lower Orinoco”, after 1813, p. 356). 65 De Barcelona, “Memorandum”, 12 September 1770, p. 402; De Barcelona, “Capuchin missions of Guayana” (map legend), 1771, p. 175). Whereas the precise accounts of the Capuchin Prefect in 1770 and 1771 indicate the foundational year of Ayma as 1753 (ibid.), later accounts are quoting the year 1755 (De Sebadel, “Table of the Capuchin missions”, 1799, p. 171; N. N., “Table of Capuchin missions of Guayana in the Lower Orinoco”, after 1813, p. 356). 66 Since all of them were destroyed in 1750, they had been logically established before this date. 67 The distance refers to the indicated walking path from Cupapuy to Ayma via San Antonio and Puedpa (De Barcelona, “Capuchin missions of Guayana” [map legend], 1771, p. 175). 68 The only source, which gives the date of the Cunuri attack with 1751, is a Capuchin report of 1758 (Prefect of missions Fray Benito de la Garriga, “Report to commander in Guayana”, 9 June 1758, in: VEN, No. 360, pp. 303–308, at 306). 69 Diguja, “Report”, Cumaná, 15 December 1763, p. 97. See Acting commander Essequibo, “Letter to WIC”, 6 March 1751, in: BB3, serial No. 97, p. 95; Don José Iturriaga, “Instructions to Colonel Don Eugenio Alvarado”, Cattle Farm in Guayana, 20 April 1755, in: BRC, serial No. 305, pp. 105–112, at 106. By contrast, Fray Benito de la Garriga, who was the “President at Tupuquen at the time [. . .] and taken prisoner by the Caribs [but was] released almost miraculously”, stated in his account of June 1758 that four missions were destroyed. The Capuchin missionary even indicated that the “rebellion of all the Caribs in the year 1750” would have taken place “in our five missions of Miamo, Cunuri, Tupuquen, Curumo, and Mutanambo [Matanambe]” (De la Garriga, “Letter to King of Spain”, Alta Gracia [Guayana], 6 July 1769, pp. 20–21). Mutanambo vanished completely from all maps and lists of the Capuchin missions.

148

Chapter 7 Violent Capuchin Removal and Spatial Extensions (1682–1817)

previously captured Caribs in 1750,70 after which Cunuri, Curumo,71 and Matanambe remained permanently abandoned, while Tupuquen was re-established in 1767.72 Again, the Caribs until August 1752 had attacked two other missions and “murdered everyone”, which was followed by another attack on Curumo, Cunuri, Tupuquen, and El Palmar by Cacique Maracayan of the Curumo River in September 1752, where four missionaries and “many” of the Spanish militia had been killed and the missions burnt “to the ground.”73 In the same year (1752), the Caribs and Dutch again attacked Santo Tome, while the Caribs in alliance with the Panacays surprised yet another Capuchin mission until October 1754, which was situated “between them” and had thus “hinder[ed] their communication”, while the Capuchin missionary had also “impressed [them] and taken away some”. In result, the priest and ten to twelve Spaniards were killed and the buildings demolished” and the Caribs had also “sent knotted cords to all persons of their nation (as is their custom), for a general summons to both together to deliberate on what further remains for them to do”.74 Moreover, the recently established Carib mission Murucuri on the Caroni (1754)75 was abandoned by Cacique Patacon in December 175576 and attacked by Carib Cacique Maracayan of the upper Caura to release the Carib captives with whom he proceeded “towards the headwaters of the Paragua/Caroni” in 1759.77 Meanwhile, Puedpa was abandoned by the Chiamas and Aruacas78 before July 1755,79 who were captured in Moruca until 1769, when two Capuchin friars “went after them, well escorted and provided with vessels and the

70 Diguja, “Report”, Cumaná, 15 December 1763, p. 97. 71 Curumo is to be distinguished from the mission of Cumamo (established in 1767). 72 All three missions remained absent from Capuchin accounts in 1761, 1762, 1770/1777, 1788, 1799, and 1813. 73 Director General Essequibo, “Letter to WIC”, 4 August 1752, in: BRC, serial No. 269, pp. 75–76; Council of the Indies, “Report”, Madrid, 1776, p. 300. 74 Director General Essequibo, “Letter to WIC”, 12 October 1754, in: BRC, serial No. 298, pp. 96–100, at 96; Prefect of missions Fray Benito de la Garriga, “Report to commander in Guayana”, 9 June 1758, in: VEN, No. 360, pp. 303–308, at 307. 75 De Barcelona, “Memorandum”, 12 September 1770, pp. 398–402; De Barcelona, “Capuchin missions of Guayana” (map legend), 1771, p. 175. 76 Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, p. 126. 77 Ibid., p. 127. 78 De Barcelona, “Memorandum”, 12 September 1770, p. 402. 79 Puedpa was the only mission consisting of Chiamas, which were “reclaimed” by the Dutch in 1755 (Director General Essequibo, “Letter to WIC”, 9 September 1755, in: BB3, serial No. 121, p. 105) and 1767 (ibid., serial No. 195, pp. 148–149, at 149), before some “escorted” Capuchin missionaries went to the neighbourhood of the Dutch Moruca post to violently remove them (chapter 12).

Capuchin Missions and “Carib” Responses (1724–1813)

149

necessary stores, supplied by the Commander General Don Manuel Centurion”, but escaped again until February 1770, although “some have been recovered”.80 However, 52 captives were listed in 1770/71,81 after the composition changed to Guayacas and Guaranous (until 1769)82 and Paraugotos and Guayacas (until 1771),83 whose number increases until 1788 up to 278,84 409 in 1799,85 and 412 in 1813.86 At the same time, Cacique Taricura was still not captured in 1755,87 whereupon the next missions were established in the southeastern direction,88 such as the missions Guacipati/Guazipati (Caribs,89 1757), Avechica/Supama (Guaicas, 1757), and Cavallapi (Guaicas,90 1761). However, Tarepi91 and Avechica, situated on the banks of the River Supama,92 were immediately attacked in 1758 and again raided and destroyed by the Caribs in 1762,93 when the furthest Capuchin mission in the southern direction in December 1753, located 40 leagues distant from Santo Tome,94 was “ruined and lost to us through the persecution of the Caribs”95 and until 1764 abandoned by the Guaicas.96 Carried out by “(t)he Caribs from the mountains [who] killed the captain and his companion of the Guayca[s]”, the attack resulted in the loss of the mission “on account of the above deaths”,97 whereas a later account disclosed that the attack was conducted by “certain Caribs from the settlement of Tupuquen, who had rebelled in the year 1750” and was

80 De Barcelona, “Memorandum”, 12 September 1770, pp. 400–402. 81 Ibid., pp. 398–402. 82 De Vich, “Table of the missions”, 31 August 1788, p. 324. 83 De Barcelona, “Capuchin missions of Guayana” (map legend), 1771, p. 175. 84 De Vich, “Table of the missions”, 31 August 1788, p. 324. 85 De Sebadel, “Table of the Capuchin missions”, 1799, p. 171. 86 N. N., “Table of Capuchin missions of Guayana in the Lower Orinoco”, after 1813, p. 356. 87 Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, p. 119. 88 Escandon “Notes relating a map of the Viceroyalty of Santa Fé”, 1762, pp. 347–348; De Barcelona, “Memorandum”, 12 September 1770, p. 402; de Vich, “Table of the missions”, 31 August 1788, p. 324; De Sebadel, “Table of the Capuchin missions”, 1799, p. 171; N. N., “Table of Capuchin missions of Guayana in the Lower Orinoco”, after 1813, p. 356. 89 De Barcelona, “Memorandum”, 12 September 1770, p. 402; De Barcelona, “Capuchin missions of Guayana” (map legend), 1771, p. 175. 90 De Barcelona, “Memorandum”, 12 September 1770, p. 402. 91 Diguja, “Report”, Cumaná, 15 December 1763, p. 97. 92 De la Garriga, “Report to commander in Guayana”, 9 June 1758, pp. 303–304. 93 De la Garriga, “Letter to King of Spain”, Alta Gracia (Guayana), 6 July 1769, p. 21. 94 Diguja, “Report”, Cumaná, 15 December 1763, p. 21. 95 De la Garriga, “Letter to King of Spain”, Alta Gracia (Guayana), 6 July 1769, p. 21. 96 De Barcelona, “Capuchin missions of Guayana” (map legend), 1771, p. 175. 97 De la Garriga, “Report to commander in Guayana”, 9 June 1758, pp. 303–304. The exact date of the Avechiva attack was not indicated, but took place before the report of June 1758 (ibid).

150

Chapter 7 Violent Capuchin Removal and Spatial Extensions (1682–1817)

“commanded by the Indian Cayarivare, who had been an Alcalde at Tupuquen and headed the ringleaders of said rebellion, who were staying at the time in the interior of the Cuyuny river, at the mouth of the river Corumo”.98 Nevertheless, the Carib attack on the Avechiva mission in June 1758 surprisingly served as justification for the Spanish attack on the Dutch post in Cuyuni in the same year 1758, while Avechica presented the furthest missions in the southern direction since 1757, as the Caribs had significantly limited the spatial extent of Capuchin missions in this southern direction by reducing the area to Ayma. A significant change took place in 1761,99 when the suggestion of Boundary Commissioner Joseph Solano100 inflamed an authority dispute between the Spanish governor of Santo Tome and the Capuchin missions. In particular, Solano had suggested the transfer of Santo Tome to the Angostura of the Orinoco in August 1764 (based on a royal order of 5 June 1762),101 which had also implied the subsequent transfer of the Capuchin headquarter Suay to the new site of Angostura to provide the Spanish settlement with provisions.102 Vehemently opposed, the resistance of the Capuchins succeeded in hindering the transfer, but a “great-fire” in 1766 finally destroyed the majority of Suay’s buildings,103 after which the Capuchins were compelled to transfer the mission with its captured Guayanos, not to Angostura, but to the Caroni, where the Capuchins established La Immaculate Concepcion de Caroni104 in 1761,105 where the former mission San Antonio de Caroni was established, that is nine leagues west of Santo Tome and 20 leagues east of Angostura.106 From the new Capuchin headquarters in Caroni, the Catalans founded Upata in 1762, which was divided in 1765 into the Spanish town Upata, the mission San Antonio and the mission Carruaci (Caribs/Cachigarotos/Guayeas, 1763), while Governor Manuel Centurion established the two villages of Panapana and Maruanta near Angostura in 1769, depopulating the Capuchin missions of Tipurma, Pacoa,

98 De la Garriga, “Letter to King of Spain”, Alta Gracia (Guayana), 6 July 1769, p. 21. 99 Council of the Indies, “Report”, Madrid, 1776, p. 302. 100 Solano and Itturiaga remained in northeastern South America, while the majority of the Boundary Commission returned to Spain in 1761. 101 Centurion, “Despatch about the Capuchin missions”, Guayana, 29 July 1771, p. 294. 102 Council of the Indies, “Report”, 16 February 1776 and 26 April 1777, in: BRC, serial No. 549, Annex 5, pp. 148–160, at 155. 103 Centurion, “Despatch about the Capuchin missions”, Guayana, 29 July 1771, pp. 90–91. 104 De Barcelona, “Memorandum”, 12 September 1770, p. 402. 105 Diguja, “Report to King of Spain”, 18 December 1761, p. 345. 106 The 20 leagues are indicating the distance between Caroni and Angostura on the straight way. The route via Calvario, Santa Ana, Panapana, and Maruanta is 21 leagues long (De Barcelona, “Capuchin missions of Guayana” [map legend], 1771, p. 175).

Capuchin Missions and “Carib” Responses (1724–1813)

151

and Casacayma, which were subsequently “demolished”,107 while their indigenous captives were transferred, against Capuchin resistance, to Panapana (Caribs) and Maruanta (Guaraunos),108 located four and two leagues east of Angostura.109 In addition, the two villages were filled with captives of the Calvario mission110 and Guaraunos, whom the Spanish governor had personally “brought along with him to the Lower Orinoco”.111 By December 1783, however, the villages had “barely sufficient Indians” after their numbers had been “greatly diminishing” by flight “to the lands of the Lower Orinoco”,112 so Panapana and Maruanta were abandoned by 1788.113 Meanwhile, the Catalonian Capuchins had founded further missions in the southern and southeastern direction, namely Santa Maria (Guayanos/Panacacos, 1770),114 Divina Pastora (Guayanos/Paragotos, 1770), and re-established Cumamo (1767, Caribs), Puedpa/Puedra (1769, Chiamas/Aruacas until 1755; Guayacas/Guaranos since 1769, Paraugotos/Guayacas since 1771),115 and Tupuquen (Caribs, 1767),116 situated at the junction of the Miamo and Yaruari about four leagues distant from Guacipati, which represented the furthest mission in this deep southeastern direction, after Cavallapi’s permanent abandonment due to a “rebellion” in 1770 (see Figure 8).117 Furthermore, the Capuchins founded Guri (Caribs, 1771) and San Pedro de Bocas, situated 32 leagues distant from

107 Ibid. 108 De Barcelona, “Memorandum”, 12 September 1770, p. 402; De Barcelona, “Capuchin missions of Guayana” (map legend), 1771, p. 175. 109 Centurion, “Despatch about the Capuchin missions”, Guayana, 29 July 1771, pp. 90–91. 110 De Barcelona, “Capuchin missions of Guayana” (map legend “Note”, 1771, p. 175). Nevertheless, both missions (Calvario and Santa Ana) still existed until 1813. 111 De Barcelona, “Memorandum”, 12 September 1770, p. 402. 112 Josef Phelipe de Inciarte, “Report to Intendant of the Army Don Francisco Saavedra on that Part of the Province of Guayana where the New City of Guayana is situated, the Lower Orinoco, and the Eastern Part of the Province”, Carácas, 5 December 1783, in: BB3, serial No. 34, pp. 312–314, at 312. 113 Governor Centurion’s practice was, for example, applied for the mission of San Joacquin in 1770, where the Indigenous Peoples had “commenced their transfer by order of the king our Lord at the beginning of [. . .] seventeen hundred and seventy” upon Centurion’s offer of “a present to both tribes of a large amount of iron utensils, axes, machetes, and other articles” (De Barcelona, “Memorandum”, 12 September 1770, p. 400). 114 De Vich, “Table of the missions”, 31 August 1788, p. 324. 115 De Barcelona, “Capuchin missions of Guayana” (map legend), 1771, p. 175. 116 De Barcelona, “Memorandum”, 12 September 1770, pp. 398–402; De Barcelona, “Capuchin missions of Guayana” (map legend), 1771, p. 175. 117 Ibid. The map legend indicates the state of those missions as “demolished” (ibid.), subsequently they disappear in the Capuchin accounts of 1770, 1788, 1799 and 1813.

152

Chapter 7 Violent Capuchin Removal and Spatial Extensions (1682–1817)

Angostura (Guayacas, 1770)118 in the deep southwestern direction, along with the mission Garumopati, which was immediately destroyed.119 Notable, none of the missions of the Catalonian Capuchins was situated in “the Sierra-Imataca area”, which according to Neil Whitehead presented “a final bastion of Carib Independence”.120

Figure 8: The Extent of the Capuchin Missions by Fray Carlos de Barcelona (1771).

Hence, the Spanish governor again stoked the authority dispute with the Catalonian Capuchins in July 1771, since Centurion and Solano aimed to use “the

118 De Barcelona, “Memorandum”, 12 September 1770, pp. 398–402; De Barcelona, “Capuchin missions of Guayana” (map legend), 1771, p. 175. 119 De Barcelona, “Memorandum”, 12 September 1770, p. 402. 120 Ibid., p. 129.

Capuchin Missions and “Carib” Responses (1724–1813)

153

River Caroni as a barrier for the Capuchin missions”,121 which was intended to serve as “a rampart for the whole province”122 and included “governing the four villages of the Caroni, with the authority of Military Commandant [. . .] in civil and military matters”.123 In particular, the Spanish governor had complained about the “absolute independence”, in which the Capuchin’s would have lived “up to now”, since “no other Royal official than a simple governor of the Fort [who] leave them free to dispose, at their pleasure, of both the spiritual and temporal” and “no official had the courage to oppose them”, wherefore the Capuchins “consider themselves masters not only of all the villages which they instruct [but also of those] founded in the last century, even these they do not wish to see taken over”. Instead, Governor Centurion argued that “the territory of the Catalonian Capuchin missions is essentially a part of this province” and falls “within the limits of [his] authority”, while refusing the Capuchin authority, since it would be repugnant [. . .] that ecclesiastics, who, by their institution and religious seclusion, know less of politics than of anything else, and because of their ministry consider themselves almost free in their actions from any responsibility towards the king, should be absolute in the temporal government of these villages.124

Thereafter, the Capuchins emphatically refused the placement of “a military officer as Commandant and Territorial Judge” in the four Caroni missions San Antonio, Murucuri, Calvario, and Caruachi and in 1771 they intensified their opposition to hand over the missions “to the Ordinary” unless they “are allowed to manage and freely apply to their own use the produce of the plantations and the Indian communities without the knowledge of the Government, nor giving any account to anybody of these properties” in “an ecclesiastical administration”,125 wherefore Centurion “cannot place a corregidor (as they call the military officer) over them, to govern them in civil matters, as this office belongs to the missionaries”.126 In this context, the Capuchins argued that the Indigenous Peoples of the mission would not be vassals of the Spanish Crown, since they had “not yet presented[the]

121 The Spanish original reads “y abrigar el Río Caroni como barrera de las Misiones de Capuchinos” (ibid.). 122 Governor Manuel Centurion, “Report on the New Settlements of Orinoco and Guayana”, Guayana, 20 July 1771, in: BRC, serial No. 499, pp. 87–90, at 88–89. 123 Centurion, “Despatch about the Capuchin missions”, Guayana, 29 July 1771, p. 294. 124 Centurion, “Report on the New Settlements of Orinoco and Guayana”, Guayana, 20 July 1771, pp. 88–89. 125 Centurion, “Despatch about the Capuchin missions”, Guayana, 29 July 1771, p. 295. 126 Centurion, “Report on the New Settlements of Orinoco and Guayana”, Guayana, 20 July 1771, p. 88.

154

Chapter 7 Violent Capuchin Removal and Spatial Extensions (1682–1817)

villages for the Indians to be taxed”, despite the order of 1686 that the Indigenous Peoples of the mission should “remain subject to the missionaries for the space of ten years, and should afterwards be under the Royal Crown, and that, in recognition of vassalage, a small tax be placed on them, not exceeding 12 reals yearly”.127 In result, the Catalonian Capuchins gained the support of both the Council of the Indies and the Condaturia, resulting in the Royal Order of 1782 in favour of the Capuchins, as Thomas Ortiz de Landazuré of the Contaduria in July 1774 stated that “the said Religious acted well in retaining the said villages, and that the governor went too far in imputing to them excesses which they did not commit”, wherefore the governor needed to be “restrain[ed]” and “the objectionable methods which he has employed” to be “correct[ed]”. Moreover, the Viceroy of Santa Fé was ordered by Royal Cedula “to ascertain whether the said villages are in a condition to admit of Magistrates and Parish Priests [sic!] without causing the flight of the Indians thereby”,128 and if “the villages of this province could be taken over”. This was done by Captain-General Luis de Unzaga in 1778, who concluded “that the method of governing the Indians under [the] charge [of the Capuchins] should not be changed from that employed by the Royal Audienca of Santa Fé in previous years”. In result, “no change was made [and] no steps being taken” until 1782, which was reaffirmed by king Charles IV of Spain in a Royal Cedula of 18 November 1782, who “order[ed] that in this province the missionaries alone should govern the Indians”.129 Hence, the Catalonian Capuchins continued to establish missions in the deep southern direction, namely Santa Rosa de Cura (1782, Guayacas), Anjel Custodio de Aicana (1785, Guayanos),130 and Tumeremo/Cantario (1788, Guayanos)131 and re-established Avechica as well as San Juan Bautista de Avechiva in 1783, which remained in existence until 1817 (1783, Guayacas),132 whereas Tumeremo represented the last mission established by the Capuchins in February 1788,133 situated

127 Council of the Indies, “Minutes”, Madrid, 26 April 1686, p. 195. 128 Secretariat of Contaduria, “Note”, 1776, in: BB3, serial No. 30, Annex 4 (Spanish Sources), pp. 298–299, at 299. 129 Prefect of Capuchin missions Fray Hermenegildo de Vich, “Report to Governor of Guayana Don Luis Antonio Gil”, Caroni, 16 April 1791, in: BRC, serial No. 642, pp. 123–126, at 124–125. 130 De Vich, “Table of the missions”, 31 August 1788, p. 324. 131 Antonio Ventura de Taranco (Council of the Indies), “Letter to the Reverend Father of the Catalonian Capuchin missions respecting the new mission of Tumeremo”, Madrid, 4 June 1791, in: BRC, serial No. 643, pp. 126–127, at 126; De Vich, “Table of the missions”, 31 August 1788, p. 324. 132 Ibid. 133 Marmion, “Letter to Knight of Malta”, Guayana, 7 July 1788, pp. 56–57.

Capuchin Missions and “Carib” Responses (1724–1813)

155

five leagues north-east of Tupuquen and four of Anjel Custodio.134 Therefore, Tumeremo presented the furthest mission in this direction in 1788, but was until April 1791 destabilized by “frequent [. . .] flight or rising among the Indians, to whom it is open and easy to return to their lands”. The same was reported for Tupuquen in November 1790,135 from where the Upper Pomeroon Carib Chief Paripa was released by his son in September 1794, and Anjel Custodio, which was established in 1785, but vanished permanently from the official Capuchin accounts in 1788, 1799, and 1813.136 Meanwhile, the Spanish authority conflict continued between the new governor Miguel Marmion and the Capuchins in August 1788, since the governor acknowledged that the missions are “governed under there economic system [. . .] up to the present time”, but continued to challenge the decision of the Spanish king to “concede the economic government of the Indians” and raising the complaint about the Royal Order, which would cause “many inconvenience and delay”. Marmion also remarked that “justice remains unadministered in criminal cases” since “[the military commandant] without jurisdiction in the villages they instruct, they oppose him”.137 Again in September 1789, Governor Marmion asserted that the Capuchins would have “acted in opposition to the requirements of the king’s service, by founding settlements and cattle farms in places exposed to raids by the Dutch of Essequibo, especially the new Mission of Tumeremo (established in 1788), without the previous knowledge of the Government”.138 Nevertheless, in August 1791 the Catalonian Capuchins had still refused to “handing over the Indian villages to the Ordinary” by indicating that, in contrast to “Carácas and elsewhere”, where missions “had been established in the midst of Spaniards” to “subdue” the Indigenous Peoples, the Lower Orinoco

134 Prefect of Catalonian missions Fray Buenaventura de San Celonio, “Representation of Prefect of missions concerning the Establishment of a New Village”, Caroni, 8 February 1788, in: BRC, serial No. 637, enclosure 2, pp. 86–87, at 86. Furthermore, the location is specified as “north of Cura at the Yuruary” (Capuchin Fray Thomas de Mataro, “Letter to Governor Miguel Marmion concerning the Founding of the new Village of Tumeremo”, Cupapuy, 6 July 1787, in: BRC, serial No. 637, enclosure 1, pp. 84–86), while “[Tumeremo] looks to the north [and Anjel] to the south” (Taranco, “Letter to the Reverend Father”, Madrid, 4 June 1791, p. 126). 135 De Vich, “Report to Governor of Guayana Don Luis Antonio Gil”, Caroni, 16 April 1791, p. 125. 136 De Vich, “Table of the missions”, 31 August 1788, p. 324; De Sebadel, “Table of the Capuchin missions”, 1799, p. 171; N. N., “Table of Capuchin missions of Guayana in the Lower Orinoco”, after 1813, p. 356. 137 Marmion, “Letter to Knight of Malta”, Guayana, 7 July 1788, p. 52. 138 De Taranco, “Letter to the Reverend Father of the Catalonian Capuchin missions respecting the new mission of Tumeremo”, Madrid, p. 126.

156

Chapter 7 Violent Capuchin Removal and Spatial Extensions (1682–1817)

and “the province of Guayana would lack those Spanish villages”. Moreover, the Capuchin missionaries emphasized that due to Angostura’s significant distance from the missions “the gate is open for unimpeded flight, such as takes place every day”, while “there are still many tribes of Indians to subdue, and few villages in the district reclaimed”.139 Finally, in 1813 the Special Commissioner Don José Olazarra suggested a reform, as “all the missions of the province exceed the legal limit of years, being all in the class of new reductions, [and] those of the Catalonian Capuchin’s occupy the most important and fertile part of the province”.140 However, this attempt was silenced by the “scandalous affair of the death of the Capuchins of the Caroni” during the War of Independence in 1817, whereupon the Catalonian missions were abandoned.141 In short, the Catalonian Capuchins had established several missions in the area between the Lower Orinoco and Caroni junction between 1724–1788 without interference from any Spanish governor, using the violent removal practice. While the headquarter changed from Suay on the banks of the Orinoco (1724) to San Antonio on the Caroni (1761), the missions extended furthest to San Pedro in the southwestern direction (1770), situated 32 leagues from Angostura, but were prior spatially reduced to Cupapuy, situated 20 leagues south of Suay. In contrast, the more south-easterly mission Puedpa (1749) presented one of most unstable missions, since Puedpa (16 leagues distant from San Antonio) was at least three times abandoned due to flight (1755–1769; 1769; 1771), which reduced the spatial extent of the missions during those periods again back to Cupapuy. In addition, the furthest mission in the southeastern direction was Avechiva/Supama (1757). Due to Carib attacks, it existed impermanently between 1758 and 1764 and was finally abandoned until 1783, when Ayma (1753/55) presented the furthest Capuchin missions in this direction, situated 30 leagues south of Cupapuy. Finally, the missions in the deep southern direction extended furthest to Tumeremo (1788) and Tupuquen (re-established in 1767, after its abandonment due to several attacks between 1750–1752). Tumeremo was situated at the Mamo and Yaruari junction, five leagues south-east of Tupuquen, after the spatial extent was until 1767 limited to Carapo (1751/52) and Guacipati (1757), situated seven leagues northeast of Ayma. In general, the most stable Capuchin missions were Alta Gracia (1734–1813/17), and Cupapuy (1733–1813/17), situated 4,5 leagues south of Alta

139 De Vich, “Report to Governor of Guayana Don Luis Antonio Gil”, Caroni, 16 April 1791, p. 123. 140 Special Commissioner Don José Olazarra, “Report”, 25 February 1813, in: BRC, serial No. 715, Annex, pp. 205–211, at 208. 141 Administrator of the Department of the missions of the Caroni Venerable José Félix Blanco, “Declaration in the last Days of his Life”, in: BRC, serial No. 891, pp. 207–208.

The Spatial Extensions of the Secret Boundary Expedition (1761–1770)

157

Gracia and 20 leagues south of Suay, respectively 19 leagues from the Capuchin headquarter San Antonio on the Caroni, which was located another 20 leagues distant from Angostura.

The Spatial Extensions of the Secret Boundary Expedition (1761–1770) Prior, Santo Tome remained the sole permanent Spanish settlement of the Spaniards in Lower Orinoco (until 1764),142 after several attacks by Caribs in union with English in 1740/42 and Dutch in 1752. Strengthened by “twenty-five families” from the Canaries in 1718143 and “thirty” in 1725,144 Santo Tome was annexed to Cumaná by Royal Order of 30 June 1731,145 but remained in “miserable condition”,146 unfortified147 and exposed to “continual anxieties and injuries”148 until its transfer 30 Spanish leagues upstream149 to “a place called La Angostura” in August 1764.150

142 This is confirmed for the years 1720, 1734, 1761, and 1763 (Diguja, “Report”, Cumaná, 15 December 1763, pp. 4–5; 11; 42–43; Governor of Cumaná Don Diguja, “Report to King of Spain”, 15 December 1763, in: VEN, No. 394, pp. 348–357, at 353). 143 Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, pp. 109–110. 144 Ibid. In total, eighty families were to be transported from the Canaries in 1725, the other fifty families were supposed to be sent to Maturin, where a Spanish fort was established in 1722. 145 Prior to the annexation of Santo Tome by Cumaná, the settlement was annexed by the kingdom of New Granada by Royal Cedula of 6 June 1662 (Diguja, “Report”, Cumaná, 15 December 1763, pp. 4–5). 146 Ibid., p. 11. 147 Despite the persistent order to fortify Santo Tome by a fort on the island of Faxardo in 1726, 1733, 1753, 1761/62 (ibid., pp. 12–18), the establishment of the fort was still not carried out in 1777 (Council of the Indies, “Report”, Madrid, 1776, p. 300). Thus, the forts San Francisco and Padrastro (eight leagues below Faxardo and “half a league below the mouth of the Caroni”) remained the only fortifications of Santo Tome. 148 Diguja, “Report”, Cumaná, 15 December 1763, p. 12. 149 The distance from Santo Tome via the Caroni missions to Angostura by land is derived from the map legends of an anonymous map (official date 1735, most likely of 1733) (Anonymous, “Sketch Map of the Capuchin missions in the Province of Guayana”, about 1735, in: BC, No.72, p. 173) and 1771 (De Barcelona, “Capuchin missions of Guayana” [map legend], 1771, p. 175). Another account estimates the distance between Santo Tome and Angostura as 34 leagues during the rainy and 20 leagues during the dry season (Diguja, “Report”, Cumaná, 15 December 1763, p. 43), while Iturriaga determined the location of Angostura as “25 leagues above the Caroni” (Council of the Indies, “Report”, Madrid, 1776, p. 300). 150 The transfer of Santo Tome was already considered by Carlos de Sucre at the beginning of the 1720s “as a matter of great importance for the Royal Service”, but only resumed by

158

Chapter 7 Violent Capuchin Removal and Spatial Extensions (1682–1817)

The transfer was made at the suggestion of Joseph Solano, Commissioner of the Secret Boundary Expedition constituted by the frontier treaty between Spain and Portugal on 13 January 1750.151 Officially intended to demarcate the boundaries between Spain and Portugal in northeastern South America, the Spanish Boundary Expedition was present on the Orinoco from April 1754152 to 1761153 and instead secretly ordered to expel the Dutch (and French) from the coastal mainland and “unite” the boundaries of the Spaniards and Portuguese.154 Masterminded by Don José de Carvajal y Lancaster in May 1753, the joint Boundary Expedition was in particular instructed to “pushing forward settlements [. . .] towards the territory which the Dutch occupy”155 by “hem[ing] [them] in”156 and hindering them “from penetrating [. . .] into the heart of the dominions of the two Crowns”.157 Therefore, those Spanish settlement were to be established “somewhat higher up” in the shape of “a semicircle in the interior above and beyond the[ir] territory”158 to “force [the Dutch and French] into a strip of territory,159 or horseshoe, of small account, by no means fertile, and very unhealthy” and deprive them of subsistence. In addition, the Spaniards intended to use the African slaves to expel the Dutch (and French), since “with some help [of] their negroes [. . .] there is much probability that both, the one and the other may abandon the country and leave

Boundary Commissioner Don Joseph Solano in December 1761 (Diguja, “Report”, Cumaná, 15 December 1763, p. 1) and eventuated by Royal Cedula of 27 May 1762, ordering the transfer of Santo Tome to the “Angostura”, that is the narrow part of the Orinoco (Diguja, “Report to King of Spain”, 15 December 1763, p. 348), which was carried out in August 1764 (ibid.). 151 The Spanish name of the treaty is “El Tratado Hispano-Portugues de Limites de 1750”. The treaty was succeeded by the Treaty of El Pardo of 12 February 1761 in subsequence of the Guarani War of 1756. 152 N. N., “Minutes of a Letter upon the Subject of the Boundary between Spain and Portugal in America”, Madrid, 19 June 1757, in: BRC, serial No. 322, pp. 132–134, at 132. While the Spaniards had left Spain “at the beginning of 1754” and arrived in Cumaná on 9 April 1754 (ibid.), the appointed Portuguese Boundary Commission for the Amazon had commenced their work already in 1751. 153 Council of the Indies, “Report”, Madrid, 1776, p. 302. 154 Don José de Carvajal y Lancaster, “Letter to Count de Perelada”, 28 May 1753, in: BRC, serial No. 276, pp. 79–81, at 80. 155 Secret Boundary Commission, “Plan to Expel the Dutch on the Continent by one of the Two Crowns”, 1753, in: BRC, serial No. 273, p. 77. 156 Lancaster, “Letter to Count de Perelada”, 28 May 1753, p. 80. 157 Don José Carvajal y Lancaster “Minuta to the Portuguese Secretary of State”, Lisbon, 3 June 1753, in: BRC, serial No. 279, enclosure, p, 82. 158 Secret Boundary Commissioner, “Plan to Expel the Dutch”, 1753, p. 77. 159 The Spanish original reads “terreno” (ibid.).

The Spatial Extensions of the Secret Boundary Expedition (1761–1770)

159

us quite alone”.160 Finally, the Caribs were intended to be reduced “by degrees”, since “the Caribs of the Orinoco will not abandon their territories”.161 Hence, the Secret Boundary Expedition in December 1761 first of all prompted the transfer of Santo Tome to the “Angostura of Orinoco”,162 situated about 25 leagues higher up from the Orinoco and Caroni junction and 83 leagues distant from the Atlantic Ocean,163 which was eventuated by the Spanish king on 27 May 1762164 and carried out by Joachim Moreno de Mendoza until 15 August 1764.165 Mendoza became Acting Commandant166 and was succeeded by Manuel Centurion in 1766,167 who was placed “under the orders and direction” of former Boundary Commissioner “Don Josef Solano, governor of Carácas”, who remained in this office until 1771.168 At the same time, Angostura was annexed to the Viceroy of Santa Fé in 1764 “to place the government of this Prov-

160 Lancaster, “Letter to Conde de Perelada”, Aranjuez, 28 May 1753, p. 81. 161 Secret Boundary Commissioner José de Iturriaga, “Letter to Don José Carvajal y Lancaster”, Cadiz, 5 December 1753, in: BRC, serial No. 288. The Spanish original reads: “el Pais de los Carives” (ibid.). 162 De Inciarte, “Report to Intendant of the Army Don Francisco Saavedra”, Carácas, 5 December 1783, pp. 312–313. In particular, this was suggested by Boundary Commissioner Joseph Solano (ibid.). 163 Council of the Indies, “Report”, Madrid, 1776, p. 300. 164 Diguja, “Report ”, Cumaná, 15 December 1763, p. 348. 165 Ibid., p. 1. In November 1770, Angostura had “163 houses” (“Consulta of the Spanish king (December 1770)” (King Charles III, “Consulta”, 21 May 1772, in: BB3, serial No. 30, Annex 1 (Spanish sources), pp. 296–297, at 296) and “500 poor” residents, who had been “recently removed there, and lodged in some straw huts” (De Inciarte, “Report to Intendant of the Army Don Francisco Saavedra”, Carácas, 5 December 1783, pp. 312–313). 166 Council of the Indies, “Report”, Madrid, 1776, p. 301. 167 On 5 May 1768, Governor Manuel Centurion was also ordered to take over the “general command of the Orinoco settlements”. This office was previously held by Don Joseph Iturriaga (ibid., pp. 301–302), who in early 1767 had retired “in ill-health to the Island of Margarita” (ibid., p. 301). 168 Ibid. In result, the relevance of Santo Tome declined significantly, as in November 1773 the “old city of Guayana” was described as “sickly place”, located “nine leagues below the mouth of the Caroni, and eight above the place where the Orinoco is divided into several branches” (Commander Guayana, “Letter to Secretary of State”, 11 November 1773, in: VEN, No. 424, pp. 410–413, at 411), while it was also indicated that“[f]rom Caroni to the mouth of the Orinoco [at] a distance of fifty-eight leagues” the river would be “without any population on either side of the river” (ibid.). By decision of the Council of Angostura, Santo Tome was in January 1820 finally “reduced to an arsenal” (Congress of Angostura, “Decree”, 28 January 1820, in: BRC, serial No. 741, p. 16).

160

Chapter 7 Violent Capuchin Removal and Spatial Extensions (1682–1817)

ince on a new footing (up till then it was subject to that of Cumaná)”,169 after Santo Tome was annexed to Santa Fé between 1662 and 1731.170 Meanwhile, the two Boundary Commissioners Joseph Itturiaga and Joseph Solano had established the two Spanish settlements Real de Uyapo and Real Corona in Upper Orinoco until April 1760,171 situated “35 leagues from that of Guayana” (Real Corona) and “60 leagues higher up on the Creek of Uyapo”, near the Orinoco (Uyapo).172 Both remained in desolate condition until December 1763,173 while Ciudad Real grew to “458” residents in February 1776, including 127 Caribs, who were situated “12 leagues on the east bank of the Cuchivero”.174 In addition, the Spanish town San Fernando was attempted to be established until December 1763 on the Upper Orinoco banks above of the Vichada,175 but failed, since “most of the settlers perished”.176 The settlement of La Esmeralda in Upper Orinoco then received royal approbation on 5 October 1768,177 followed by the royal approbations for Borbon and Carolina on 14 November 1772,178 after Joseph Itturriaga had ordered Francisco Villasana to establish Carolina “on the northern bank of the River Aroy, thirty leagues southwest of that capital”179 and Josef de Espinosa to found Borbon in September 1762.180 Instead, when the Secret Boundary Expedition arrived in Cumaná in April 1754,181 the third Boundary Commissioner Eugenio Alvarado had gone straight to the Lower Orinoco, which had been formally designated to the Catalonian Capuchins since 1734. In contrast to Solano and Itturiaga, the main order for Commissioner Alvarado was to carry out a “Carib Conference” in order to offer the Carib Chiefs “good terms” and “in his Royal name whatever presents might

169 Council of the Indies, “Report”, Madrid, 1776, p. 301. 170 Diguja, “Report”, Cumaná, 15 December 1763, pp. 4–5. 171 Secret Boundary Commissioner Don José de Itturiaga, “Report to Ricardo Wall”, Cabruta, 18 April 1760, in: BRC, serial No. 347, pp. 183–184. 172 Council of the Indies, “Report”, Madrid, 1776, p. 302. 173 Diguja, “Report to King of Spain”, 18 December 1761, p. 343. 174 Council of the Indies, “Report”, Madrid, 1776, p. 302. 175 Prior, Itturiaga “with a team of surveyors, engineers and troops” had met “his Portuguese opposite” Mendonça Furtado in 1759 in Barcelos (Hemming, Amazon Frontier, p. 27). 176 Diguja, “Report”, Cumaná, 15 December 1763, pp. 93–94. 177 Spanish king Charles III, “Consulta”, 21 May 1772, in: BB3, serial No. 30, Annex 1 (Spanish sources), pp. 296–297, at 296; Council of the Indies, “Report”, Madrid, 1776, p. 303. 178 Ibid., pp. 302–303. 179 Spanish king Charles III, “Consulta”, 21 May 1772, p. 296. 180 Council of the Indies, “Report”, Madrid, 1776, p. 300. 181 N. N., “Minutes of a Letter upon the Subject of the Boundary between Spain and Portugal in America”, Madrid, 19 June 1757, in: BRC, serial No. 322, pp. 132–134, at 132.

The Spatial Extensions of the Secret Boundary Expedition (1761–1770)

161

appear to you adequate”182 to end both the “devastation” of the missions by the Caribs183 and the “constant injuries they inflict on us”. In particular, he focused on summoning a Conference with a renowned Carib Chief living in these islands [of the Caroni River] at the head of a considerable force [. . .] and likewise with the head Chief of the sources of the Creek Aquire, where a large number of Caribs are living, and with other Chiefs of the same nation occupying the sources of the River Caroni.184

Hence, the “Conference” took place between July 1754 and April 1755 with the two Caciques Patacon and Oraparene,185 but failed in achieving the intended results. Accordingly, the negotiations had commenced with “Chief Patacon (who formerly lived in the Islands of Caroni, and is now settled with the greater part of his people in the mission of Morucuri founded by Father Joseph de Guardia)”,186 whom Alvarado assertively “treat[ed] [. . .] well so as to make more sure of him”, but considered it unnecessary “to treat of pacification”, since this Carib Chief “was already reduced to civilized life”, but who had after a negotiated cooling-off period of “one month” nonetheless withdrawn from his offer “to bring [. . .] Thumucu and other Chiefs, and to gather a number of Indians forthwith for settlement in the Mission of Aguacagua” in exchange for “presents made to him and to all his followers”. Consequently, Alvarado resumed negotiations with Chief Oraparene, since “there is not merely one celebrated Chief of the Islands of Caroni, but several” and “the sources of the River Caroni” had not even been ascertained.187 However, the “king of the Parava [Paragua]”,188 situated “more west of

182 King Ferdinand VI, “Royal Instructions to the Commissioners of the Secret Boundary Expedition”, 6 November 1753, in: BRC, serial No. 287, p. 89. 183 The Spaniards in this context assumed that those attacks were “influenced and directed by the Dutch” (King Ferdinand VI, “Royal Instructions to the Commissioners of the Secret Boundary Expedition”, 6 November 1753, in: BRC, serial No. 287, p. 89), which does not resonate with the Dutch accounts (chapters 10–12). 184 De Iturriaga, “Instructions to Alvarado”, Cattle Farm in Guayana, 20 April 1755, p. 110. 185 Ibid., p. 105. 186 Murucuri was established in 1754 on the banks of the Caroni. 187 De Iturriaga, “Instructions to Alvarado”, Cattle Farm in Guayana, 20 April 1755, p. 110. 188 Ibid. Accordingly, it is stated that “Parava in the Carib language, means sea”, which is given to the place because of its location “at the concourse of so many streams”. Furthermore, Alvarado declares that the sources of the Caroni are believed to be located “in the lake of the Parava” by the “Western Caribs”, which “they call the sea, and which they reckon to be more than 30 leagues in extent, and inhabited by countless savage tribes on the southern slope. Others in the same direction place these sources nearer, but too far off to be ascertained”, while Alvarado considers the former as “more probable”. In addition, the Boundary Commission indicates that “the Caroni is a small river, and that very near its sources a considerable

162

Chapter 7 Violent Capuchin Removal and Spatial Extensions (1682–1817)

the Islands of Caroni on a great cañon, which is together up than the Island of Patacon”, emphatically refused any means of reduction and pacification. Thus, the Cacique Oraparene openly replied that he did not want to give up his kingship and go into a state of misery in the Mission, where he could not have authority, “guarichas” [i.e., wives], freedom to capture “poitos”, or to trade with his friends the Dutch and thus “remain[ed] obstinately attached to that sort of existence”.189

In similar manner, Joseph Itturiaga had soon afterwards also failed in persuading the famous Carib Cacique Taricura from Barima,190 whom he had encountered “up in Caroni” in September 1755, to settle in the Murucuri mission along with his “friend” Patacon. Beforehand, Commissioner Alvarado had indicated already in 1754. that “it is morally impossible to enter into negotiations of peace with the innumerable Chiefs of the sources of the Acquire”, who “are so many and of equal reputation and strength” and concluded that it would be very difficult to bring the various Chiefs of that district to negotiations for peace, and still more to reach any of them, for an armed expedition could not be made for that purpose only, and therefore I have suspended the matter.191

Nevertheless, Joseph Itturiaga in April 1760 proceeded against the Caribs of Caura and Aro (Avoi) by fitting out two expeditions,192 after the Spanish Boundary Commissioner had failed in convincing the Carib Chiefs of “leaving their dwellings one, called the Carap, falls into it; the latter rises in the woods of the southern slope, and this stream has made the Caroni famous for its current”, which would have been based on “account[s] from various Indians who have recently come from the woods. The first was given to me by some Guaicas Barinagotos, through their missionary on the Yuruario, Father Thomas de San Pedro [probably the mission Ayma, see Section above], and the second by some Caribs, through their missionary in Aguacagua, on the eastern banks of the Caroni” (ibid, p. 112). The latter mission emerges in no other account of Capuchin missions and was therefore most probably abandoned soon after its establishment. 189 Ibid, pp. 110–112. 190 Taricura was the Carib Cacique, who had led the series of attacks upon Capuchin missions during the 1730s. 191 De Iturriaga, “Instructions to Alvarado”, Cattle Farm in Guayana, 20 April 1755, pp. 110–112. 192 De Itturiaga, “Report to Ricardo Wall”, Cabruta, 18 April 1760, pp. 183–184. Iturriaga had justified the armed expedition against the Caribs by quoting that the Caribs would have “made war upon other nations, took slaves and sent them to Essequibo, depopulating in this way the dominions of the king, whilst peopling the territories [terrenos] which the Dutch enjoy, and increasing their possessions”, while “(t)he Caribs in the settlements [missions] made repeated journeys to the dwellings in the woods, obtaining permission from their missionary fathers on the pretext of bringing to the settlement some of their relatives [. . .]. Some remained there and others returned to their settlements” (ibid.).

The Spatial Extensions of the Secret Boundary Expedition (1761–1770)

163

on the hills [. . .] and come to settle in the Missions” in exchange for presents, since the Caribs had “far from giving ear to my persuasions, have gone higher up beyond the falls of the Rivers Paragua, Aroi, and Caura”, and assertively also threatened to “take vengeance on the Spaniards who had subjected them to the Missions, and [they] were not wanting some who declared themselves king of the Caribs and king of the Orinoco” after the departure of the Boundary Commission (1761).193 In particular, Itturiaga had equipped each of the two expeditions with twelve Spaniards and twelve Caribs,194 who would have, most notably “without firing a gun or striking a blow”, seized “all those [Caribs] of Caura and all those of the Aroi [. . .] with the exception of those who were on expeditions for capturing slaves from other nations”, while “as many as eighty took flight” on the road to Pilar, “some from Caura had likewise gone to the neighbourhood of Essequibo, and the rest were moved to follow them”.195 Nevertheless, Itturiaga used the expeditions afterwards to claim that he had “tamed the pride of the said Indians and subdued and handed over many of them to the Missionaries [. . .] in order to more effectually restrain the advance of the conquests of that nation [sic!],” and to assert that he brought under Your Majesty’s dominion and [. . .] our holy Religion, the tribes of Indians ruling in that country, who not only had up to that time, with extraordinary valour and constancy, prevented the entry of the Spaniards on the Upper Orinoco, but also destroyed, in cruel and continual war, the other natives.196

Neil Whitehead is following the narrative of the Spaniard Itturiaga by suggesting that “the conquest of the Caribs of the Caura and Aro had been significantly proceeded during two expeditions of the Spanish Boundary Commission in 1760” and would have had been then “complete[d] in 1771 through forces sent in 1769/ 70 along the Orinoco” for making “the final entradas [. . .] against the Caribs of Quiriquiripa”, which the anthropologist determines as “the last independent groups on the Aro-Caura Rivers”.197 In contrast, the Council of the Indies still stated in 1776/77 that

193 De Itturiaga, “Report to Ricardo Wall”, Cabruta, 18 April 1760, p. 183. 194 Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, p. 127. 195 De Itturiaga, “Report to Ricardo Wall”, Cabruta, 18 April 1760, pp. 183–184. 196 Council of the Indies, “Report”, Madrid, 1776, p. 301. 197 Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, pp. 127–128; Whitehead, Conquest of the Caribs, pp. 215–216; 218.

164

Chapter 7 Violent Capuchin Removal and Spatial Extensions (1682–1817)

except the 30 leagues which the Catalonian Capuchin missionaries had penetrated in their district [. . .] there remained many hundreds of square leagues for us to settle and occupy, with great profit to the State and to Religion; but that to our misfortune it was all not only unknown to the Spaniards, but abandoned to foreign settlers, who became acquainted with the Caribs through the trade in slaves from the savage tribes which live in the centre of that extensive country, and by this reasons considerably increased their settlement on the sea coast and on the River Amazon, leaving us the land deserted and impossible for us to occupy in future.198

The Spanish Council then reasoned that “there neither were nor are in that Province Indians, who can be subdued and converted by words or preaching only” and suggested to apply “force and presents were necessary to bring them from the forests and keep them in civilized and Christian society”. Crucially, the Council of the Indies clearly distinguished between the practices of “conquest” and “pacification”. Whereas Neil Whitehead suggests that the Capuchin missionaries would have presented “agent[s] of conquest in this region”,199 the Capuchin removal expeditions were nevertheless authorized by the Capuchin Prefect and, despite the provision of soldiers by the governor, the missionaries acted on their own without financial support by the Spanish crown, while the “pacification” practices were not equated with the practice of a (lawful) Spanish “conquest”, as this had required the authorization of the Spanish king. Meanwhile, in 1769, the Spanish governor Manuel Centurion had ordered the establishment of two Spanish settlements in the direction towards the Paragua,200 whose Caribs would have had “proceeded to the River Parime [Uraricoera]” about April 1760.201 In 1769, the Spaniards built Fort Hipoqui202 on their way from Angostura to the Paragua by “allowance” of Centurion.203 Located 20 leagues south of Angostura,204 Hipoqui received royal approbation as a “constituted Spanish village” in 1770.205 Furthermore, Barceloneta was established “on the northern bank of the River Paragua, near the Island of Ypoqué [Hipoqui]”, situated from Angostura a “three and a-half days’ march”. Settled with “twelve

198 Council of the Indies, “Report”, Madrid, 1776, pp. 301–302. 199 Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, p. 19. 200 De Barcelona, “Memorandum”, 12 September 1770, p. 402. 201 Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, p. 128. 202 Prefect of Capuchin missions Fray Carlos de Barcelona, “Memorandum as to Condition of Capuchin missions in Guayana”, 12 September 1770, in: VEN, No. 417, p. 402. 203 Ibid. 204 De Barcelona, “Capuchin missions of Guayana” (map legend), 1771, p. 175. 205 De Barcelona, “Memorandum”, 12 September 1770, p. 402.

The Spatial Extensions of the Secret Boundary Expedition (1761–1770)

165

Spanish families (with a few Indians)” and mainly financed by the Royal Treasury with “some expenses to the Reverend community”, the Royal Crown had recognized Barceloneta as Capuchin settlement in May 1772,206 which was occupied until 1788 with 254 captured “Barinagotos”.207 In April 1791, however, the Capuchins renounced their claim as part of the authority dispute with the Spanish governor,208 and Barceloneta became the Spanish town “Barceloneta de Españoles” by 1813, with 494 Spaniards.209 In August 1791, the Catalonian Capuchins again refused to deliver all other missions,210 whereas the Jesuits had “handed over” their missions to Governor Centurion already in July 1772,211 after the Society of Jesus was generally ex-pulsed. 212 More precisely, the Jesuits had officially “evacuated” their missions in Upper Orinoco and Rio Negro in September 1771,213 but had commenced to leave the area already since February 1768, when the Dutch director-general in Essequibo had reported that four Jesuits would have “right up in Massaruni [. . .] have crossed the river and have made their way direct to the Amazon” in order “to get to Paraguay”, which had become necessary “after the arrest of their comrades in Guayana”.214 In contrast, the Catalonian Capuchins remained in the area until the Caroni missions were destroyed in the War of Independence about 1817, just after the Dutch had handed over their colonies of Essequibo, Demerara, and Berbice to the English in 1814, whose lawful appropriation is investigated in the following chapters 8–12.

206 King Charles III, “Consulta”, 21 May 1772, in: BB3, serial No. 30, Annex 1 (Spanish sources), pp. 296–297, at 296. 207 De Vich, “Table of the missions of the Reverend Father Capuchin of Catalonia of the Province of Guayana sent to Father Fray Joseph Cervera”, 31 August 1788, p. 324. 208 De Vich, “Report to Governor of Guayana Don Luis Antonio Gil”, Caroni, 16 April 1791, p. 123. 209 N. N., “Table of Capuchin missions of Guayana in the Lower Orinoco”, after 1813, p. 356; De Barcelona, “Capuchin missions of Guayana” (map legend), 1771, p. 175. The settlement is also known as Villa de San Isidore de la Barceloneta. 210 De Vich, “Report to Governor of Guayana Don Luis Antonio Gil”, Caroni, 16 April 1791, p. 123. 211 Council of the Indies, “Report”, Madrid, 1776, p. 300. 212 Ibid., p. 301. 213 Council of the Indies, “Report”, 16 February 1776 and 26 April 1777, p. 152. 214 Director General Essequibo, “Letter to West India Company”, 9 February 1768, in: BRC, serial No. 438, pp. 161–162.

Chapter 8 Dutch De Jure Myths (1581–1764) Based on the findings on European colonial law and Spanish colonial legal provisions between 1493 and 1573, this chapter examines the emerging subsequent legal provisions of famous Dutch jurist Hugo Grotius of 1609 (Mare Liberum) and 1625 (De Jure Belli ac Pacis), which present the most elaborated legal foundation of the seventeenth century and main legal source of the valid colonial law about occupation and treaty making. After a comparison of the Grotian and Vitorian legal thought and provisions, which concludes that Grotius deviates from Vitoria’s “just” war causes in one significant aspect, this chapter is investigating the reflection of the Grotian colonial law in the practices of the West India Company (WIC), established in 1621, then the practices of the Dutch on the Wild Coast and elsewhere until the disbandment of the first WIC in the early 1670s.

The Legal Writings of Hugo Grotius (1609–1630) Similar to the papal bulls of 1493 for the Columbus voyages, the legal writings of Hugo Grotius Mare Liberum and De Jure Belli ac Pacis provided the legal foundation for the first Dutch enterprises in the Americas and elsewhere, which commenced during the “Dutch revolt” against the Spanish Crown.1 Starting with the grant of the “deputies of the nobility” for the “first voyage to the Indies” to the English Captain Butz in June 15812 and followed by several voyages of Dutch merchants from Rotterdam, Amsterdam, Haarlem, Middelburg, and Eukhuizen to “the land of Guiana”3 between 1597 and 1604,4 a population project for Guiana

1 Armitage, “Introduction”, p. xii. 2 Along with those of “Dordrecht, Haarlem, Delft, Gouda, and Gorinchen” (Holland Estates, “Proceedings”, 1581, in: BC, No. 1, pp. 3–9, at 6). 3 Dutch States General, “Proceedings”, 1597, in: BC, No. 2, pp. 9–11, at 11; Holland Estates, “Proceedings”, 1597, in: BC, No. 3, pp. 11–12, at 11, respectively to the “country from the north coast of Brazil and the regions of Guiana” (Dutch States General, “Proceedings”, 1 March 1604, in: BC, No. 11, p. 36). 4 For example, those voyages were granted in September 1597 (Dutch States General, “Proceedings”, 1597, in: BC, No. 2, pp. 9–11), November 1598 (Dutch States General, “Proceedings”, 1598, in: BC, No. 4, pp. 12–13), and November 1599 (Dutch States General, “Proceedings”, 1599, in: BC, No. 6, pp. 22–23). See also Holland Estates, “Proceedings”, 1597, in: BC, No. 3, p. 11; Dutch States General, “Proceedings”, 1599, in: BC, No. 6, pp. 22–23; Zeeland Estates, “Proceedings”, 20 https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110690149-008

The Legal Writings of Hugo Grotius (1609–1630)

167

was, nevertheless, denied in 1603 after the Vereenigde Oostindische Compagnie (VOC) was established in March 1602,5 since the States General “cannot for the present take action on the matter”.6 Instead, the Geoctroyeerde Westindische Compagnie (WIC) was established in June 1621 by Willem Usselincx, after the end of the Twelve Years’ Truce with Spain in the same year (1621).7 Nevertheless, the Dutch were already present on the South American Wild Coast with tobacco plantations and forts in August 1613 and first short-term settlement in 1615 on the rivers Corentyne,8 Suriname, Cayenne, Wiapoco, and Amazon, some of them among Indigenous Peoples9 and had also entered the scene in North America in 1614 with New Netherland.10 In this context, Hugo Grotius was, with certainty, involved in the negotiations of both WIC and VOC. Notably, the Dutch jurist had participated in the

November 1599, No. 7, pp. 23–25, at 24; Dutch States General, “Proceedings about the Action relative to a certain Freedom of Convoy, provisionally granted by the States General, 1602, and awarded by the Admiralty of Amsterdam, 1604”, 10 July 1602/12 January 1604, in: BC, No. 8, pp. 25–26; W. Usselinx (?), “Memorial to the Dutch States General on the Colonization of Guiana”, 1603, in: BC, No. 9, pp. 27–36, at 27; Dutch States General, “Proceedings”, 25 February 1603, in: BC, No. 10, p. 36; Dutch States General, “Proceedings”, 1 March 1604, in: BC, No. 11, p. 36. The first full report of the Dutch voyages represents the so-called “Cabeliau report” of February 1599, which narrates the voyage of skipper Jacob Cornelisz. alias Oom from Schiedam between December 1597 and October 1598 (A. Cabeliau, “Report to the States General of the earliest Dutch voyage to the Coast of Guiana (3 December 1597–28 October 1598)”, 3 February 1599, in: BC, No. 5, pp. 13–22; the same report also in: BRC, serial No. 8, pp. 18–20). 5 Dutch States General, “Proceedings”, 25 February 1603, p. 36. 6 Ibid. The Dutch Original reads “populatie van Guiana” (ibid.). 7 M. J. van Ittersum, “The Long Goodbye: Hugo Grotius’ Justification of Dutch Expansion Overseas, 1615–1645”, History of European Ideas 36 (2010) 4, pp. 386–411, at 388. 8 Alternative spellings are Corentine or Corantijn. 9 Council of the Indies, “Report to King of Spain”, 29 July 1615, in: BRC, serial No. 17, pp. 43–44, at 43. In contrast, the Dutch settlement New Netherland on Manhattan island was established after the WIC establishment in 1621, as the “provisional order” for the settlement was granted in 1624 for “colonists going to New Netherland”, followed by “Instructions” and “Further Instructions” for the first (provisional) Director Willem Verhulst in 1625 (J. Schiltkamp, “On Common Ground. Legislation, Government, Jurisprudence, and Law in the Dutch West Indian Colonies: The Order of Government of 1629”, De Halve Maen LXX (Winter 1997) 4, pp. 73–80, at 73), which were followed by an agreement with the Lenape of Manhattan in 1626 (Banner, How the Indians Lost Their Land, pp. 19; 75; Jennings, The Invasion of America, p. 132). 10 The States General of the United Netherlands, “General Charter for Those Who Discover Any New Passages, Havens, Countries, or Places”, The Hague, 27 March 1614, Avalon Collection: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/charter_010.asp; States General of the United Netherlands, “Grant of Exclusive Trade to New Netherland”, 11 October 1614, The Hague, https://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/charter_011.asp.

168

Chapter 8 Dutch De Jure Myths (1581–1764)

founding negotiations of the WIC “until August 1618”11 and had also “cooperated closely” with the Dutch East India Company (VOC) between 1604–1615,12 leading to the publication of Mare Liberum as part of De Jure Pradae13 in 1604,14 at the request of the VOC, to legally dismiss Portuguese claims in the East Indies15 after the Dutch had seized the Portuguese carrack Santa Catarina in the Singapore Straits in 1603.16 Mare Liberum was published as monograph by Elzevier in 1609,17 wherein Hugo Grotius concludes that the Portuguese had “fail[ed]” in acquiring legal title to possession and obtaining the “right over the people, countries, and jurisdictions”.18 Moreover, Mare Liberum confirms the colonial legal provisions of the Spaniard Francisco de Vitoria by dismissing discovery (inventio) and res nullius as valid legal means of colonial appropriation,19 since “discovery per se gives no legal rights over things unless before the alleged discovery they were res nullius”,20 which does, most notably, not apply to areas of

11 Van Ittersum, “The Long Goodbye”, p. 386; Kambel and MacKay, The Rights of Indigenous Peoples and Maroons in Suriname, pp. 40–41. 12 Van Ittersum, “The Long Goodbye”, p. 386. Martine van Ittersum also points out that Grotius had continued during the truce period, “as the [VOC] Company’s spokesman and political adviser” and had acted as “chief negotiator” in the dispute with the English East India Company (EIC) in spring 1613 in London and in this context had prepared all the Dutch memoranda and “the final report for the States General” (ibid., pp. 388–389). 13 David Armitage in this context emphasizes that Grotius initially named the work De rebus Indicis (On the Affairs of the Indies), which was renamed by the first editor in De Jure Praedae Commentarius (Commentary on the Law of Prize and Booty) (Armitage, “Introduction”, p. xiii). In addition, van Ittersum revealed that this Commentary was only discovered in 1864 and “[i]ts sole surviving copy is Ms. BPL 917 in Leiden University Library”, representing “an autograph of 163 folios” (Van Ittersum, “The Long Goodbye”, p. 388). 14 Ibid. See also Kambel and MacKay, The Rights of Indigenous Peoples and Maroons in Suriname, p. 41, while David Armitage asserts that “[i]ndeed, it was at the insistence of the Zeeland Chamber of the VOC in the autumn of 1608 that Grotius prepared Mare Liberum for publication, just as it had been at the VOC’s behest that he had originally written it as part of a larger work in 1604” (Armitage, “Introduction”, p. xii). 15 Ibid., p. 14. 16 Van Ittersum, “The Long Goodbye”, p. 388. 17 Armitage, “Introduction”, p. xi. 18 Grotius, Mare Liberum. p. 20. Examining the three components possession, navigation, and trade, Grotius also argued that the “Portugals” had not acquired an exclusive right to navigating the sea (p. 38) and also not the right for exclusively trading with the Indians (Grotius, Mare Liberum, pp. 52–57). 19 Hugo Grotius specifies the area as “Java, Tobrobana and the greatest part of the Moluccas”, whereas the second usual refers to Ceylon/Sri Lanka, but, as David Armitage notes, was applied by Hugo Grotius as reference to Sumatra (Armitage, “Introduction”, p. 13, Annotations). 20 Kambel and MacKay, The Rights of Indigenous Peoples and Maroons in Suriname, p. 41.

The Legal Writings of Hugo Grotius (1609–1630)

169

“native rulers”.21 Grotius reasons that “[t]hese islands [. . .] always had their kings, their commonwealth, their laws and their liberties”, wherefore “the Portugals are not lords of those parts wither the Hollanders go” and “have no right of dominion over those Indians”, as “no man is lord of that thing which neither he himself ever possessed nor any other in his name”.22 Hence, Grotius insists that “neither the substance nor jurisdiction of the Indians should be accounted in that nature as if they had been no man’s before”. Confirming Francisco Vitoria’s legal provision of the sixteenth century, Grotius, furthermore, emphasized that they have “both publicly and privately authority over their own substance and possessions, which without just cause could not be taken from them”.23 Hugo Grotius elaborated the “just” causes of “conquest” as early as 1625 in his eponymous legal treatise De Jure Belli ac Pacis,24 which were categorized as (1) self-defense,25 (2) recovery of property as as “the obtaining of that which belongs to us or is our due”26 and (3) punishment as “a return for a crime”.27 In result, Hugo Grotius confirms some of the most relevant of Vitoria’s eight “just” causes of war, such as the prohibition of commerce, which was rejected by his

21 Armitage, “Introduction”, p. xv. The Dutch jurist reaffirmed this in “The Law of War and Peace” of 1625 by stating that “discovery” only applies “to those things [sic!] which belong to no one” [res nullius] (Grotius, The Law of War and Peace, Book 2, chapter 22, “On Unjust Causes of Wars”, para IX). See Gilbert, Indigenous Peoples’ Land Rights, p. 48. 22 Grotius, Mare Liberum, p. 13. At the same time, Grotius reaffirms Vitoria (chapter 3) by likewise rejecting the legal validity of papal donations, since the pope had no authority to grant the Portuguese any “right of dominion over the Indians by title” (Grotius, Mare Liberum, pp. 15–16; 17; 38). 23 Ibid., pp. 14; 20. Lindley, Backward Territory, p. 13, who indicated that “Grotius followed Vi [c]toria in maintaining that the Spaniards had no right to take the Indians’ territory” (ibid.). Instead, Grotius determines it as “shameless [. . .] to claim for oneself by right of discovery what is held by another” (Grotius, The Law of War and Peace, Book 2, chapter 22, “On Unjust Causes of Wars,” Part IX). See Lindley, Backward Territory, pp. 13–14; Doyle, Title to Territory, pp. 38–39. 24 Nonetheless, Grotius dismissed a Portuguese title based on conquest in Mare Liberum, since the Portuguese “had no war at that time with many nations to whom the Hollanders went and so therefore no right could be gotten to them” (Grotius, Mare Liberum, p. 15). 25 Grotius clarifies that self-defence is not applicable as just cause for a public war, when the war “has as its only purpose to weaken the power of a neighbour” even it “growing power” would be “a source of danger” since “complete security is never guaranteed to us” (Grotius, The Law of War and Peace, Book 2, chapter 1, “The Causes of War: First, Defence of Self and Property”, Part XVII) and also prohibited for the party “who has himself given just cause for war” since “[h]e who has done injury to another ought first to offer satisfaction to him whom he has injured” (ibid., Part XVIII). 26 Ibid., Part II. 27 Ibid., chapter 20, “On Punishments”, Part I.

170

Chapter 8 Dutch De Jure Myths (1581–1764)

Portuguese contemporary Serafim De Freitas,28 and the punishment of cannibalism by war “against those who eat human Flesh”, which was perceived as a violation of the law of nature.29 More general, Grotius also indicates that in case of a “just” cause of war (conquest), the victor legally acquires both property and sovereignty, since “(j)ust as private property can be acquired by means of a war that is lawful [. . .], so by the same means public authority, or the right of governing, can be acquired”,30 which includes “both the right of him who rules over a people and the right, which the people itself has in the sovereign power; only in so far, however, as is permitted by the measure of the penalty which arises from a crime, or of some other form of debt”.31 Nonetheless, the area would be only “regarded as captured”, when “surrounded by permanent fortifications that the other party will have no access to it openly unless these have first been taken”.32 Likewise, Hugo Grotius agrees with Vitoria on some “unjust” causes of war, such as the “desire for richer land”,33 the punishment of infidels,34 and the denial of Christianity,35 since “[w]ars cannot justly be waged against those who are unwilling to accept the Christian religion”.36 However, the Dutchmen significantly differs from Vitoria in the central aspect of the spread of Christianity as “just” cause of waging war, which Vitoria had declared as “just” in the cases, when Indigenous Peoples hinder the preaching of the Gospel or conversion, which is clearly rejected by Hugo Grotius, since “[w]ar cannot be justly made against those who refuse to embrace the Christian Religion” and also dismisses “the Use of compulsive Means, in gaining Converts to Christianity”, since “it

28 Doyle, Title to Territory, pp. 38–39; 42. Almost a century later, John Locke in his Two Treaties of Government of 1690 indicated that the conqueror in a “just cause” war is acquiring “a despotic right over the persons of all those who actually aided and supported the war against him”, but this appropriation is not extending to “the children of the captives” and in the case that the conqueror “tries to take their properties, he is an aggressor, and thereby puts himself into a state of war against them” (J. Locke, Second Treatise of Government, 1650, www.earlymoderntexts.com/ assets/pdfs/locke1689a.pdf [accessed 18 September 2018], chapter 16, pp. 58–65, para. 196). 29 Grotius, The Law of War and Peace, Book 2, chapter 10, “On Punishments”, Part X, para 3. 30 Ibid., Book 1, chapter 3, “Distinction Between Public and Private War”, Part VIII. 31 Ibid., Book 3, chapter 15, “Moderation in the Appropriation of Sovereignty”, Para III. 32 Ibid., chapter 6, “On The Right of Acquiring Things Taken in War”, Part IV. 33 Ibid., Book 2, chapter 22, “On Unjust Causes of Wars”, Part VIII. 34 Grotius, Mare Liberum, p. 15. 35 Grotius, The Law of War and Peace, Book 2, chapter 20, “On Punishments”, Part XLVIII. 36 Ibid., chapter 20, “On Punishments”, Part XLVIII. This was already emphasized in his earlier book of 1609 (Grotius, Mare Liberum, pp. 10; 19).

The Legal Writings of Hugo Grotius (1609–1630)

171

was not the Intention of the Author of Christianity, that any should be forced by temporal Punishments”.37 In general, Martine van Ittersum questions the application of the conquest practice by the Dutch in the Americas, since the Grotian conceptualization of the “Dutch empire” would have been “maritime and mercantile”, not “territorial”38 and his vision more of the kind of the “hit-and-run raids of Dutch privateers in the East and West Indies”,39 as Grotius still in the 1640s indicated that “his compatriots had ventured into the East and West Indies as merchants, not conquerors”, while it would be also “doubtful that the places where they had set up shop could be considered conquests”.40 Therefore, van Ittersum implicitly points to Grotius’ overlooked distinction between “conquest” and “occupation” as legal means of acquisition, which crucially differ in what was appropriated. At the same time, the legal means of “occupation” unquestionably also presents a notable distinction between Vitoria and Grotius, which the Dutch jurist has extensively elaborated.41 Introduced in Mare Liberum to dismiss the legal claim of the Portuguese, since they “lacked ‘garrisons’ over there” and therefore have “no ‘right to dominion’ in the East Indies”, Grotius reaffirmed “occupation” in his “legal opinion of March 1632”42 and also in De Jure Belli ac Pacis by carefully distinguishing between property and sovereignty, which the Dutchman considers as “distinct”.43 Hence, Grotius most striking determines that occupation only lawfully acquires land as property, not sovereignty or jurisdiction.44 Based on the assumption that occupation has replaced the division in

37 Grotius, Law of War and Peace, Book 2, chapter 10, “On Punishments”, Part XLVIII, para 1. 38 Van Ittersum, “The Long Goodbye”, p. 387. 39 Ibid., p. 408. 40 Ibid. Van Ittersum suggests that this was arguably based on de facto events, namely that “[t]he WIC conquests in Brazil did not last long enough to convince him otherwise” and he “did give any thought to Dutch settlement in the Hudson valley” (ibid.). 41 In contrast, in the legal writings of Vitoria “occupation” plays only a marginal role, but already suggests what Grotius elaborated more precisely (Vitoria, On American Indians, p. 279, para 2). See chapter 3. 42 Van Ittersum, “The Long Goodbye”, pp. 397–398. 43 Grotius, The Law of War and Peace, Book 2, chapter 3, “Of Original appropriation of Things, With Special Reference to the Sea and Rivers”, Part IV. 44 Grotius defines sovereignty as “actions”, which “are not subject to the legal control of another”(Grotius, The Law of War and Peace, Book 1, chapter 3, “Distinction Between Public and Private War; Explanation of Sovereignty”, Part V), which includes “the right of eminent domain [. . .] but also full private ownership”, which would be “first acquired in common for the state or its head” and then distributed “individually to private persons”(Grotius, The Law of War and Peace, Book 2, chapter 3, “Of Original appropriation of Things, With Special Reference to the Sea and Rivers”, Part XIX), while also indicating that “the common subject of

172

Chapter 8 Dutch De Jure Myths (1581–1764)

acquiring an “undivided whole”, occupation in the Grotian legal thought acquires “private ownership” for “a thing which has definite limits”45 and “is ordinarily employed by a people, or by the ruler of a people”,46 whereupon the acquired limited area is divided among individuals. Most notable, Grotius remarks that even if the area is not occupied yet, it “ought not [. . .] to be considered as unoccupied property; for it remains subject to the ownership of the first occupant, whether a people or a king”,47 which applies also, if the limited occupied area has “not yet been assigned to individual owners”, since the area is still occupied “in respect to sovereignty, which remains unimpaired in favour of the original people”,48 who are still holding “(t)he jurisdiction over the lands” and the control over the “territory” from which “[the lands] were taken [by occupation]”.49 Consequently, this overlooked legal provision implies that the Dutch in cases of occupation just acquire “private ownership” of an occupied limited area, while sovereignty and jurisdiction remains with the Indigenous Peoples,50 who are clearly recognizes as rulers and lords by Hugo Grotius. Finally, the Dutchman enshrines the conclusion of treaties and agreements as third legal means of colonial appropriation, whereas the Spaniard Vitoria considers this as “unjust” means in times of war. Nevertheless, Grotius considers them as

sovereignty is the state”, defined as “perfect association” (ibid., Book 1, chapter 3, “Distinction Between Public and Private War; Explanation of Sovereignty”, Part VII) of “many fathers of families unit[ing] into a single people”(ibid., Book 2, chapter 5, “On the Original appropriation of Rights Over Persons”, Part XXIII). 45 Grotius, The Law of War and Peace, Book 2, chapter 2, “Of Things Which Belong to Men in Common”, Part III, paras 2–3. 46 Ibid., Part II, para 5. 47 Ibid., Part IV. 48 Ibid., Part XVII. 49 Grotius, The Law of War and Peace, Book 2, chapter 3, “Of Original appropriation of Things, With Special Reference to the Sea and Rivers”, Part IV, para 2. Moreover, Mark Lindley already in 1926 raised awareness for this striking difference by indicating that “[f]rom one part of ‘De jure belli ac Pacis’ (1625), it might appear that Grotius held the view that the sovereignty over inhabited lands could be acquired by occupation [. . .], [b]ut later on he states that governments are not occupiable” (Lindley, Backward Territory, pp. 13–14). 50 Moreover, Grotius (same as Vitoria) is refuting the applicability of res nullius, as the Dutch legal scholar considers the appropriation of property based “on the notion that merely because somebody takes something [implies that] it becomes hers or his” would represent “theft” (Fitzmaurice, Sovereignty, Property, p. 24), wherefore the appropriation of property by Europeans in the Americas and elsewhere requires the consent of Indigenous Peoples in the form of agreements or treaties (ibid). See Gilbert, Indigenous Peoples’ Land Rights, p. 12; Armitage, “Introduction”, p. xv; Doyle, Title to Territory, p. 42; Pagden, “Dispossessing the Barbarians”, pp. 80–81; Van Ittersum, “The Long Goodbye”, p. 393.

The Legal Writings of Hugo Grotius (1609–1630)

173

“entirely lawful” with regard to movable property, since monopoly contracts “with another [nation] to purchase all the commodities of a particular kind, which are the produce of that country only”, on the condition that “the buyer should be willing to sell on these goods ‘at a reasonable rate’” and as long as those “monopoly contracts to be valid” were “not involv[ing] necessities of life, but only goods traded for ‘mere profit’”.51 In addition, Grotius also indicates that it would be lawful to exchange produce for alliances in times of war, which the Dutchman exemplifies in the case of the “hard-pressed Ternatans”, whose “‘king and chief nobles’ [. . .] had been so overburdened by ‘the most grievous and dangerous wars of the Spaniards’” and had, in exchange for an alliance with the Dutch, therefore “signed over to the VOC all present and future clove harvests”. The argument was reaffirmed by Grotius during the VOC negotiations with the English in April 1613, as exclusive trade contracts were “particularly appropriate when ‘a nation’ extended protection to ‘the people with whom they ma[d]e such a contract’, as this would incur ‘extraordinary expense’”,52 and again in De Jure Belli ac Pacis, since it would be “lawful”, to exchange the protection of “one people to anticipate another in obtaining a pecuniary advantage, especially of there is a reason; as, for instance, if the people which has obtained the concession has taken to the other under its protection and on that account is incurring expense”. Notable, those contracts exclusively acquired movable property, not immovable land, sovereignty, or jurisdiction. Nonetheless, Grotius in De Jure belli ac Pacis53 also indicates that property in general might be lawfully alienated by the “consent” of the provider in “either words or other external signs”, while “in some places it is the custom to require a declaration in the presence of the people, or before a magistrate, and insertion in the public records”, whereas “a mental act of will is not sufficient”. In the same manner, the Dutch legal scholar also recognizes the alienation of sovereignty “in its entirety” by treaty or agreement as lawful, provided the sovereignty is alienated “by the one under whose control it in reality is; that is [. . .] by the king, if he holds the sovereignty by inheritance, otherwise by the people, but with the

51 Van Ittersum, “The Long Goodbye”, p. 393. Martine van Ittersum refers to Grotius basic assumption that “[n]obody was at liberty to ‘hinder one nation from trading with another distant nation’”, wherefore “[f]ree passage should be granted to both persons and merchandise” (ibid.). 52 Ibid. This support was said to have been conducted with “‘strong ships, open warre, taking some forts from the Portugals and partly by building some others, at [the inhabitants’] entreaty’” (ibid.). 53 Grotius, The Law of War and Peace, Book 2, chapter 2, “Of Things Which Belong to Men in Common”, Part XXIV.

174

Chapter 8 Dutch De Jure Myths (1581–1764)

consent of the king, because he also has a certain right as possessor of a kind of life interest which ought not to be taken away against his will”. Crucially, Grotius also emphasizes that the alienation of “sovereignty over a part of a people cannot be alienated by the people against the will of the part”, whose “consent” would be required, while “in turn it is not right for a part to withdraw from the body unless it is evident that it cannot save itself in any other way”.54 In short, Hugo Grotius recognizes three legal means of Dutch colonial appropriation, namely conquest, occupation, and treaty making (alienation by consent). While Grotius most significantly differs from Vitoria in his clear rejection of punishments for the refusal of Christianity as “just” cause of waging war, the Dutchman also clearly distinguishes between property, sovereignty, and jurisdiction, which are acquired by “conquest” or treaty alienation, whereas occupation just acquires land as property. The following Section examines the reflection of the Grotian legal provisions in the practices of the WIC by investigating the WIC Charter (1621), the Order of Government (1629) and the WIC practices on the “Wild Coast”.

The Grotian Legal Thought and WIC Practices (1621–1752) Although Grotius did not share the “fear that a new, chartered company would endanger the Twelve Years’ Truce [with Spain]”,55 the WIC only came into being after the Truce on 1 July 1621 and, on the basis of the Charter of 3 June 1621, to monopolize “navigation, trade and commerce” in Americas and elsewhere,56 after Dutch private merchants had been travelling to the “Indies” since June 1581 54 Grotius, The Law of War and Peace, Book 2, chapter 6, “On Secondary Appropriation of Property by the Act of Man; Alienation of Sovereignty; The Attributes of Sovereignty”, Part III. 55 Van Ittersum, “The Long Goodbye”, p. 388. Moreover, the Dutch legal scholar Hugo Grotius in 1618 changed his position several times, since in July 1618 he raised scepticism about the WIC scheme, questioned “the motives of its promoters, in particular [of WIC founder] Willem Usselinx” and in general dismissed it “as nothing more than a flimsy excuse for outright piracy”, but in December of the same year 1618 “emphatically denied that he had ever prevented Usselinx from submitting his plans to the provincial and federal authorities” and “had laboured for their rejection”. Hence, Grotius “had spoken many times in the States of Holland in favour of the WIC’s establishment” and presented arguments “in favour of the WIC” (Van Ittersum, “The Long Goodbye”, p. 391). 56 The States General of the United Netherlands, “Charter of the Dutch West India Company”, The Hague, 3 June 1621, in: BRC, serial No. 18, pp. 44–46, at 44. Willem Usselinck had shortly afterwards also established the Swedish equivalent on behalf of the Swedish king Gustav Adolf (King Gustav II Adolph, “Warrant for William Ussling to Establish a General Company for Trade to Asia, Africa, America and Magellanica”, Stockholm, 21 December 1624, Avalon Collection: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/charter_012.asp).

The Grotian Legal Thought and WIC Practices (1621–1752)

175

and to “Guiana” since 1597, and ventures to “populate the coasts of Guiana in America” were rejected by the States General in 160357 because they “cannot for the present take action on the matter”:58 Nevertheless, attempts were made to establish Dutch settlements on the Wild Coast from August 1613 onwards. The States General of the United Provinces granted the West India Company to carry on “profitable business [. . .], protected and maintained in the parts hereafter enumerated” for twenty-four years by the WIC Charter at The Hague on 3 June 1621. This Charter spatially defined the area in which trade should only be permitted with the consent of WIC, as encompassing “the West Indies, Africa, and other countries”, that is “the coasts and lands of Africa, from the Tropic of Cancer to the Cape of Good Hope” and “the countries of America and the West Indies”, extending from the “southern extremity of Newfoundland through the Straits of Magellan, Le Maire, and other straits and channels lying thereabouts, to the Strait of Anjan”, including the North and South Sea and “any of the islands situated either on the one side or the other, or between them both”, as well as “the Australian and southern lands extending and lying between the two meridians, reaching the east of the Cape of Good Hope, and in the west to the east end of New Guinea, inclusive”.59 Thus, the “Wild Coast” in northeastern South America was reserved exclusively for servants of WIC Zeeland, with the exception of Abraham van Pere in Berbice. This was reaffirmed in June 1634,60 May 1635,61 June 1635, and

57 W. Usselinx (?), “Memorial to the Dutch States General on the Colonization of Guiana”, 1603, in: BC, No. 9, pp. 27–36, at 27. The Dutch original reads “de populatie van de costen van Guiana in America” (ibid.). 58 Dutch States General, “Proceedings”, 25 February 1603, p. 36. 59 States-General, “WIC Charter”, The Hague, 3 June 1621, pp. 44–45. 60 West India Company (Zeeland Chamber), “Proceedings”, 29 June 1634, in: BRC, serial No. 34, p. 74; West India Company, “Proceedings”, 1634–1636, in: BC, No. 23, pp. 69–72. According to Cornelis Goslinga, the exclusive rights were challenged by the Amsterdam Chamber of the WIC, who had threatened to repeat the effort of Theodore Claessen by sending their own colonists to Cayenne in 1634 (Goslinga, Wild Coast, p. 417). 61 West India Company (Zeeland Chamber), “Proceedings”, 21 May 1635, in: BRC, serial No. 35, p. 75. Therefore, the WIC in Zeeland indicated that trade was only permitted for those “who have there such interests as the Councilor de Moor [of Tobago], but without any body further being at liberty to navigate there” (West India Company, “Proceedings”, 1634–1636, p. 70). Furthermore, the WIC indicated that “the trade to the Wild Coast shall be done by the Company alone, and by no private individuals” (ibid.).

176

Chapter 8 Dutch De Jure Myths (1581–1764)

June 1636.62 Nevertheless, exceptions were made in May 1632 and July 1633 due to current events and circumstances, when free navigation was temporarily permitted “to the coast of Brazil; item, in the West Indies, to wit, the River Oronocque westwards along the coast of Carthagena, Portobello, Honduras, Campeche, the Gulf of Mexico, and the coast of Florida, together with all the islands lying within the boundaries [limiten]” for the military reason “to injure and offer hostility to the King of Spain, his subjects, and adherents, both on land and water”.63 Moreover, free trade was permitted in August 1648 for “all ships in the respective provinces, either armed or unarmed [. . .] to sail for private trade in timber, salt, tobacco, cotton, or other wares and products there obtainable to a certain area within the Charter of the West India Company”.64 Crucially, it instead remained prohibited “to go east along the Wild Coast, much less to the Amazon or the Maransan [sic!], or further north than Cape Florida [. . .] under the penalty that whoever shall be found to do or to have done contrary to this shall confiscate both ship and cargo”,65 wherefore the Orinoco became the boundary of Dutch free trade and the “Wild Coast” until the Amazon remained reserved for the WIC.

62 West India Company (Zeeland Chamber), “Proceedings”, 14 May 1637, serial No. 36, p. 75, 2 June 1636: “[The Deputies] shall also come prepared to consider and, if need be, to amend the Regulations for the management of New Netherland, Curaçao, Cape Verde Senegal, Gambia, Sierra Leone, the Wild Coast, Fernando Noronho, and the Colonies planted here and there; and to this end each from his own Chamber will bring with him all books and papers for information thereon”. 63 Dutch States General, “Orders and Regulations”, 14 May 1632 and 15 July 1633, in: BRC, serial No. 33, p 73. In contrast, sailing to the coasts of Africa or New Netherland remained prohibited. 64 Accordingly, the States General kept permitting “private trade in timber, salt, tobacco, cotton, or other wares and products” in the area “from the River Oronocque westwards along the coasts of Paria, Cumaná, Venezuela” (West India Company, “Proceedings”, 1630–1632, in: BC, No. 21, p. 65), “Carthagena, Portobello, Honduras, Campeche, the Gulf of Mexico, and the coasts of Florida, as well as between and around all the islands situated in those parts, including even Curaçao, Buenayre, and Aruba”, while strictly and explicitly prohibiting the Wild Coast until the Amazon (Maransan) and north of Cape Florida. At the same time, as it was also prohibited “without permission to come on any account whatever, or in any manner, to the Virginias, New Netherlands, Nova Francia, and other places situated thereabouts, or to sail to or along the coasts of Africa, Brazil, or anywhere else where the Company has trade, under [. . .] penalty” (Dutch States General, “Resolution”, 10 August 1648, in: BRC, serial No. 55, pp. 135–138, at 136). 65 Ibid.

The Grotian Legal Thought and WIC Practices (1621–1752)

177

Reaffirmed in the unmodified Charter of 4 July 1647, which was granted for “twenty-five consecutive years”,66 both the renewed Charter of 23 January 166467 and the subsequent Charter of the second WIC of 20 September 1674,68 which was adopted after a provisional period and discussions since June 1669,69 had replaced the “Wild Coast” with “Isekepe and Bauwmerona [Pomeroon], situated on the continent of America, as well as the Islands of Curaçao, Aruba, and Buonnaire”.70 Prior, in relation to New Netherlands, the States General had also claimed in January 1664 that the WIC “in conformity with the aforementioned Charter, was empowered, and still is empowered, to establish Colonies and settlements of people on lands which are not occupied by others”.71 Therefore, the WIC Charter of 1621 had in the Grotian spirit emphasized the legal means of treaty making and occupation by instructing its servants “to make in our name and authority within the limits set forth above, contracts, leagues and alliances with the Princes and natives of the lands therein comprised” to “hand over such contracts and alliances [. . .] made with the aforesaid Princes and nations together with the situation of the fortresses, strongholds, and settlements taken in hand by them” and to “build there some fortresses and strongholds”.

66 Dutch States General, “Continuation of the Charter of the West India Company”, 4 July 1647, in: BRC, serial No. 53, pp. 132–133, at 132. The WIC Charter was already provisionally “prolong[ed] and renew[ed]” on 22 March 1646 to run into effect on 1 January 1647 (Dutch States General, “Continuation of the Charter of the West India Company”, 4 July 1647, in: BB3, serial No. 6, p. 56). 67 Dutch States General, “Renewal of the Charter of the West India Company”, in: BRC, serial No. 70, pp. 150–152, at 151. 68 Dutch States General, “Charter of the New West India Company”, 20 September 1674, in: BRC, serial No. 85, pp. 173–175. 69 G. L. Burr, “Territorial Rights of the Dutch West India Company”, Washington, April 1896, in: BC, pp. 97–119, at 103, footnote 1. According to George Lincoln Burr, the long period of negotiations before the renewal of the WIC Charter was caused by the uncertain situation of New Netherland, as “[o]n April 2, 1674, this provincial body submitted to the States General another draft, in which to the two places on the American mainland, Essequibo and Pomeroon, was added New Netherland (which the Amsterdamers still hoped to regain from the English), and also a provision that the new West India Company might retain ‘such further places and districts on the American mainland as it should take actual possession of by the creation of forts, warehouses, or established trade’” (ibid.). 70 Dutch States General, “Charter of the New West India Company”, 20 September 1674, pp. 173–175. See also chapters 9, 10, and 12. Also designated were “the coasts and lands of Africa, reckoning from the Tropic of Cancer to the height of 30° south [sic!] of the Equator, with all the islands in that district lying off the aforesaid coasts, and particularly the Islands of St. Thomé [sic!], Annebon, Isle of Prinicpe, and Fernando Polo” (ibid.). 71 Dutch States General, “Renewal of the Charter of the West India Company”, in: BRC, serial No. 70, pp. 150–152, at 150–151.

178

Chapter 8 Dutch De Jure Myths (1581–1764)

Moreover, the WIC Charter had also ordered to “appoint governors, soldiers, and officers of justice”, and more generally, to “do everything necessary for the preservation of the places and the maintenance of good order, police, and justice”, and what “the welfare of the land and the profit and increase of trade shall require”,72 which in terms of the colonial practices of occupation and purchase agreements violates the sovereignty and jurisdiction of the respective Indigenous Peoples, as both practices only legally acquire land as property. Accordingly, the Order of San Salvador of 1 November 1624,73 which served as a “blueprint” for the Order of Government of 16 October 1629 and was intended to establish a “central government” and unified “Dutch laws and legal institutions [. . .] for all Dutch colonies in the Americas”,74 again emphasized the conclusion of treaties and agreements in Article 15 of 69 Articles and mainly included legal provisions on criminal law, marriage practices, and the alienation of property,75 based on the schependomsrecht of North Holland and northern South Holland (“the properties return to the line whence they came”) of 1580. The aasdomsrecht of Zeeland and South Holland (“the next in blood inherits the properties”), on the other hand, was applied “in various colonies from the very beginning”, in Berbice in 1732, in Curaçao in 1752, and in all colonies in 1774. The aasdomsrecht had already been applied by the VOC in the East Indies since January 1661,76 on the basis of Grotius’ legal opinion of March 1640 on the inheritance of a Zeeland-born VOC merchant of Batavia (Jakarta) and of April 1640 on the legal provisions of “last wills and testaments drawn up in barbaric lands (barbarische landen)”,77 which reaffirmed the legal provisions of De Jure Belli ac Pacis of 1625.78

72 States General, “WIC Charter”, The Hague, 3 June 1621, pp. 44–46. The Dutch original reads “authoriteijt binnen de Limiten”, respectively “sal mogen maecken Contracten, Verbintenissen ende Alliancien met de Princen ende Naturalen vande Landen daer inne begrepen”, respectively “Cantracten ende Alliancien als sy mette voorschreve Princen ende Natien” and “van vructbare ende onbewoonde Quartieren” (ibid.). 73 The cases of San Salvador (1624), Recife, and Olina (since 1630) are often erroneously indicated as Dutch “conquest” (Van Ittersum, “The Long Goodbye”, p. 401; Schiltkamp, “On Common Ground”, p. 73), since the Dutch had captured Portuguese forts. However, this does not refer to Indigenous Peoples. Moreover, it says nothing about, what the Portuguese had actually lawfully acquired from the Indigenous Peoples. 74 Schiltkamp, “On Common Ground”, pp. 73–74. 75 Ibid., pp. 77–80. 76 Ibid., p. 78, footnote 32. 77 Van Ittersum, “The Long Goodbye”, p. 401. 78 Grotius, The Law of War and Peace, Book 2, chapter 9, “When Sovereignty or Ownership Ceases”, Part XII. Precisely, Grotius indicates that “[i]t is clear legal principle that the person of

The Grotian Legal Thought and WIC Practices (1621–1752)

179

Despite the failure of the unification of all Dutch colonies in the Americas,79 the WIC servants concluded several agreements in North America, based on the WIC order of 1625 to the first governor of New Netherland, Willem Verhulst, “that the Indians should not be deprived of their land”, but instead be persuaded “with good words” to draw up a contract and had that contract signed “according to their custom”,80 since “such contracts may be very useful to the Company on other occasions”.81 However, those contracts were purchase agreements of land as property in nature, as exemplified by the first agreement between the German governor of New Netherland Peter Minuit and the Lenape of Manhattan about 4 May 1626.82 Rather vaguely documented by a short comment in the letter of Peter Schaghen to the States General of 5 November 1626, which reads: “hebben t’eylant Manhattes van de wilde gekocht, voor de waerde van 60 guld: is groot 11000 morgen” (have bought the island of Manhattan from the savages for worth 60 guilders; it is 11,000 morgen in size),83 the notification clearly indicates that the agreement was transferring land as property by purchase, which is confirmed by Stuart Banner, who emphasized that the Lenape “don’t seem to have vacated the island afterwards”.84 In addition, WIC agreements had been concluded with the “the grand sachem of the Pequot Indians” for the upper Connecticut Valley in 1633,85 but also on the African coast of Guinea between 1642 and 1656.86 This practice was confirmed on 27 August 1648,

the heir is considered the same as the person of the deceased in all that concerns the continuation of ownership of both public and private property” (ibid.). 79 Schiltkamp, “On Common Ground”, p. 75. Nevertheless, Jacob Schiltkamp claims that the legal provisions of the Order of Government of 1629 would have had remained in force for “almost 300 years”, as the “last elements of the Order” vanished in the three former Dutch colonies Berbice, Essequibo, and Demerara only in 1917 (ibid., p. 74). 80 Ibid., p. 78. 81 West India Company, “Instructions of 1625”, in: Jennings (ed.), Invasion of America, p. 132 (emphasis added). 82 Banner, How the Indians Lost Their Lands, pp. 19, 75; Jennings (ed.), Invasion of America, p. 132. 83 Peter Schaghen, “Letter to the Dutch States General (5 November 1626)”, available from http://www.lettersofnote.com/2011/07/sale-of-manhattan.html (accessed 29 July 2018). 84 Banner, How the Indians Lost Their Land, pp. 75–76. 85 Jennings, Invasion of America, p. 134. For the treaty making practice of the Dutch in the East Indies, see Armitage, “Introduction”, p. xv. 86 Nationaal Archief The Hague (hereafter HaNA), West India Company, “Contracts met Koning van Groot Accra Ochien”, 30 August 1642 and 4 August 1649, OWIC, 1.05.01.01, IN12; HaNA, Hoofdlieden Joumoree “Eed van Trouw”, 16 January 1650, OWIC, 1.05.01.01, inv.nr. 13A, NA; HaNA, Opperhoofden van Anta en Boutrij, “Eed van Trouw aan de Staten-Generaal”, 27 August 1656, OWIC, 1.05.01.01, inv.nr. 13A, NA. According to Jacob Schiltkamp, those contracts

180

Chapter 8 Dutch De Jure Myths (1581–1764)

when New Netherlands governor Johannes de Laet was instructed by the Dutch States General, in accordance with Article 2 of the WIC Charter of 1621, to deliver “unto the assembly authentic copies of such treaties, contracts, and capitulations as the said West India Company hath made and concluded with the kings, princes, and potentates within the limits of their charter”, the “authentic copies” of which were intended to “be locked up and preserved”.87 Occupied at the same time, the WIC practices on the “Wild Coast” are presenting an exceptional case, since treaties or agreements with Indigenous Peoples are not recorded for the period of the first WIC between 1621 and 1674 and no conquest attempt took place. Therefore, the Dutch appropriation practice on the “Wild Coast” since August 1613, including Essequibo (1616/1624) and Berbice (1627), was limited to occupation, which lawfully acquired land as property, but not sovereignty or jurisdiction. Hence, the non-acquisition of Dutch jurisdiction and sovereignty on the “Wild Coast” between the Orinoco and Amazon is reflected in the “Conditions for Colonists” for the “Wild Coast and adjacent islands” of 12 June 1627, which omitted the insertion of jurisdictional rights.88 By contrast, the “Conditions” for the “Wild Coast of Brazil” of 22 November 1628 had included the same, namely the right of “intermediate and inferior” jurisdiction, the grant about an area of seven or eight Dutch miles as an “everlasting hereditary fief” and the legal provisions about inherited property, but instead in Article 9 had instructed that “[t]hose who send over this colony, shall provide it with proper instructions, in order that it may be governed and ruled in accordance with the law of the land”.89 Moreover, the “Order of San Salvador” of 1624 reflected the different reality in Brazil, since the legal provisions of Article 43 distinguished were “called a ‘pen’”, which “laid down the mutual rights and obligations of both parties”, while “[t]he head of the tribe, who had different titles, depending on the tribe, like king, caboceer, etc., had to swear according to the customs of his tribe” (Schiltkamp, “On Common Ground”, p. 80). However, no contracts of the (Old) WIC are preserved for Essequibo. 87 States General, “Minutes”, 27 August 1648, in: Burr, “Territorial Rights of the Dutch West India Company”, p. 111, footnote 1. 88 West India Company, “Conditions for Colonists on the Wild Coast and adjacent islands”, 12 June 1627, in: BC, No. 17, pp. 47–53. 89 West India Company, “Conditions for Colonists and Patrons on the Wild Coast”, 22 November 1628, in: BRC, serial No. 30, pp. 65–69, at 66, emphasis added. At the same time, both colonists and private persons had been treated equal with regard to the extraction of salt, since “[w] hosoever, be it colonists of the patrons for their patrons, or free people for themselves, or other private persons for their masters, finds a suitable locality for making salt-pans, is at liberty to occupy the same, and to work it in full ownership, to the exclusion of all others”. Article 9 provided that the WIC shareholders “who send out these Colonies shall provide them with appropriate instructions that they may be governed and ruled according to the form of [g]overnment, both administrative and judicial, framed, or to be framed, by the Directors in session of the

WIC Agreements and Orders on the Wild Coast (1672–1764)

181

between those Indigenous Peoples, who were “in contact with a European man” and would be “subject to the same laws as all other inhabitants”, including property rights (houses, farms, possessions) and rights of inheritance based on a modified aasdomsrecht, since property “could be obtained by their heirs unless the heirs lived under the authority of the enemy”, and those cases, where Indigenous Peoples, who stayed “among themselves” and the “Order” had no legal effect.90 Instead, Caribbean historians argue for the “Wild Coast” of Essequibo and Berbice, such as Caesar Gravesande, who suggests from a comparative perspective that Dutch jurisdiction was “far more widespread than that of the Spanish, at least up to the beginning of the eighteenth century”,91 and Alvin Thompson, who indicates that “the Dutch had very little jurisdiction over the areas beyond the plantations”.92 Ellen-Rose Kambel and Fergus MacKay argue for Suriname that “at least for the first 200 years of Suriname’s existence, the Dutch never considered Indigenous peoples or their lands to be under their jurisdiction”.93

WIC Agreements and Orders on the Wild Coast (1672–1764) In contrast, the agreements concluded on the “Wild Coast” of Essequibo and Berbice were limited to the prohibition of enslavement. A first agreement was, thus, concluded in 1672, which “promises that the Indians would not be reduced to slavery”94 and coincided with a period of legal uncertainty of both the WIC

Board of Nineteen; which instructions they shall first submit to the Directors of the respective Chambers” (ibid., pp. 65–69). 90 Furthermore, Article 17 enshrined that “[t]he same rule applied to the Spaniards and Portuguese” (ibid.). 91 Gravesande, “Amerindian Jurisdiction”, p. 11. 92 Thompson, “Amerindian-European Relations in Dutch Guyana”, p. 86. 93 Kambel and MacKay, The Rights of Indigenous Peoples and Maroons, p. 54. 94 Menezes, “The Dutch and British Policy of Indian Subsidy”, p. 66; Menezes, British Policy Towards the Amerindians, p. 68. In particular, she is referencing the Tribunal of Arbitration between Great Britain and the United States of Venezuela, 1899, Proceedings, p. 200, which is not available in full text, whereas Jan Jacob Hartsinck’s “Beschryving van de Volksplanting van Berbice” (1770), for the year 1672 is just citing a boundary treaty between the two Dutch colonies of Essequibo and Berbice (J. J. Hartsinck, Beschryving van de Volksplanting van Berbice, met de aanhoorige Landen, Vol. I, p. 281), which was followed by a boundary agreement between Suriname and Berbice in 1686, when the extent of “the original colony of Suriname”, which “encompassed the lands between the Marowijne and Coppename Rivers”, was modified and the boundary between the two colonies placed “at the mid-point between the Corantijn and Berbice Rivers”, wherefore Ellen-Rose Kambel and Fergus MacKay claim that “[t]he area between the Coppename and half-way between the Berbice and Corantijn Rivers thus became

182

Chapter 8 Dutch De Jure Myths (1581–1764)

and the Dutch settlement in Berbice. Thereupon, the WIC on 14 September 1678 granted “the Colony on the river named Berbice on the solid coast of America” to Abraham van Pere as “immortal hereditary fief”,95 which was valid until 1701 and included the right to the subsurface resources, minerals, rivers, springs, and, same as for the Walcheren cities in the Dutch settlement Nova Zeelandia in Pomeroon on 24 December 1657,96 also the “high, middle and low jurisdiction, tithes, fishers and mills”,97 after Abraham van Pere had established the colony in 1627. Notably, the grant of jurisdiction was violating the colonial law of Hugo Grotius, since van Pere and the WIC had only legally acquired land as property, but not jurisdiction or sovereignty for the Berbice. Nevertheless, the WIC grant was followed by another agreement, concluded between the Arawak of Berbice and the Dutch in the United Provinces on the other side of the Atlantic in the early 1700s, where the Arawak “Schotjes” were “well received and sent back with presents and with clothes and handsome furnishings”, whereas the content of the agreement is unknown and the original document, despite the related order of the WIC Charter, not preserved.98 Moreover, the enslavement prohibition was inserted in the agreements concluded between Suriname Governor Cornelis van Aerssen van Sommelsdijk and “Caribs, Arawaks and Waraus”, respectively “(different groups of) Caribs” in 1684/85,99 after Dutch practices had in 1678 prompted sudden joint Carib,

part of the colony of Suriname and subject to the sovereignty of the States General through the Society WIC” (Kambel and MacKay, The Rights of Indigenous Peoples and Maroons, p. 39). Those treaties were concluded among the Dutch colonies, not with the Indigenous Peoples of the area. 95 HaNA, West India Company, “Register of WIC resolutions: Grant to Abraham van Pere”, 14 September 1678, 1.05.06 invnr. 48, in: Hyguens, Plakaatboek Guyana 1670–1817; http://re sources.huygens.knaw.nl/retroboeken/guyana/#page=0&accessor=search_in_text&view=tran scriptiePane&source=berbice (accessed 14 August 2018). The Dutch original reads “oonsterflijk erfleen”. 96 West India Company, “Provisional Contract between WIC Zeeland and the Walcheren Cities”, 24 December 1657, in: BC, No. 36, p. 125. See also Committee governing the three Walcheren Cities, “Nova Zeelandia”, 1658, in: BRC, serial No. 62, p. 146. 97 HaNa, West India Company, “Register of WIC resolutions: Grant to Abraham van Pere”, 14 September 1678. 98 Menezes, British Policy, p. 68; Menezes, “Indian Subsidy”, p. 66. The conclusion of this treaty also entailed the transfer of presents, clothes, and furnishings to the Arawak (Gravesande, “Amerindian Jurisdiction”, p. 8). 99 Gravesande, “Amerindian Jurisdiction”, p. 8; Menezes, British Policy Towards Amerindians, p. 68; Menezes, “The Dutch and British Policy of Indian Subsidy”, p. 66; Kambel and MacKay, The Rights of Indigenous Peoples and Maroons in Suriname, p. 51.

WIC Agreements and Orders on the Wild Coast (1672–1764)

183

Arawak, and Warao attacks and resulted in the “Indian war” between 1678 and 1686,100 which had “nearly drove the European settlers from the colony”101 and had reached Essequibo until 1688.102 Previously, the Dutch had exchanged New Netherlands for Suriname with the English in the Peace of Breda in July 1667,103 after an English colony in Suriname had been captured by Dutch Captain Abraham Cruijnsen in February 1666104 and New Netherland had been seized by the English in August 1664.105 Nevertheless, the agreements of 1684/85 are considered to have aimed to “establish peace with the Indians”, whereas the only known content of the “lost” agreements is the prohibition of enslavement106 and recognition of “the freedom of the indigenous peoples”.107 In addition, the participation of the “Caribs of the Coppename” as one of the contracting indigenous parties of the agreement remains unlikely, since the Coppename (Condie) Maroons, representing a “group of escaped slaves [. . .] intermarried with Caribs of the Coppename river”,108 were also reported as having been expelled by van Sommelsdijk before August 1684109 and attacked the Spanish in Orinoco and Trinidad in union with the French in July 1682,110 before they had captured Santo Tome and took refuge in Waini, Amacura, and Barima until May 1686.111 In contrast, no such agreement is recorded for the colony of Essequibo. Instead, some orders of the WIC to its servants and colonists concerning the strict prohibitions of trading “red slaves” by colonists had been issued for the

100 In contrast, chapter 11 reveals that the “Indian war” extended at least until 1688. A similar practice was applied in Suriname by English predecessor Lieutenant-Colonel Anthony Rowse, who had made “a forme peace with the Indians soone after his landing” in 1650 (Scott, “Description of Guayana”, after 30 April 1668, p. 170), before the plantation colony “Torarica” was established in 1651 (Postma, “Suriname and its Atlantic Connection”, p. 289). 101 Ibid., p. 290. 102 Commander Pomeroon Jacob de Jonge, “Letter to the West India Company”, River Pomeroon, 28 January 1688, in: BRC, serial No. 113, p. 206. 103 Postma, “Suriname and its Atlantic Connection”, p. 289. 104 Scott, “Description of Guayana”, after 30 April 1668, p. 169. 105 Postma, “Suriname and its Atlantic Connection”, p. 289. 106 Kambel and MacKay, The Rights of Indigenous Peoples and Maroons in Suriname, pp. 51–52. 107 Accordingly, a recorded “(s)upport for this is found in a 1781 ordinance which prohibited all unlicensed trade with ‘Indian nations with whom this province has concluded an agreement of peace and friendship’” (ibid., p. 52). 108 Ibid. 109 Commander Essequibo, “Letter to WIC”, 18 August 1684, p. 59. 110 Beekman, “Letter to the West India Company”, 18 July 1682, p. 155; commander Essequibo, “Letter to WIC”, Essequibo, 18 August 1684, p. 187. 111 Commander Essequibo, “Letter to WIC”, 1 May 1685, p. 60.

184

Chapter 8 Dutch De Jure Myths (1581–1764)

Mazaruni and Cuyuni in 1681,112 1712–1714,113 1717,114 and 1730, whereas WIC servants were still permitted to trade in “red slaves” in 1731.115 Moreover, the WIC issued several prohibitions of ill-treatment, tyranny, and forced slave work in 1729116 and inserted prohibitions of prejudice, interference, and injury as conditions of land grants between October 1740 and 1746,117 whereas the conclusion of a treaty of commerce with the Magnauts failed in August 1764118 and the content of an agreement with Akawaoi, Arawak, Warau, and Caribs119 in 1769 is unknown.120 In contrast, prohibitions of ill-treatment (New Netherland 1625; 112 Commander Essequibo Abraham Beekman, “Letter”, 21 August 1681, in: BC, No. 61, p. 82. 113 Commander Essequibo “Letter to WIC Zeeland”, 19 April 1713, in: BRC, serial No. 150, p. 236. The renewed prohibition was confirmed by the Court in July 1730, since “[c]oncerning the advantages of the trade in the rivers of Masseroeny and Cajoeny for the Honourable Company alone, this consists only in red slaves, and the order has been renewed because the veto was one kept up by all former commanders. But most of the Indians having left those parts that trade is now of less profit, except for the orange dye” (Court of Policy Essequibo, “Letter to West India Company”, 14 July 1731, in: BB3, serial No. 65, p. 83). Moreover, it is indicated that the WIC plantation that Polwijk “sometimes buys one or two red slaves in a whole year, [. . .] mostly children of about 8 or 10 years old [. . .] for about twelve or thirteen axes and choppers, together with a few provisions” (ibid.). See also Court of Policy Essequibo, “Letter to WIC Zeeland”, 14 July 1731, in: BRC, serial No. 188, p. 14. 114 Free Settlers of the Colony of Essequibo in America, “Memorial”, River Essequibo, 24 May 1717, in: BRC, serial No. 156, pp. 246–248, at 247. It was only loosened for the river Orinoco [sic!] at the request of the colonists in November 1717, perceived by them as being “outside the territory of the Noble Company, where the same has no more power than a private merchant, which is in Spanish possession” (ibid.), who were then allowed by the WIC “to buy or get by barter in the Orinoco six red slaves only and no more, for their own service and use; and for each of such red slaves they will be required to pay to the Company for the importation of the same 6 guilders once, and, moreover, the poll-tax for each red slave, to the amount of 1 rix-dollar per year. And the said inhabitants shall not be allowed to export form there any red slaves, or to sell him to any one whosoever, except to inhabitants of Essequibo” (West India Company [the Ten], “Letter to commander Essequibo”, 30 November 1717, in: BRC, serial No. 158, p. 248). 115 Court of Policy Essequibo, “Letter to WIC Zeeland”, 14 July 1731, p. 14; Court of Policy Essequibo, “Letter to WIC Zeeland”, 14 July 1731, p. 83. 116 Commander Essequibo, “Letter to WIC”, 4 July 1729, in: BRC, serial No. 181, pp. 9–19, at 9. 117 Court of Policy Essequibo, “Digest of Land Grants”, 13 November 1720–8 November 1771, pp. 187–205. 118 Director General Essequibo Laurens Storm van’s Gravesande, “A Brief Treatise concerning the Honourable Company’s Trading-places”, August 1764, in: BB3, serial No. 171, enclosure 1, pp. 129–131, at 129. 119 Ibid. See also M. Colchester, Guyana: Fragile Frontier, London: Latin American Bureau, 1997, p. 13. 120 Menezes, British Policy Towards Amerindians, p. 68; Menezes, “The Dutch and British Policy of Indian Subsidy”, p. 66.

WIC Agreements and Orders on the Wild Coast (1672–1764)

185

Curaçao 1636; 1643) and enslavement (Brazil 1636; Article 87 of the Brazil Instructions)121 in other American WIC colonies had been ordered significantly earlier. In sum, this chapter has revealed that the treaty-making practice in Essequibo, Berbice, and Suriname significantly differed from the WIC practices in other Dutch colonies in the Americas and Africa, since the agreements were focused on the prohibition of enslavement, wherefore no legal title for the appropriation of sovereignty, jurisdiction, and land as property was acquired by the Dutch by the Grotian legal means of treaty making. Thus, the following chapter examines the WIC practices of occupation and conquest on the “Wild Coast” and adjacent island of Tobago between 1581 and 1673 to determine both whether the Dutch had appropriated the area by those legal means and what was actually lawfully acquired.

121 Schiltkamp, “On Common Ground”, pp. 78–79. Peter Jacobsz. Tolck was governor of Curaçao from 1639 until 1641 (C. Goslinga, A Short History of the Netherlands Antilles and Surinam, The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1979, p. 29).

Chapter 9 Dutch Appropriation Practices on the Wild Coast and Tobago (1581–1673) Based on the presented findings about the European colonial law of the time and the legal provisions on colonial appropriation of Hugo Grotius, this chapter complements the examination of the Dutch WIC treaty making practices by inquiring about the implementation of Dutch colonial legal means of appropriation (occupation and conquest) on the Wild Coast for the yet inconclusive period between 1581 and 1673. The chapter therefore first traces Dutch settlement attempts on the Wild Coast prior to the establishment of the West India Company (WIC) in 1621, before examining the establishment of the first two permanent Dutch settlements in Berbice (1627) and Essequibo (1616/1624) on the coastal mainland, and Dutch settlement attempts on Tobago from 1626/27 until the French attack of 1677, including the Courlandian attempts from the 1630s until 1690.

Dutch Settlements on the Wild Coast (c. 1613–1637) Predated by the first Dutch voyage to the “Indies” in June 1581,1 subsequent voyages to “Guiana” and “the Land of Guiana, situate[d] in the kingdom of Peru”2 since 1597,3

1 Holland Estates, “Proceedings”, 1581, p 3. 2 Dutch States General, “Proceedings”, 1597, p 11. See also Holland Estates, “Proceedings”, 1597, p. 11. 3 Those voyages were granted to merchants from Amsterdam, Rotterdam, and Enkhuizen between 1597–1599 (Dutch States General, “Proceedings”, 1597, pp. 9–10; Holland Estates, “Proceedings”, 1597, p. 11; States General, “Proceedings”, 1598, pp. 12–13; States General, “Proceedings”, 1599, pp. 22–23). At the same time, an exploration voyage was initiated by Burgomaster of Middelburg, Adriaen ten Haeft, who in 1598 “at heavy cost to himself” had “caused to be investigated on the continent of America many different rivers and islands, and how that in this voyage were discovered various coasts and lands where one could do notable damage to the King of Spain” (Zeeland Estates, “Proceedings”, 20 November 1599, in: BC, No. 7, pp. 23–25, at 24), which was followed by voyages from Amsterdam in 1602 and 1604 (Dutch States General, “Proceedings about the Action relative to a certain Freedom of Convoy, provisionally granted by the States General, 1602, and awarded by the Admiralty of Amsterdam, 1604”, 10 July 1602/12 January 1604, p. 25; “Proceedings”, 1 March 1604, p. 36). The first preserved report about those voyages is dated August 1599 (Cabeliau, “Report”, 3 February 1599, pp. 13–22). In contrast, the first voyages to the North American counterpart were granted only in 1614 (States General, “General Charter https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110690149-009

Dutch Settlements on the Wild Coast (c. 1613–1637)

187

the denied population project in Guiana in 1603,4 and the Twelve Years’ Truce concluded between the Dutch and Spanish in 1609, the Dutch since August 1613 were present on the “Wild Coast” on three places, namely on the Corentyne (Corentine; Corantijn), Suriname/Cayenne, and Wiapoco, before the WIC was established in 1621.5 Accordingly, the first recorded Dutch and Carib6 tobacco plantation was in August 1613 established on the Corentyne, when it was attacked by Spanish Captain Melchor Cortes and twelve soldiers,7 who “entirely” devastated the settlement and “burnt the fort with all who were in it”8 by order of interim governor Sancho de Alguiza, who had replaced Fernando de Berrio during his trial.

for Those Who Discover Any New Passages, Havens, Countries, or Places”, The Hague, 27 March 1614, Avalon Collection: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/charter_010.asp). 4 States General, “Proceedings”, 25 February 1603, p. 36. 5 The Council of the Indies confirmed “three or four” Dutch tobacco plantations in July 1615, which the Dutch had established “with the help of the Carib Indians with whom they have made friends” in an area extending from “the River Marañon [Amazon] to the Orinoco” (Council of the Indies, “Report to King of Spain”, 29 July 1615, in: BRC, serial No. 17, pp. 43–44). However, a Dutch settlement on the Amazon is nowhere else confirmed for that period: Therefore, the Council might have erroneously referred to the French fort of April 1615, which was situated “two degrees from the [Equator] line” and “constructed by order of the French king”, along with the fort of a certain Tomas Rey, situated “in the mouth of the River Amazon, where he makes great profit” (King Philipp III, “Letter to the Council of the Indies”, 24 May 1615, in: BRC, serial No. 15, p. 39–40, at 40), whereas a Dutch settlement on the Amazon was only implicitly referred to in the years 1627/28 (WIC [Zeeland], “Proceedings”, 10 April 1628–17 April 1628, in: BC, No. 19, pp. 55–56, at 55; WIC [Zeeland], “Contract for the grant of a Colony in the River Berbice for Abraham van Pere”, 22 April 1627, in: BRC, serial No. 26, p. 63; Scott, “Description of Guayana”, after 30 April 1668, p. 169). 6 Prior to this, the Corentyne (Critine, Curytine) was occupied by the Arawak (Arwaccas), where the indigenous town (Vaporon) was established, who were attacked in 1596 by the “Waccawaes that dwell above the falles” more than “five days’ journey further up” (Colson, Land: The Historical Evidence, p. 21). In contrast, about 1668 the Corentyne (Currianteen) was settled by Sapoyes (Upper Corentyne) and Caribs (same as Suranam, Commowina, Suramaco, Copenham, Wiapoco, Mocorea, Abrewaco, Marrawina), along with Paricoates in Upper Marrawina “towards the head of Sinnamar”, Turroomaes in Suramaco and Upper Suranam (Scott, “Description of Guayana”, after 30 April 1668, p. 1669) and in 1642 resp. 1645 by unspecified Indigenous Peoples, whereas the Cayan (Cayenne, Chyan) was occupied by Careebs (1573) and Paracoates (1573, 1613), unspecified Indigenous Peoples (1615) and Careebs and Saepoys (1649), the Wiapoco by unspecified Indigenous Peoples in 1607 resp. 1618, the Suranam and Suramaco by unspecified Indigenous Peoples in 1626, 1642, 1645, 1650, 1654 (Pedro de Viedma, “Letter to King of Spain”, Guayana, 20 March 1662, in: BRC, serial No. 71, pp. 152–156, at 154–155). 7 Don Jhoan Tostado, “Report on the Dislodegment of the Dutch on the Rivers Corentin and Marataca”, 1614, in: BRC, serial No. 13, pp. 31–34, at 32. 8 Sancho de Alquica, “Letter to King of Spain”, 14 June 1612, in: BRC, serial No. 12, pp. 29–31, at 31.

188

Chapter 9 Dutch Appropriation Practices

The second Dutch settlement attempt was undertaken by Teodor Claessen from Amsterdam, who had petitioned for “artillery, powder, and all warlike stores” in December 1614, which was initially rejected by the burgomaster of Amsterdam “until it was seen whether or no[t] the truce [with Spain] was to come to an end”, since “the States could take no decision in the matter until it was seen whether or no[t] the truce were to continue”.9 Claessen had before April 1615 then established two settlements on the Suriname and Cayenne,10 which were “situated two degrees one from another”.11 The details about those settlement attempts are disputed, for a Spanish account of December 1615 stated that Claessen had “started with 100 men divided among the two settlements”, whose “greater part” (80 people) would have been “with Indian women”12 and resided in Cayenne since “eight months”, where they joined the Anabaptists.13 In contrast, an English account indicates that “anno 1615” two Dutch ships with “two hundred and eighty Zeelanders” arrived in Cayenne, but returned “the same yeare” after having been “ga[ul]led” by Indigenous Peoples.14 Finally, a third Dutch settlement was established on the Wiapoco until April 161515 by Jan Pietersz. from Vlissingen16 and Jan de Moor,17 who had there established a plantation and “two houses” at a

9 Council of the Indies, “Account of Map of Coast from the Ports of the Amazon to the Island of Margarita”, Valladolid, 27 June 1615, in: BRC, serial No. 16, pp. 40–43, at 42. 10 Alternative spellings are Caena, Cayan or Caiana. In addition, John Hemming mentions earlier trade relations between the Dutch and the Iaio by citing “[a]n aged Iaio” in 1609, who had reported to an Englishman about being “on his way to the coast of Surinam to trade for metal tools with Dutch settlers” (Hemming, “How Brazil Acquired Roraima”, p. 298). 11 Council of the Indies, “Account”, Valladolid, 27 June 1615, p. 42. 12 King Philipp III, “Letter to the Council of the Indies”, 24 May 1615, p. 39. 13 Council of the Indies, “Account”, Valladolid, 27 June 1615, pp. 40–41. 14 Scott, “Description of Guayana”, after 30 April 1668, p. 169. The disappearance of the settlement for unknown reasons is confirmed by Cornelis Goslinga (Goslinga, Wild Coast, pp. 420–421). Instead, another attempt on the Cayenne was undertaken by a certain Jan Claessen Langendyck in November 1658, which was based on a grant from the WIC Nineteen on “the conditions settled [. . .] by a Committee of the respective Chambers” of 13 August 1654 (Dutch States General, “Permit to C. Langendyck to raise a Colony on the Wild Coast”, 1 November 1658, in: BRC, serial No. 65, p. 147). 15 Alternative spellings are Viapoko, Oyapok, Oyapock or Oiapoque. 16 Other sources give the name of the naval Captain from Vlissingen as “Pedro Luis” (King Philipp III, “Letter to the Council of the Indies”, 24 May 1615, p. 39; Cornelis van Lodensteijn, “Petition to WIC for a Grant of Land on the Coast of Guiana”, in: BRC, serial No. 57, pp. 140–141). 17 Goslinga, Wild Coast, pp. 410–411. Goslinga also refers to Angelo Lennes and Señor de Lodesteyn [Cornelis van Lodensteyn], who gained the approval of the States of Holland to establish “the said colony and settlement [at the Wiapoco]” as “independent patronships”. Thereupon, Cormelis van Lodensteyn again in 1658 petitioned for the establishment of a colony (Van Lodensteijn, “Petition”, p. 140).

Dutch Settlements on the Wild Coast (c. 1613–1637)

189

place where “a certain Englishman [had already] founded settlements”,18 whereupon the Noruacas (Arwacas) of that river had “fled”.19 Also predated by Spanish (1568–1573) and French attempts (1607–1609, 1613), who were both expelled by Caribs (Careebs) and Paracoates,20 the exact faith of the Pietersz. colony attempt is unknown, but had with certainty vanished before July 1623. Hence, the Dutch settlements on the Wild Coast significantly increased after the establishment of the WIC in June 1621, but only a few of them remained in existence. Thus, another settlement attempt on the Wiapoco failed in July 1623, as the Dutch colonists returned to Texel in the same year due to “many hardships”,21 whereas a subsequent attempt of Peter van Rhee (Ryen) in December 1626 also failed somewhen after April 1628,22 since the Dutch colonists had to escape an attack of Indigenous Peoples in “homemade sloops”, two of them reached St. Vincent and Tobago23 and others joined the Berbice colony. In addition, Nicolaes Oudaen and Philip Purcell attempted to settle at the Curapa between July 1623 and May 1625, before they were driven out, while Claude Prevost, based on a formal agreement with burgomaster Jan de Moor and authorized by the WIC on 10 December 1626, departed for Cayenne, where his settlement existed until 1632.24 In April 1637, the Dutch were also settled among Indigenous Peoples in Trinidad, the Orinoco mouth and in Surinama, Supanamo, Quiana, and Guayapoco,25 where they were between 1625 and 1649 accompanied by French and English settlements at the Suranam, Meriwina, Suramaco, Chyan and Curanteen (Corentyne), who were all expelled by Indigenous Peoples, most notably Caribs and Saepoys.26 In contrast, the two settlements in Essequibo (1616/1624) and Berbice (1627) developed into permanent Dutch settlements.

18 King Philipp III, “Letter to the Council of the Indies”, 24 May 1615, pp. 39–40. 19 Council of the Indies, “Account”, p. 41. This account also reported about “a large lake” and “Manoa”, which was indicated as “the principal town of the kingdom of Guiana”, where “the brother of Atavalipa” is established and “gold is found in greater abundance than in any other part of the world” (ibid.). 20 Scott, “Description of Guayana”, after 30 April 1668, p. 169. 21 Goslinga, Wild Coast, p. 411. At that time, another bunch of colonists (French and Dutch) had departed from Texel, but their settlement attempt also failed (ibid.). 22 WIC (Zeeland), “Proceedings”, 10 April 1628–17 April 1628, p. 55. At that time, the Dutch ship Armuyen sailed to the Wiapoco with provisions and colonists (ibid.). 23 Goslinga, Wild Coast, p. 412. 24 WIC (Zeeland), “Proceedings”, 8 October 1626–17 December 1626, in: BRC, serial No. 24, pp. 62–63; Goslinga, Wild Coast, p. 413. 25 Corporation of Santo Tomé de la Guayana, “Letter”, Santo Thomé, 11 April 1637, in: BRC, serial No. 44, Annex 2, pp. 109–110, at 109. 26 Scott, “Description of Guayana”, after 30 April 1668, p. 169.

190

Chapter 9 Dutch Appropriation Practices

Van Pere’s Berbice Colony and the WIC in Essequibo (1616–1732) The colony in Berbice commenced with the approval of WIC Zeeland to the request of Abraham van Pere of March 162727 to plant “a colony of 60 persons” on “the Wild Coast and adjacent islands”.28 The subsequent grant of 22 April 162729 entailed the allowance for patron Van Pere to “carry men to the number of 40, and 20 youths – in all 60 individuals – as settlers, over to the coast of the mainland (called the Wild Coast) of West India, in the river Berbice”,30 and also granted the “liberty to build a fort in the aforesaid river, at such convenient place as they shall think fit, to carry on their trade with the natives of the land, to fell forests, sow, plant, seek minerals, and, in general to do all other things which they shall judge good and profitable for their colony”. Although van Pere was likewise permitted “to explore other neighbouring rivers and transfer themselves thither if they should think to find better profit there”, Essequibo as well as “any other river where the Company [. . .] has its colonists or folk” remained strictly prohibited. Hence, the first Berbice colonists, 40 men and 20 boys, departed Zeeland in July 1627 to arrive on the Wild Coast “in late fall”.31 Sponsored by van Pere, they

27 WIC (Zeeland), “Conditions and Articles of WIC Zeeland grant to Abraham van Pere”, 22 April 1627, in: BC, No. 16, p. 46. See Goslinga, Wild Coast, p. 413; Schiltkamp, “On Common Ground”, p. 74, footnote 7. By contrast, the English John Scott gives the foundational year of the “small [Dutch] factory at Berbishees” imprecisely as “1624” (Scott, “Description of Guayana”, after 30 April 1668, p. 169). 28 WIC, “Conditions for Colonists adopted by the West India Company (the Nineteen)”, 22 November 1628, in: BC, No. 20, pp. 56–64, at 57. See West India Company, “Conditions for Colonists and Patrons on the Wild Coast [orig. ‘Wilde Cust’] of Brazil”, 22 November 1628, in: BRC, serial No. 30, pp. 65–69, at 65. 29 Schiltkamp, “On Common Ground”, p. 74, footnote 7. The approval was based on the report of Messrs. Boudaen, Coorte, and De Moor (WIC [Zeeland], “Proceedings”, 22 April 1627, in: BRC, serial No. 25, p. 63). In contrast, the WIC had recognized that “private persons who for themselves, or [as regards] others who in the service of their masters here at home, in lesser numbers than the patrons, shall go to live there as free people” are allowed “to choose and occupy, upon approval of the Directeur and Council there, as much lands as they shall be able conveniently to work, and to retain it in full possession for themselves or their masters, on condition of paying seignorial dues of 10 stivers per acre” for colonies on the “Wild Coast of Brazil” (WIC, “Conditions for the Wild Coast of Brazil”, 22 November 1628, p. 68, Article 1). 30 Ibid., p. 65; WIC (Zeeland), “Conditions and Articles for Van Pere”, 22 April 1627, p. 46. Instead, Anna Benjamin determines the number for 1627 as “60 or 80 male colonists and six African slaves” (Benjamin, “A Preliminary Look”, p. 1). 31 WIC (Zeeland), “Conditions and Articles for Van Pere”, 22 April 1627, p. 46, Articles 11–12; Goslinga, Wild Coast, p. 413.

Van Pere’s Berbice Colony and the WIC in Essequibo (1616–1732)

191

were strengthened with 30 more on board of the Westcappel in April 1628,32 while the material for the fort was already sent in July 162733 to establish a Dutch stronghold on the Berbice. In line with the condition of the patron’s grant34 and WIC Charter of 1621,35 van Pere thus acquired land as property by occupation. In contrast, “the Conditions for Colonists on the Wild Coast of Brazil” of November 1628 had additionally granted “the right of intermediate and inferior jurisdiction, taxes, tithes, fisheries, and mills, to the exclusion of all other persons”,36 and “an everlasting hereditary fief”,37 along with “usufruct and possession of such lands

32 WIC (Zeeland), “Proceedings”, 10 April 1628–17 April 1628, in: BRC, serial No. 29, pp. 64–65, at 65. The yacht Westcastel [Westcappel] also carried provisions and “cargo to Essequibo” (ibid., p. 55) and was accompanied by the ship Armuyen, carrying “over all the necessaries for the colonists” and “as many colonists as are to go along” for the “Amazon, Wiapoco, Cayenne, and so onward to Essequibo” (ibid.). The transport of 60 colonists in the first year resonated with the “Conditions for Colonists on the Wild Coast” of November 1628, which ordered that “one-third of the sixty persons” had to be sent “within one year” and all of them “within the next three years [. . .] on penalty of losing the acquired privileges in case of evident neglect” (West India Company, “Conditions for the Wild Coast of Brazil”, 22 November 1628, p. 66, Article 4. 33 The Dutch original reads “in de riviere van Berbice op de Wilde Cust” (ibid.). 34 WIC (Zeeland), “Conditions and Articles for van Pere”, 22 April 1627, p. 46; WIC (Zeeland), “Contract with Patroon Abraham van Pere”, 22 April 1627, in: BRC, serial No. 28, p. 64. 35 States General, “Charter of the Dutch West India Company”, The Hague, 3 June 1621, in: BRC, serial No. 18, pp. 44–46, at 46. 36 WIC, “Conditions for the Wild Coast of Brazil”, 22 November 1628, p. 65, Article 6. In addition, the WIC granted the right “to catch all game and fish in the district of their dwellingplace, subject to the orders of the Directeur and Council” (WIC, “WIC [the Nineteen] Conditions for Colonists”, 22 November 1628, p. 62), while both colonists and private persons had been treated equal with regard to the extraction of salt (WIC, “Conditions for the Wild Coast of Brazil”, 22 November 1628, p. 68). The WIC shareholders “who send out these Colonies shall provide them with appropriate instructions that they may be governed and ruled according to the form of [g]overnment, both administrative and judicial, framed, or to be framed, by the Directors in session of the Board of Nineteen; which instructions they shall first submit to the Directors of the respective Chambers” (ibid., p. 66, Article 9). In contrast, rights to jurisdiction were not granted by the “Conditions for Colonists” of June 1627 (WIC, “Conditions for Colonists on the Wild Coast and adjacent islands”, 12 June 1627, in: BC, No. 17, pp. 47–53, at 51), while the WIC conditions on jurisdiction for Abraham van Pere are not preserved (WIC [Zeeland], “Conditions and Articles for van Pere”, 22 April 1627, p. 46). 37 WIC, “Conditions for the Wild Coast of Brazil”, 22 November 1628, p. 66. In case of the death of the patron, the fiefs are “transfere[d] to other hands”, who has to pay seignorial dues of 20 florins to the WIC, in particular “to the Chamber at the place where he originally set sail” (Article 6) and the patron has the right to “be granted venia testandi, or authorization to dispose by testament of the aforesaid fiefs” (ibid., Article 7).

192

Chapter 9 Dutch Appropriation Practices

as these shall have selected”,38 including “all the land lying within the aforesaid limits”, that is “7 or 8 [Dutch] miles”. Reflecting the different reality in Brazil, the “Conditions” for the “Wild Coast and adjacent islands” of 1627 had instead just inserted that the lands “take[n] into possession” by the colonists had to be brought “under cultivation to their utmost ability” within “the first three years” and would, otherwise, “be taken away from them by the commander and Council after previous admonition and shall be assigned to others”,39 which reflects the conformity with the lawful acquisition of land as property by occupation. Consequently, both the grant of a fief or jurisdiction are not inserted, since neither sovereignty nor jurisdiction was acquired by the Dutch. Instead, the “Conditions” of 1627 referred to the profits of the goods cultivated by colonists or traded with Indigenous Peoples,40 which are to be shared with the Company (one third), while the other two thirds remaining theirs in return for their expenses and risk, “all subject to the rules of the Company”.41 The focus on trade is also reflected in the subsequent practices of Abraham van Pere, since the Berbice patron at least since 1632 exclusively traded in annatto dye,42 after the WIC Nineteen in April 1632 had surprisingly voted for “the abandonment of the Company’s Guiana colonies”,43 despite previous considerations to relocate the war between the United Provinces and Spain to those parts of the world.44 However, WIC Zeeland strongly opposed the decision45 and on 8 April 1632 resolved

38 Ibid, p. 65, Article 4; Article 5. This Article also enshrined that “unless the condition of the land thereabout were such that the commander and council for good reasons ordain otherwise, who shall also decide and remove such questions as may arise concerning the limits” (ibid., p. 66, Article 5). The spatial extent was also indicated in the “Conditions” of 1627 (WIC, “Conditions for Colonists on the Wild Coast”, 12 June 1627, p. 49), which had bound the colonists to the directives of the commander and council in Cayenne (ibid., p. 50, Article 10), where Claude Prevost was present since December 1626. 39 Ibid., pp. 51–52, Article 14. The colonists of the respective colony “shall have the right to carry on the inland trade for their own benefit [Article 16]”, while the discovery of “any minerals, precious stones, crystals, marble, or anything of that sort [. . .] shall remain the property of the patroon or patroons of that colony, on condition that he grant to the finder such a reward as does the Company to its colonists, and that he give to the Company as a tax and fee twenty per cent of the aforesaid minerals, when it is seen that the thing is a success” (ibid., Article 18). 40 WIC, “Conditions for Colonists the Wild Coast of Brazil”, 22 November 1628, p. 68. 41 Ibid., p. 67, Article 13. 42 Alternative names are annatto or urucu, which refers to the “red dye derived from the seeds of the Bixa orellana tree” (Colson, Land, p. 26). 43 WIC, “Proceedings”, 1630–1632, p. 65, Annotation. 44 J. Israel, The Dutch Republic. Its Rise, Greatness, and Fall, 1477–1806, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995, pp. 518–519. 45 WIC, “Proceedings”, 1630–1632, p. 65, Annotation.

Van Pere’s Berbice Colony and the WIC in Essequibo (1616–1732)

193

“not to abandon the colony at Essequibo”.46 In result, the Guiana colonies were kept, the Zeeland Chamber assumed “responsibility of maintaining that colony”,47 and in July 1632 entered into negotiations with Abraham van Pere “regarding the trade on the Wild Coast and the continuation of his Colony in the River Berbice and that of Essequibo for the Company”. The resulting joint annatto trade agreement of 16 July 1632 thus provided a shared profit “half and half” and “pro rata” sharing of expenses,48 whereas the annatto was exchanged with Indigenous Peoples for axes, all sorts of knives (black-handled, carniceros and sailor’s knives), mirrors, scissors, tin boxes, fish-hooks, razors, nails, bottles, and beads.49 The WIC agreement signed on 28 July 1632,50 Abraham van Pere was accompanied by Zeelander Pieter van Rhee,51 while the number of Dutch colonists had decreased for unknown reasons until 1637 to “forty Dutch and twenty-five negroes”.52 Nonetheless, Abraham van Pere signed yet another agreement with the WIC in Zeeland on 18 January 1646 for the exclusive trade in annatto dye, regulating the transport of annatto “which the Company has in the River of Essequibo, at the Fort Kijkoveral” and had to be taken “on board” by Abraham van Pere in exchange for payment.53 At the same time, trade on the Wild Coast remained exclusively reserved for Abraham van Pere and WIC Zeeland, as in response to the complain of Abraham van Pere on 19

46 WIC, “WIC (the Nineteen) Conditions for Colonists”, 22 November 1628, p. 62. 47 WIC, “Proceedings”, 1630–1632, p. 65. Evidently, a conversation with Jan van der Goes of Essequibo had taken place on the same day (WIC, “WIC [the Nineteen] Conditions for Colonists”, 22 November 1628, p. 62). 48 WIC (Zeeland Chamber), “Agreement with Abraham van Pere as to Trade on the Wild Coast”, in: BC, No. 22, pp. 67–69, at 67; WIC (Zeeland), “Contract with Abraham van Pere”, Middelburg, 16/28 July 1632, in: BRC, serial No. 32, pp. 72–73, at 72. 49 WIC (Zeeland), “Accounting with the Heirs of Abraham van Pere as to Commodities due Essequibo: List of Merchandize and Wares of Cornelis van Pere in Berbice”, 1647, in: BC, No. 29, pp. 109–110). The list also contains the unidentifiable ware of cassoeren (coloured) (ibid.). 50 WIC (Zeeland), “Contract with Abraham van Pere”, Middelburg, 16/28 July 1632, p. 73. 51 Schiltkamp, “On Common Ground”, p. 74. footnote 7. See also Burr, “The Dutch in the Essequibo,” p. 189, who most likely refers to an English source, describing Berbice as “a small factory at Berbishees about ye yeare 1634, [which] is now a strong garrison, and belongeth to two merchants of Flushing, Myn Herr Van Ree and myn Heer Van Pear; a place that abounds with excellent horses and chattle, and is a good factory for annotta dye and druggs” (Scott, “Description of Guayana”, after 30 April 1668, p. 169). 52 Don Juan Desologuren “Memorandum on the Powers of the Dutch in the West Indies”, Santa Fé, 19 November, 1637, in: BRC, serial No. 39, pp. 77–82, at 78; Corporation of Santo Tomé de la Guayana, “Letter”, Santo Thomé, 11 April 1637, in: BRC, serial No. 44, Annex 2, pp. 109–110, at 109; NATT, Escobar, “Report to Audiencia”, St. Thome, 11 April 1637. Those historical accounts contradict Goslinga’s indication that the Berbice colony had “evidently prospered for some time” (Goslinga, Wild Coast, p. 413). 53 WIC (Zeeland), “Cargo Contract with van Pere”, 18 January 1646, pp. 131–132.

194

Chapter 9 Dutch Appropriation Practices

April 1632 about Dutch ships, who were permitted sailing to the West Indies for salt and wood, but would have had also “carry on their navigation in the places where certain colonies trade”, WIC Zeeland released fines “in accordance with the resolution of the Board of Nineteen”.54 Despite the exceptions of the WIC monopoly of navigation of May 1632 and July 1633,55 the “Wild Coast” remained consistently reserved for van Pere and WIC Zeeland, which was confirmed in June 1634,56 May and June 1635, June 163657 and August 1648 although Councillor de Moor was in May 1635 also permitted to navigate to Tobago.58 Spared by the English attacks of 1665/66, Berbice developed into “a strong garrison” after 30 April 1668 and continued as “a good factory for annotta [annatto] dye”,59 whereas the river remained occupied by Acowaio (Acquewyen/Akawai), who were documented for Upper Berbice between 1671 and 1674.60 Arguably, those Acowaio had been the contracting party in the agreement concluded to prohibit enslavement in 1672,61 which was predated by the general enslavement prohibition

54 WIC, “Proceedings”, 1630–1632, p. 65. 55 Dutch States General, “Orders and Regulations”, 14 May 1632 and 15 July 1633, in: BRC, serial No. 33, pp. 73–74, at 73; WIC (Zeeland Chamber), “Proceedings”, 29 June 1634, in: BRC, serial No. 34, p. 74; WIC, “Proceedings”, 1634–1636, in: BC, No. 23, pp. 69–72, at 69. 56 WIC (Zeeland Chamber), “Proceedings”, 29 June 1634, p. 74; WIC, “Proceedings”, 1634–1636, p. 69. According to Cornelis Goslinga, the exclusive rights for WIC Zeeland were challenged by WIC Amsterdam, who had threatened to repeat the effort of Theodore Claessen and to send its own colonists to Cayenne in 1634, whereupon “The Heren XIX” would have had “immediately petitioned to recognize Zeeland’s ‘rights’”, which “was denied” and WIC Zeeland issued “a statement, which prohibited all navigation to Guiana except for the chamber itself and for patron Abraham van Pere” (Goslinga, Wild Coast, p. 417). 57 WIC (Zeeland), “Proceedings”, 22 April 1627, p. 63; WIC, “Proceedings”, 1634–1636, p. 70; WIC (Zeeland), “Proceedings”, 14 May 1637, in: BRC, serial No. 36, p. 75: “[The Deputies] shall also come prepared to consider and, if need be, to amend the Regulations for the management of New Netherland, Curaçao, Cape Verde, Senegal, Gambia, Sierra Leone, the Wild Coast, Fernando Noronho, and the Colonies planted here and there; and to this end each from his own Chamber will bring with him all books and papers for information thereon” (WIC [Zeeland Chamber], “Proceedings”, 14 May 1637, p. 75). 58 WIC, “Proceedings”, 1634–1636, p. 70; WIC (Zeeland Chamber), “Proceedings”, 14 May 1637, p. 74. 59 Scott, “Description of Guayana”, after 30 April 1668, p. 170. 60 Colson, Land: The Historical Evidence, pp. 21–25. 61 Menezes, “The Dutch and British Policy of Indian Subsidy”, p. 66; Menezes, British Policy Towards the Amerindians in British Guiana, p. 68, references the (inaccessible) Tribunal of Arbitration between Great Britain and the U.S. of Venezuela of 1899 (Proceedings, i. p. 200) and Jan Jacob Hartsinck (Beschryving van de Volksplanting van Berbice, met de aanhoorige Landen, vol. I, p. 281) cites only a boundary treaty between the two Dutch colonies of Essequibo and Berbice in the year 1672, which was according to Ellen Kambel and Fergus MacKay followed by a boundary agreement

Van Pere’s Berbice Colony and the WIC in Essequibo (1616–1732)

195

in Brazil in 163662 and followed by the travel of some Arawak to the United Provinces in the early 1700s, after the first WIC was dissolved in 1674 and the new WIC Charter of 20 September 1674 had included “the places of Isekepe [Essequibo] and Bauwmerona [Pomeroon], situated on the continent of America”,63 but not the colony of Berbice, which was, instead, granted to Abraham van Pere on 14 September 1678 as “immortal hereditary fief” until 1701, including the right to the subsurface resources, minerals, rivers, springs64 and, same as the Walcheren cities for the Dutch settlement Nova Zeelandia in Pomeroon on 24 December 1657, which was granted in “high, middle and low jurisdiction, tithes, fisheries and mills”.65 In contrast, the “Conditions” for the “Wild Coast of Brazil” had already on 22 November 1628 granted “the right of intermediate and inferior jurisdiction”,66 which were not inserted in the van Pere grant of April 1627 and the “Conditions” of 1627.67 In 1713, the Dutch settlement in Berbice was interrupted by a French attack. The dispute lasted until 1732, as “[t]he owners refused to pay the requested ransom” and instead “transferred the colony to the French”, who were “not interested in the possession” and returned it “to a combination of Amsterdam and Zealand merchants who formed a corporation for the exploitation of the colony in 1720”. At the same time, the Dutch merchants opposed WIC’s view that Berbice would “be a feudal possession” of the Company; the States General settled the matter in 1732 by granting the Charter for “the Directie van Berbice”, which established the aasdomsrecht68 and ensured Berbice’s independence from any

between Suriname and Berbice in 1686 (Kambel and MacKay, The Rights of Indigenous Peoples and Maroons, p. 39). 62 WIC, “Brazil Instructions of 1636”, Article 87, cited in: Schiltkamp, “On Common Ground”, p. 78. 63 Dutch States General, “Charter of the New West India Company”, 20 September 1674, in: BRC, serial No. 85, pp. 173–175, at 174–175. 64 HaNA, WIC, “Register of WIC resolutions: Grant to Abraham van Pere”, 14 September 1678. The Dutch original reads “oonsterflijk erfleen” (ibid.). 65 Ibid. WIC, “Provisional Contract between WIC Zeeland and the Walcheren Cities”, 24 December 1657, in: BC, No. 36, p. 125; Committee governing the three Walcheren Cities in the Colony of Nova Zeelandia, “Proceedings”, 1658, in: BRC, serial No. 62, p. 146. 66 WIC, “Conditions for the Wild Coast of Brazil”, 22 November 1628, p. 66. 67 WIC (Zeeland), “Conditions and Articles for Van Pere”, 22 April 1627, p. 46; WIC, “Conditions for Colonists on the Wild Coast”, 12 June 1627, p. 50. 68 More precisely, Berbice applied the law “that everyone going to this colony was given the choice of law for his inheritance” and that, in case no choice was made, the aasdomsrecht of the law of the East Indies of 16 January 1661, which represents the amended aasdomsrecht of 16 December 1599, done by the States General, which is called the “new aasdomsrecht” (Schiltkamp, “On Common Ground”, p. 78).

196

Chapter 9 Dutch Appropriation Practices

“feudal relationship” with the WIC.69 Moreover, Abraham van Pere had on 20 May 1681 strictly prohibited any Berbice colonist in his service from any intercourse with indigenous women under the threat of fines or expel from the colony.70 In contrast, the Dutch applied the marriage practice in Essequibo in 1616. Known to the Dutch since 1599,71 it was private Zeeland merchant Aert Adriaenssen Groenewegen, who settled as first Dutch in the Essequibo in 1616,72 followed by WIC servant Jan van der Goes in 1624.73 Determined as “baffling circumstances [which] need to be explained”,74 Cornelis Goslinga highlights Aert Groenewegen as “the first man that took firme foote on Guiana”, who on behalf of the private Zeeland merchant William Courten75 had established a plantation in Essequibo, after having served the Spaniards along with Englishman Thomas Powell.76 Prior, Groenewegen had left England on sponsorship of Courten in January 1625, while his father Henry Powell, based on a royal letter patent of May 1626, had formally taken possession of Barbados for the English Crown. Based on the remaining friendship of Aert Groenewegen and Thomas Powell, the Dutch merchant, thereupon, convinced 40 Arawaks of Essequibo to teach the English in Barbados how to plant yams and cassava, who in 1628 insisted the contract to contain the legal provision that “if they did not like the country, they should be sent back at the expiration of two years with a reward of fifty pounds worth of axes, knives and other goods”.77

69 Ibid., p. 74. 70 HaNa, WIC, “Instruction for all those in the Service of Abraham van Pere regarding relations with black or Amerindian women”, 20 May 1681, pp. 1–4. 71 De Bry, “Sketch-map of Guiana”, 1599, p. 59. Mary Noel Menezes claims that the Dutch would have settled in Essequibo in this year 1599 (Menezes, “The Dutch and British Policy of Indian Subsidy”, p. 64), while Benjamin admits that “the date for the foundation of Essequibo has never been established beyond doubt” and determines that the Dutch colony in Essequibo “had its origins somewhere around 1616” and became “the property of the Dutch West India Company (WIC)” (Benjamin, “A Preliminary Look”, p. 1), whereas Neil Whitehead confirms a Dutch settlement in Essequibo in 1618 (Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, p. 94). 72 Scott, “Description of Guayana”, after 30 April 1668, p. 169. 73 WIC (Zeeland), “Proceedings”, 21 May 1626–4 October 1627, in: BC, No. 15, pp. 41–46, at 45; WIC (Zeeland), “Proceedings”, 23. August 1627, in: BRC, serial No. 27, pp. 63–64. 74 Goslinga, Wild Coast, p. 413. 75 G. Edmundson, “The Dutch in Western Guiana”, The English Historical Review 16 (October 1901) 64, pp. 640–675 (reprint: pp. 4–40), at 20; Goslinga, Wild Coast, p. 415, who assumes an involvement of Jan de Moor in the private company of Courteen in London (p. 415). See Hemming, “How Brazil acquired Roraima”, p. 209. 76 Scott, “Description of Guayana”, after 30 April 1668, p. 169. 77 Edmundson, “The Dutch in Western Guiana”, pp. 17–19.

Van Pere’s Berbice Colony and the WIC in Essequibo (1616–1732)

197

However, something went certainly wrong with the agreement between Groenewegen, Powell, and the Essequibo Arawak, since in 1631 “one of these [Arawak was] getting on board a Dutch ship [and] got passage for Dissekeeb [Essequibo]”, which “proved of all consequence to Captain Gromwegle [Groenewegen]”, who had “lost his fort and Colony and for this cause only was forced to marry a woman of the Carib nation to balance the power of the Arawaks, and afterwards was at the charge of great presents to make up the business between the Dutch and the Arawak nation”.78 The marriage between the private Zeeland trader Groenewegen and a Carib woman is supported by the fact that a certain Amos Groenewegen, who was postholder of Demerara in September 1699,79 was indicated as the son of Aert Groenewegen and “an Indian mother”.80 The same forced marriage practice was applied in Suriname in the mid1680s, when the new governor of the Chartered Society Cornelis van Aerssen van Sommesdyck in the context of the concluded agreement about the prohibition of enslavement of 1684/85 had entered into a forced marriage with “the daughter of one of the indigenous chiefs” on the condition that “‘without this tie [. . .] we cannot trust the whites at all’”.81 Both the “Order of Government” of 1629 and the

78 Ibid. The occupation of Lower Essequibo by Arawak is widely confirmed since 1596, inluding the settlement Maburesa, accompanied with the legend “Iaos en arw[akas]” for 1596 (De Bry, “Sketch-map of Guiana”, 1599, p. 59), 1597 and 1625, along with Caribs and Acowaio (Waccewayes) for 1625 in Upper Essequibo (Colson, Land: The Historical Evidence, p. 21), where Raleigh in 1595 indicates “Esparagoto” and “Cassipagotos” (Raleigh, “Chart of Guayana”, c. 1595, p. 55). Again, Arawaks are confirmed in the 1660s for the whole coastal area between the Corentyne and Waini (including Essequibo) (Scott, “Description of Guayana”, after 30 April 1668, p. 169), described as “the best-humoured Indians of America, being both very just and generous-minded people”, and again in 1665 as well as in the mouth of the Pomeroon [Bawrooma] (Governor Byam, “Journal”, c. 1669, in: BRC, serial No. 76, p. 167). Furthermore, Arawak are confirmed to occupy the Essequibo east bank at the Mazaruni and Cuyuni junction and on the sea coast between Berbice and Corentyne in June 1750, along with Acowaio in Upper Essequibo (Dutch Original “Accareye”) and “Parhavianes, Attorneye, and Magnauts” above the Rupununi junction (L. Storm van’s Gravesande, “Sketch-map Rios Essequebe et Demerary”, 22 June 1750, in: BC, No. 61, p. 139). In 1723, Magnauts were also reported to be located “in the plantations [sic!] of the Caraibans [in Upper Esseuibo]” (Court of Policy, “Minutes”, 31 January 1725, in: BB3, serial No. 53, p. 78), whereas Upper Cuyuni and Mazaruni were still “unknown” to the Dutch in 1750 and occupied by “unknown Nations”. The Dutch original reads “onbekende N[atien]” (Storm van’s Gravesande, “Rios Essequebe et Demerary”, 22 June 1750, p. 139). 79 Commander Essequibo, “Journal”, Fort Kijkoveral, 1699–1701, in: BRC, serial No. 127, p. 215. 80 Edmundson, “The Dutch in Western Guiana”, p. 22. 81 Kambel and MacKay, The Rights of Indigenous Peoples and Maroons, p. 52. The authors are quoting an “Indigenous Chief of Suriname” between 1683–1685. In turn, a “promise of marriage” in the colonial Dutch law “had serious consequences”, since “[a] party who refused to marry could be forced to marry anyhow and be punished if he or she persisted in the refusal”,

198

Chapter 9 Dutch Appropriation Practices

“Order of San Salvador” of 1624 are confirming that the promise of marriage was a serious matter for the WIC and “a party who refused to marry could be forced”, whereas the marriage between a Dutch man and indigenous woman in Curaçao in 1638 “was only possible if the woman had been educated in the Dutch Reformed religion and had become a member of that church”.82 The relevance of the marriage practice across the Americas is, furthermore, confirmed by the cases of the Algonquian daughter Pocahontas and an English colonist of Jamestown in 1613, and a shipwrecked Portuguese at the coast of São Vicente in 1510, who “managed to marry a daughter of the powerful chief Tibirića of the Goianá Tupinikin” of the Piratininga plateau, before a Portuguese colony was founded at São Vicente in 1532.83 Meanwhile, WIC servant Jan van der Goes had arrived in Essequibo (Issekepe) in August 1624, who was “bound to the Company”84 and followed by Dutch colonists between November 1626 and June 1628.85 The Essequibo river in August 1624 occupied by Caribs and Arawak,86 the WIC servant in April 1628 had established a Dutch fort in Essequibo, whose material had been requested in April 1627, along with “thirty men” in order to “cause a fort to be made”.87 Nonetheless, the WIC settlement in Essequibo was on the rocks as early as 1632, since the WIC Nineteen in April 1632 had voted for “the abandonment of the Company’s Guiana colonies, including that in Essequibo”,88 which was just impeded by the engagement of WIC Zeeland, who assumed “responsibility of maintaining that colony” and prolonged the employment of Jan van der Goes in August 1632, after the WIC in Zeeland had in July 1632 “settle[d] up with Jan van der Goes and [. . .] keep him at which had happened in 1657 in New Amsterdam, where a colonist was imprisoned and “finally gave in” (Schiltkamp, “On Common Ground”, p. 77). 82 Ibid. See Kambel and MacKay, The Rights of Indigenous Peoples and Maroons, p. 52. 83 Hemming, “Indian Frontier”, pp. 147–148. Furthermore, this practice contradicts Anna Benjamin’s assumption about Indigenous Peoples’ “tolerance of European plantation settlements on their lands” due to “their dependency on European manufactures” (Benjamin, “A Preliminary Look”, p. 3) and the claim of Kambel and MacKay that some Indigenous Peoples were “acquiesced to certain Dutch incursions” (Kambel and MacKay, The Rights of Indigenous Peoples and Maroons, p. 54). 84 WIC (Zeeland Chamber), “Proceedings”, 21 May 1626–4 October 1627, p. 45; WIC (Zeeland), “Proceedings”, 23. August 1627, pp. 63–64. 85 WIC (Zeeland Chamber), “Proceedings”, 21 May 1626–4 October 1627, p. 45; WIC (Zeeland), “Proceedings”, 10 April 1628–17 April 1628, p. 65; WIC, “Conditions for Colonists on the Wild Coast”, 12 June 1627, p. 53. 86 Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, p. 87. 87 WIC (Zeeland), “Proceedings”, 10 April 1628–17 April 1628, p. 64; WIC (Zeeland), “Proceedings”, 10 April 1628–17 April 1628, p. 55; ibid., 23. August 1627, pp. 63–64. 88 WIC, “Proceedings”, 1630–1632, p. 65, Annotation.

Van Pere’s Berbice Colony and the WIC in Essequibo (1616–1732)

199

hand until Bevelander comes home, in order after that to negotiate with him about sending him again to that river” and having “sharply” admonished him “to do his duty”.89 However, the WIC colony in Essequibo remained on shaky grounds, since the WIC colony stayed behind the trade expectations of the WIC, although Jan van der Goes was experimenting with “two kegs of syrup, or sap of sugarcane [for] reducing it to sugar”.90 In addition, the Essequibo colonists had in August 1637 thrown in the towel and were “minded to come home by the first ship” to return to Zeeland as “poor people”.91 The reasons are unknown, as the Dutch presence on the Wild Coast was generally increasing at this time due to “sixteen Dutchman”, who settled at the Orinoco mouth in 1636 among “a great population of Carib Indians”,92 and Dutch settlers on the Amacuro93 and Aniavero (Amavero) “among the Caribs and Aruac nations” (1637) at the mouth of the Guayapiche and in Oquetay (1638),94 whereas the three Dutch settlements in Trinidad and Tobago were destroyed by the Spanish governor Escobar in September and December 1636, which was responded by attacks on Santo Tome and San Joseph in July and October 1637 by Caribs, Nepoio, Tivitives, Warao, Arawak, and Dutch, whose forces were most likely led by Aert Groenewegen. In 1639, Jan van der Goes was then replaced in Essequibo by Cornelis Pietersz. Hose [Hoste] by the ship “de Jager”, who was followed by twenty-five new colonists, selected by Abraham van Pere and Confrater Lonissen,95 who arrived in Essequibo before August 1640.96

89 Ibid., pp. 65–67. 90 WIC (Zeeland), “Proceedings”, 14 May 1637, in: BRC, serial No. 37, p. 75. 91 WIC, “Proceedings”, 1634–1636, p. 72. 92 Cooperation and Governor of Santo Thomé, “Letter to the Royal Audiencia”, 1638, pp. 115–116. 93 In 1637, the Dutch had established “a fort in the mouth of the River of Amacuro, to windward of the Orinoco 20 [Spanish] leagues” (Maldonado, “Account”, 1638–1639, p. 124), after “ten Dutch [were] waiting for reinforcements to fortify themselves” in the river in 1636 (Don Juan Desolguren, “Memorandum”, 19 November 1637, in: BRC, serial No. 39, pp. 77–82, at 78). 94 Corporation of Santo Tomé de la Guayana, “Letter”, Santo Thomé, 11 April 1637, p. 109; Cooperation and Governor of Santo Thomé, “Letter to the Royal Audiencia”, 1638, p. 115. In that context, it is claimed that “[a]ll these villages are subject to, and under the protection of Essequibo, where the fortress is” (ibid., p. 116). The settlements are confirmed for the period 1638–1639 (Maldonado, “Account”, 1638–1639, p. 120). 95 WIC, “Proceedings”, 1634–1636, p. 72. He remained there at least until 1639 (WIC [Zeeland], “Proceedings”, 26 July 1638–29 May 1645, in: BC, No. 26, pp. 96–104, at 96–97). 96 WIC (Zeeland), “Proceedings”, 26 July 1638–29 May 1645, pp. 98–99. Meanwhile, Jan van der Goes was entrusted by the Zeeland Chamber with a secret mission to the Orinoco in July 1638 (ibid., p. 96), which was resumed on 7 February 1639 with regard to the “projected exploit in the river of Orinoco [. . .] concerning a mine” (ibid., p. 96), which is arguably the quicksilver mine mentioned in both the account of Jacques Ousiel of 1637 (J. Ousiel, “Report to WIC”, 1637, in: BC,

200

Chapter 9 Dutch Appropriation Practices

The Essequibo trade was then undertaken by Abraham van Pere of Berbice, while Essequibo continued with changing commanders, such as Adriaen Jansz. in May 164497 and Art Adriaensen van Scherpenisse in March 1645,98 who were situated at “Fort Kykoveral in Essequibo”. At the same time, the Essequibo colony reported about two Dutchmen from Vlissingen, who three years ago had seized 81 Indigenous Peoples from St. Eustache. Confirming the enslavement prohibition in Brazil of 1636 and the agreement of 1672, the commander requested the WIC Nineteen to act “thereon as shall be suited to prevent the carrying off of people”.99 Hence, Aert Groenewegen re-emerged on the scene in November 1650, this time as WIC commander of Essequibo, what he remained until his death in August 1664.100 On 15 September 1658, he had ordered Commissary Goliat from “New Middelburg [Pomeroon]” to inquire and report about “the rivers there, and the condition of Nova Zeelandia”,101 established by the Walcheren cities on the basis of a WIC grant of 24 December 1657.102 Previously, surviving Zeeland colonists of Brazil led by Captain Caron had reached the Pomeroon via Tobago

No. 24, pp. 73–83, at 77) and Maldonado (Maldonado, “Account”, 1638–1639, p. 122). Thereupon, WIC Zeeland resolved that van der Goes should go “directly to the Canary Islands” with 50 soldiers and authorized him in April 1639 to obtain “provisions” for his voyage to the Orinoco (WIC [Zeeland], “Proceedings”, 26 July 1638–29 May 1645, pp. 97–98). In July 1640, Jan de Goes returned to Zeeland and “delivered [. . .] certain ore, with a little nugget of gold” (ibid., p. 98), but had failed to establish a Dutch fort in the Orinoco for unfathomable reasons “since by the testimony of the journals and of persons who have come from there, the enemy offered our people no hindrance there” (WIC [Zeeland], “Proceedings”, 26 July 1638–29 May 1645, p. 99). 97 Ibid., p. 102; WIC (Zeeland), “Proceedings”, 5 May 1644, in: BRC, serial No. 48, p. 130. At that time, Adriaen van de Woestyne was designated “clerk” (ibid.). 98 WIC (Zeeland), “Proceedings”, 9 March 1645, in: BRC, serial No. 50, p. 131; WIC (Zeeland), “Proceedings”, 26 July 1638–29 May 1645, p. 103. George Edmundson suggests that this person is Based on the similar first and middle name, George Edmundson suggests that this person is actually “Aert Adriaensen Groenewegen” (Edmundson, “The Dutch in Western Guiana”, p. 16, footnote 31), which however does not match with the period of Groenewegen’s WIC employment, recorded for the period 1650–1664. 99 WIC (Zeeland), “Proceedings”, 9 March 1645, p. 131; WIC (Zeeland), “Proceedings”, 26 July 1638–29 May 1645, p. 103. See Benjamin, “A Preliminary Look”, p. 8. 100 WIC, “Minutes”, 9 March 1671, cited in: Edmundson, “The Dutch in Western Guiana”, p. 16. 101 WIC (Zeeland), “Minutes”, 2 January 1659, in: BRC, serial No. 67, p. 248. 102 WIC, “Provisional Contract between WIC Zeeland and the Walcheren Cities”, 24 December 1657, in: BC, No. 36, p. 125; Committee governing the three Walcheren Cities in the Colony of Nova Zeelandia, “Proceedings”, 1658, in: BRC, serial No. 62, p. 146.

The Dutch and Courlanders in Tobago (1627–1803)

201

(1642) and Trinidad (1650) to trade with the Arawak.103 Nevertheless, the first WIC was dissolved after the English attacks on all three Dutch settlements in Essequibo, Pomeroon, and Tobago in 1665. Only in 1670, WIC Zeeland petitioned again to establish a new colony in Essequibo, whereas Pomeroon was transferred from the Walcheren cities to the WIC in 1686104 and the Lampsins colony in Tobago was re-built in 1668.

The Dutch and Courlanders in Tobago (1627–1803) Following Abraham van Pere (Berbice), and Jan van der Goes (Essequibo), Vlissingen burgomaster Jan de Moor was on 8 October 1626 ordered “to commit to paper what fresh trading-places might be found within the limits of the Charter”105 and in June 1627 nominated as patron for a colony in Tobago,106 after Jacob Maerten had anchored in Tobago until June 1621107 and Jan de Moor’s petition for the Amazon was rejected by the WIC in November 1626 as “an infringement of their charter”.108 Hence, Maerten was designated the “general of the folk”, whose ship “Out

103 Scott, “Description of Guayana”, after 30 April 1668, p. 170; Boomert, Indigenous Peoples of Trinidad and Tobago, p. 118. 104 WIC (Zeeland) and Walcheren Cities, “Provisional Contract”, 16/24 December 1657, p. 125; WIC (Amsterdam), “Resolution about the Population and Cultivation of Pomeroon and Appointment of Jacob de Jonge”, 5 April 1586, in: BRC, serial No. 106, p. 193. 105 WIC (Zeeland), “Proceedings”, 8 October 1626–17 December 1626, in: BRC, serial No. 24, pp. 62–63, at 62. 106 In 1498, Columbus named the island “Belaforma” (Thacher, Columbus, p. 390), whereas a Spanish slave raider had named the island Tabaco (alternative spellings Cabaco, Tavaco, or Tabacho), since the contour of the island “reminded him of a long fat cigar”, which the Tainio “Amerindians of the Greater Antilles were accustomed to smoke” and called “tabacos” (Boomert, Indigenous Peoples of Trinidad and Tobago, p. 85). By contrast, the Spaniard Antonio Vásquez de Espinosa in 1628 indicated that “[t]his island is called Urupaina in the [Carib] Indian language, meaning big snail” (Boomert, Indigenous Peoples of Trinidad and Tobago, p. 2). 107 Jacob Maerszt., “Petition to Send a Colony to the Island of Tobago to WIC and WIC response”, 21 June 1627, in: BC, No. 18, pp. 54–55. More precisely, the location of his anchorage was indicated as “near such an island as Tobago”. Hereby, Maerten had successfully petitioned for undertaking “expeditions, be it to the island of Trinidad, or to Orinoco, Comenagotta [Cumanagoto], Margarita, Caracas, or Cumaná”, where “at the proper time of the year good profits and prizes are to be made, to which end the aforesaid colonists will at any time be very glad to give their service [. . .], on condition that they receive their shares and fares” (ibid.). 108 Goslinga, Wild Coast, p. 410. Beforehand, Jan de Moor was in December 1626 ordered to “to draw up instructions concerning the manner in which the people for the Amazon or the rivers thereabouts are to be located” (WIC (Zeeland), “Proceedings”, 8 October 1626–17 December 1626,

202

Chapter 9 Dutch Appropriation Practices

Vlissingen” arrived in Tobago in 1628,109 where the Zeelanders “founded a tobacco plantation, defended by a major fortification and a smaller one, on the leeward coast of Tobago”. However, the first European settlement in Tobago was abandoned before 1630 “due to raids by Island Caribs from St. Vincent and Grenada”,110 after the Spaniards had undertaken excessive slave raids between 1602 and 1632, which were declared as “‘punishing expedition[s]’” against the “Caribs” of Tobago, but never established any Spanish settlement, since Juan Rodriguez’ attempt failed in 1614 after “four months” and earlier letter patents, such as the nomination of Francisco de Vides in 1591, were never implemented. Despite, until 1633 the Dutch had sent new colonists to the Jan de Moor colony on the west side of Tobago, who established friendly contacts with the Nepoio of Trinidad and developed a flourishing settlement, whose number of settlers, arguably due to joining survivors of the Peter van Rhee colony at the Wiapoco, increased from “a hundred”111 to 150 in 1636, among them Dutch, Flemings, English, French, and Irish, who were accompanied by “a large number of Negros taken there by order of the Prince of Orange to provide the country with labour”.112 Furthermore, several buildings and two forts,113 the smaller fort as a “stockade house” and “the great fort” intended “as a defence against the Caribs”,114 were built, before the colony was attacked and destroyed by the Spanish governor Diego Escobar on 1 December 1636, after his attack on two Dutch settlements in Trinidad in September 1636.115 In Tobago, Escobar made short work and destroyed “all the buildings between the two forts” and imprisoned all the colonists,116 whereupon the Dutch governor “surrendered”.117 The prisoners, whose

p. 62). Priorly, he had sent “seventy colonists to the Wild Coast” without the approval of the WIC, who were immediately ordered back. (Goslinga, Wild Coast, p. 411). 109 Jacob Maerszt., “Tobago Petition”, 21 June 1627, p. 54. 110 Boomert, Indigenous Peoples of Trinidad and Tobago, p. 110. Accordingly, Antonio Vásquez de Espinosa stated in 1628 that the island Tobago “is inhabited by Carib Indians’” (ibid., p. 2). 111 Boomert, Indigenous Peoples of Trinidad and Tobago, pp. 110; 116–117. 112 NATT, Governor Diego Escobar, “Letter to King of Spain”, January 1637, publication No. 84. 113 Both forts were fitted out “with twenty-eight pieces of cannon”, arms and ammunition (Desolguren, “Memorandum”, 19 November 1637, pp. 77–78). The main fort (Nieuw Vlissingen) was situated “just north of the mouth of the Courland River” and “a major stronghold” was built at Black Rock (Boomert, The Indigenous Peoples of Trinidad and Tobago, p. 117). 114 J. Ousiel, “Report”, 1637, in: BRC, serial No. 40, pp. 82–88, at 83. 115 Diego Escobar had succeeded Don Luis de Monsalves and Cristóval de Aranda as interim Governor on 23 June 1636 (NATT, Escobar, “Account”, San Joseph, November 1636). See also NATT, Escobar, “Report to Audiencia”, St. Thome, 11 April 1637. 116 Ousiel, “Report”, 1637, p. 83. 117 NATT, Governor Diego Escobar, “Account”, San Joseph, November 1636, publication No. 82.

The Dutch and Courlanders in Tobago (1627–1803)

203

number varies between 45118 and 70,119 were subsequently brought to Margarita, where the majority of them were hanged, in violation of the agreement of surrender, except some boys including the son of the patron Cornelis de Moor,120 who was forced to “plant provisions and tobacco for the Spaniards” on the seven Spanish plantations in Trinidad, situated “(a)bout one mile east and one mile west of the aforesaid town [San Joseph]” in places named Tacaribe and Aracao;121 which were established as two of the four encomiendas until 1612.122 In consequence, Diego Escobar was charged for having undertaken the Tobago attack “solely for his own profit” and “without the agreement of the old established vecinos of Trinidad” in July 1640123 and was commanded “to leave his government physically at the arrival of his successor”.124 In result, the Jan de Moor colony remained abandoned, since the initially approved petition of the Dutch de Moor heir for re-establishing the Jan de Moor colony was stopped in 1650, after Jan de Moore had died in 1644. Prior, the Dutch had revenged the Spanish attacks in Trinidad and Tobago with counter-attacks on Santo Tome and San Joseph in 1637, before they returned to Tobago in September 1654.125 Preceded by short-lived English settlements of the captains Masham (1639–1640) and Marshall (1642–1646),126 which were

118 Ousiel, “Report to WIC”, 1637, p. 76; Ousiel, “Report”, 1637, p. 83. Another account of Jacques Ousiel gives this number with 44 (Ousiel, “Account of the Spanish coasts to the West India Company”, 1637, p. 89) and Cornelis Goslinga with 40 (Goslinga, Wild Coast, p. 414). 119 NATT, Governor Diego Escobar, “Letter to King of Spain”, January 1637, publication No. 84, NATT. 120 According to the Dutch eyewitness Ousiel, the Governor of Margarita had “received letters from the one of Trinidad, requesting him to give the Dutchmen free passage to Saint Christopher, in accordance with the capitulaciones made with them in the name of His Majesty. But this Governor at once gave orders to hang every one of them, great and small, as was done immediately, exception being made only of a shipbuilder and of the boys under 16 years, these being saved through the repeated intercession of the Franciscans”. The boys, among them Cornelis de Moor, the son of the Tobago governor, were then distributed among the Spanish in Margarita to work as slaves on the plantations and thus shared “the same fate, as the Dutch prisoners taken during the Trinidad attacks” (Ousiel, “Account of the Spanish coasts to the West India Company”, 1637, p. 87, emphasis added). 121 Ibid. 122 Alternative spellings are Cuara or Cura, which was arguably “situated south of Tacarigua” (Boomert, Indigenous Peoples of Trinidad and Tobago, p. 104). 123 King Philip IV, “Royal Cedula”, 31 July 1640; NATT, Escobar, “Letter to King of Spain”, January 1637/ 8 March 1641 (emphasis added). 124 NATT, King Philip IV, “Royal Cedula”, 31 July 1640. 125 Goslinga, Wild Coast, p. 440. 126 Boomert, Indigenous Peoples of Trinidad and Tobago, p. 118. This settlement attempt had comprised about some hundred people “under the patronage of the Earl of Warwick”, who settled “in an unknown part of the island”, before they were attacked “by Island Caribs from St.

204

Chapter 9 Dutch Appropriation Practices

deserted after attacks by “Island Caribs from St. Vincent” (1640)127 and “trouble given by ye Indians” (1646),128 the Dutch Pieter Bequard and several Zeelanders from Vlissingen had petitioned for a “separate colony on Tobago”, which was approved by the Dutch States General, established at Roodklyp Bay on the eastern side of the island in July 1654 and called “New Walcheren”.129 According to Cornelis Goslinga, the colony had as anticipated a heavy flux of Dutch colonists from St. Eustatius and the Guianas.130 In 1656, the Zeelanders in Tobago were joined by the Courland colony of Wilhelm Molleyns,131 which was based on a grant of the Earl of Warwick of May 1654132 and had followed a short-lived Courlandian settlement attempt at the end of the 1630s.133 While Molleyns had after his arrival on “the north west coast of Tobago at Jacobus Bay (Great Courland Bay)” and establishing of fort Jacobus and several plantations with 80 families and 120 soldiers134 claimed to have “found the Island deserted, in thick forest and obviously not occupied for 30 years past” and “took possession of it in the name of Monseigneur” and “settled without complaint or resistance from anyone”, the

Vincent” and crossed over to the Toco area of Trinidad (ibid.), whereas Cornelis Goslinga asserts that the Caribs of Tobago had “g[i]ve[n] him [the Duke] a cleare possession”, before the settlement was destroyed (Goslinga, Wild Coast, p. 441). 127 Boomert, Indigenous Peoples of Trinidad and Tobago, p. 118. 128 NATT, N.N. “Description of the Careeby (Caribee) Islands including Trinidad and Tobago”, 1666. The English settlement attempts were predated by Sir Thomas Warner’s claim of having taken “actual possession of all the Charibbee Islands (of which Tobago is one) for the use of the Crown of England and in the name of Charles I”, assertively based on a formal “Letters Patent dated 2 June 1627” (NATT, Paramount Indian Chief of Tobago Ayris, “Report”, 2 June 1709, publication No. 782), while the French king issued a grant for Tobago on 24 December 1645 (NATT, Company of the Islands of America, “Articles and Conditions for the settlement of Tobago”, 24 December 1645, publication No. 439). 129 In addition, Adriaen Lampsins was designated as “the former burgomaster of Flushing and deputy of Zeeland at the States General” (Goslinga, Wild Coast, p. 440); NATT, Governor of Barbados, “Account”, 16 June 1681, publication No. 766. According to Boomert, this was situated “at present Rockly Bay” (Boomert, Indigenous Peoples of Trinidad and Tobago, p. 119). 130 Goslinga, Wild Coast, p. 440. 131 NATT, N.N. “Description of the Careeby (Caribee) Islands including Trinidad and Tobago”, 1666. Instead, the governor of Barbados gives the date retrospectively with 1655 (NATT, Governor of Barbados, “Account”, 16 June 1681). 132 NATT, N.N. “Description of the Careeby (Caribee) Islands including Trinidad and Tobago”, 1666. 133 According to Cornelis Goslinga, the Courland expedition took place in 1637 (Goslinga, Wild Coast, p. 440), while Arie Boomert indicates the start of the settlement attempt as “1639” (Boomert, Indigenous Peoples of Trinidad and Tobago, p. 115). 134 NATT, Governor of Barbados, “Account”, 16 June 1681; NATT, Duke of Courland, “Pamphlet claiming right to the Island of Tobago”, 1668, publication No. 731).

The Dutch and Courlanders in Tobago (1627–1803)

205

Courlander “later” found three Dutchmen of Becquard’s New Walcheren colony135 “on the other side of the Island five leagues from Fort Jacubus”, who “had been left as a hostage for the son of a Cacique of the Indians” and “in fear of the Indians [. . .] had no other course but to pray for the protection of Monseigneur, and for this purpose applied to Captain Molleyns”.136 The request “was granted and they were allotted a portion of land subject to the same conditions as the other settlers and to the payment of the required dues to the Duke” and on the condition that the Dutch would “acknowledge [. . .] the Duke as their superior in this Island and agreed to pay all necessary dues”.137 However, the Courland colony in 1658 was several times attacked by both “Arawaks from the mainland and Island Caribs [Kali’nago] from St. Vincent”, which was survived by “only some fifty Courlanders”,138 whereupon Molleyns went to Courland to report in person,139 but “the Duke of Courland was [already] imprisoned by the Swedes”.140 Hence, Cornelis Lampsins took over the Courland colony by an agreement of association with the Duke of Courland,141 which was already concluded in 1654, when the “States General of the United Provinces had a Treaty of Neutrality with the Duke of Courland”.142 In this context, Cornelis Goslinga indicates that the Zeelanders had prior to the abandonment of the Dutch colony also concluded an agreement with the Tobago “Caribs” in 1654, but with certainty only occupied “a part of the island”, as the “Caribs” in the 1650s had “held the middle and northern part” and “with help from St. Vincent” often raided in particular the Courlanders.143 Instead, the colony at Lampsins Bay had until 1660 established “six sugar mills” and was “protected by three forts, the main fort Lampsinsberg, and two

135 NATT, Duke of Courland, “Pamphlet claiming right to the Island of Tobago”, 1668. 136 Cornelis Goslinga determines the Chief as “Carib” (Goslinga, Wild Coast, p. 441) and Arie Boomert suggested the hostage practice as an indicator for the conclusion of “a treaty of friendship” (Boomert, Indigenous Peoples f Trinidad and Tobago, p. 119). 137 NATT, Duke of Courland, “Pamphlet claiming right to the Island of Tobago”, 1668, publication No. 731. 138 Boomert, Indigenous Peoples of Trinidad and Tobago, p. 121. 139 NATT, Governor of Barbados, “Account”, 16 June 1681. 140 NATT, Paramount Indian Chief Ayris, “Report”, 2 June 1709; NATT, N.N. “Account on Courland and English settlers in Tobago, including Letter Patent of Duke of Courland (1684) and Earl of Carlisle Lord James Hay by Charles I (1627)”, April 1749, publication No. 316. 141 NATT, Paramount Indian Chief Ayris, “Report”, 2 June 1709; NATT, N.N. “Account on Courland and English settlers in Tobago”, April 1749. 142 NATT, Governor of Barbados, “Account”, 16 June 1681. 143 Goslinga, Wild Coast, p. 441; Boomert, Indigenous Peoples of Trinidad and Tobago, p. 116.

206

Chapter 9 Dutch Appropriation Practices

smaller ones Van Veveren and Bellavista”.144 Somewhat confusing is the account of the wife of Tobago planter Christian Gaymer, who determines Cornelis Lampsins in 1663 instead as being “in the government” and “one of the owners” of the colony of “New Walcheren” [sic!],145 who died one month after his request for the “renewal of his Charter in August 1664” and had left the colony to his brother Adriaen and his two sons.146 Despite, the Dutch Lampsins colony in Tobago (same as Essequibo and Pomeroon) was attacked by Englishman John Scott in October 1666, but retaken by the Dutch Abraham Crynsen [Cruijnsen] in April 1667, after his capture of the English Suriname colony in February 1666 and before his relieve of Essequibo in 1667.147 Although the Lampsin family had sent new colonists and soldiers “to rebuilt Lamsinstad” in 1668,148 they were just a couple of months afterwards again attacked, this time by “twenty pirogues with 150 Nepoio” of Trinidad, who were repulsed with the support of “the local Kali’na (Galibis)”, with whom they had “a friendly relationship”.149 However, the Lamspin colony was again attacked by the English in 1672, this time by “Sir Tobias Bridge and Sir William Pool” with a force from Barbados,150 who had “expelled” the Dutch, “destroyed

144 Goslinga, Guianas, pp. 418; 440; 444. However, the German Clement Gunter in March 1665 had reported to the Spanish that “Curlanders and Dutch have divided it [“Tavaco”] into two parts” (German Captain Clemente Gunter, “Declaration”, 18 March 1665, p. 163). 145 NATT, Wife of Christian Gayner, “Petition to the King concerning her Husband’s Case against Planters in Tobago” (1636/1662), 7 May 1673, publication No. 363. 146 Goslinga, Guianas, p. 444. 147 Scott, “Description of Guayana”, after 30 April 1668, pp. 169–171. Therefore, the English Governor of Nevis upon his sail to Tobago in 1667 concluded that Tobago would be “now deserted by both Courlanders and Dutch” (NATT, Governor of Nevis William Stapleton, “Report about an Expedition against Indians assumed to prepare an attack on Tobago”, 1683, publication No. 392); Governor Byam, “Journal”, c. 1669, p. 167. 148 Boomert, Indigenous Peoples of Trinidad and Tobago, p. 122. 149 NATT, Duke of Courland, “Report to the Privy Council with account of Duke of Courland from 1659–1683”, December 1683, publication No. 370; NATT, N.N. “Account about the agreement between Captain Poyntz and the Duke of Courland concerning settlement of Tobago (1680) and (1699)”, 1699, publication No. 374. Furthermore, the English Governor of Nevis, William Stapleton, in 1667 reported about preparations for parallel attacks in St. Vincent, St. Lucia, Dominica and “also from the Main and the Island of Tobago” (NATT, Governor of Nevis William Stapleton, “Report about an Expedition against Indians assumed to prepare an attack on Tobago”, 1683). 150 NATT, Paramount Indian Chief Ayris, “Report”, 2 June 1709. The English attack of 1672 is confirmed by NATT, N.N. “Account on the validity of the title to Tobago by the Duke of Courland, 11 December 1683, publication No. 372.

The Dutch and Courlanders in Tobago (1627–1803)

207

the Fort and buildings without making any new settlement”151 and took “many planters, their African slaves and cattle [. . .] to Barbados”, while some of the slaves were “taken to the Windward Islands by a party of Island Caribs”.152 After the Peace of Westminster (1674) and the restoration of the Dutch colony,153 the Lampsins sold the colony to the States General,154 who had sent Admiral Binckes with reinforcement and new settlers to Tobago in 1676. However, after a new fortification of Lamsinstad was constructed,155 the Dutch were twice attacked by the French in 1677, namely by the Comte D’Estrees “with a squadron of ships”, who had left the island “desolated”156 and carried off “[a]ll the Dutch inhabitants”, except Sergeant John Hessen and two others, “who continued living there after the French had entirely abandoned the Island”.157 Thus, the Courlanders embarked for another settlement attempt in Tobago in 1681,158 which was based on a patent by Charles II of 17 November 1664 granted under “certain conditions”159 and accorded to the released Duke of Courland as

151 NATT, Paramount Indian Chief Ayris, “Report”, 2 June 1709. Thereupon, the English assertively “judged sufficient that the [English] Government of Barbados should retain Tobago under its jurisdiction, thereby preserving the title of the Crown” (ibid.). 152 Boomert, Indigenous Peoples of Trinidad and Tobago, p. 122. 153 NATT, Paramount Indian Chief Ayris, “Report”, 2 June 1709. 154 Therefore, the claim that a Dutch force of commander Christopher van Kayserling allegedly “captured the Fort” in Tobago in 1675 appears implausible (NATT, Governor of Barbados, “Account”, 16 June 1681). 155 Boomert, Indigenous Peoples of Trinidad and Tobago, p. 122. 156 NATT, Paramount Indian Chief Ayris, “Report”, 2 June 1709. The year of this attack is given as 1676 (ibid.); NATT, Duke of Courland, “Report to the Privy Council with account of Duke of Courland from 1659–1683”, December 1683, publication No. 370. 157 NATT, Paramount Indian Chief Ayris, “Report”, 2 June 1709. This is confirmed by the English argument against the French of March 1697 (NATT, Envoy of Duke of Courland, “True state of Case concerning Tobago”, March 1697, publication No. 377) and 1749 (NATT, N.N., “Account about Foundations for English and French claims to Tobago”, publication No. 316, April 1749). 158 NATT, Governor of Barbados, “Account”, 3 January 1682, publication No. 367. Priorly, the Duke of Courland had granted an area of 120,000 acres of land to a certain Captain Poyntz in September 1680 (NATT, N. N. “Account on Tobago Grant”, 1680, publication No. 362; NATT, N.N. “Account on Petition to King of England, Grant by Duke of Courland (1664) and Settlement of Tobago by Captain Poyntz”, December 1683, publication No. 371). 159 NATT, Paramount Indian Chief Ayris, “Report”, 2 June 1709. In 1686, the English Council referred to those conditions for arguing that the Duke had not “performed” those conditions and consequently “had forfeited all title and right to the said Patent” (NATT, N. N., “Account on Rights of Duke of Courland to and settlements in Tobago”, 1699, publication No. 733; NATT, Duke of Courland, “Grant to Island of Tobago”, 1666, publication No. 358; NATT, Lord Behlhavin, “Memorial proposing resettlement under Council of Barbados”, 1721, publication No. 734.

208

Chapter 9 Dutch Appropriation Practices

compensation for the English destruction of the Courland fort “at the mouth of the Gamba River” in Gambia, which was “sold to the Dutch West Indian Company”, when the English king in 1661 had “granted a charter to the Royal African Company”. Hence, English ships “demolished this fort”160 and the Duke of Courland, before his death on 31 December 1683, had sent “two ships” with “Franz Monck as governor”161 and “about 100 men” to Tobago in 1681,162 who “again settled at Jacobus Bay and reconstituted the Colony”, but were immediately expelled by Indigenous Peoples, who had “often assaulted these late settlers, killed several of them and forced them to desert the Island”.163 Subsequently, the Courlanders fled to Barbados to “seek passage to England” before June 1681,164 while some of them appeared in the English colony in Jamaica in August 1682.165 Nevertheless, the succeeding Duke of Courland Friedrick Casimir started yet another settlement attempt in Tobago in 1686 by requesting the late king James II for his support “to encourage the settlement of the said Island [Tobago] and allow some of his English subjects to join in this design”. This was refused by His English Majesty’s Attorney General, since “the said Duke” had assertively “not [. . .] fulfilled the conditions of his grant from king Charles II.”, wherefore “any rights which the Duke could pretend to by virtue thereof, were become void in law and returned to the Crown”.166 Despite, Duke Casimir ordered Captain Schmoll

160 NATT, N.N. “Account on the validity of the title to Tobago by the Duke of Courland”, 11 December 1683. 161 NATT, Governor of Barbados, “Account”, 16 June 1681. Some earlier follow-up settlement attempts of the Duke of Courland ended with the result that the colonists “deserted ye Island” (NATT, N.N., “Description of ye Careeby Islands”, 1666, publication No. 357). 162 NATT, Governor of Barbados, “Account”, 3 January 1682. Priorly, the Duke of Courland had an area of 120,000 acres of land to a certain Captain Poyntz in September 1680 (NATT, N.N. “Account on Tobago Grant”, 1680, publication No. 362; NATT, N. N. “Account on Petition to King of England, Grant by Duke of Courland, 1664, and Settlement of Tobago by Captain Poyntz”, December 1683, publication No. 371). 163 NATT, Governor of Barbados, “Account”, 16 June 1681. At the same time, Indigenous Peoples had before January 1682 also attacked an English ship in Saint Lucia on its way to Barbados, as “the natives of the place fell upon them and killed four of them and forced them thence” (NATT, Governor of Barbados, “Account”, 3 January 1682). 164 NATT, Governor of Barbados, “Account”, 16 June 1681. 165 NATT, Governor of Jamaica Sir T. Lynch, “Letter about Tobago Settlers in Jamaica and settlers from Antigua for Trinidad”, 1682, publication No. 369; NATT, Duke of Courland, “Report about Settlers from Barbados to Tobago”, 1682. 166 NATT, Paramount Indian Chief Ayris, “Report”, 2 June 1709.

The Dutch and Courlanders in Tobago (1627–1803)

209

to depart for Tobago, whose reinforcement (including the new governor Dietrick von Altenbocken) shipwrecked in 1688 “on the coast of Tobago”. Hence, Schmoll and his colonists abandoned the project and left for New England. Only Lieutenant Fanton remained in Tobago “with a small remnant” until 1690, when he departed for Courland167 and ended the settlement attempts of the Courlanders in Tobago, since subsequent negotiations of the Duke in 1699 with both Dutch and English remained unsuccessful.168 Finally, the European possession of Tobago was (in breach with the European colonial law of acquisition) decided on the negotiation table, resulting in the bilateral Treaty of Peace of 1763 between the French and the English after decades of arguments and an abandonment of the island of more than 50 years by both French and English.169 The whole island of Tobago, along with St. Vincent and Dominica, was ceded to England, although the English had only three shortterm settlements on the Tobago in 1639, 1642, and 1646, while the French had expelled the Dutch from Tobago in 1677. Followed by the Treaty of Nijmegen (1678/79), Tobago was again captured by the French in 1781,170 English in 1793, reverted to the French in 1802 and recaptured by the English “without loss” in June 1803,171 whereupon the English unified Tobago and Trinidad in 1888. Most notably, all the transfer practices among Europeans had ignored the Treaty concluded between the “Caribs” (Kali’nago) of Saint Vincent and Dominica and the French on 31 March 1660172 and, most notably, violated the European colonial law of appropriation of Hugo Grotius, since the Dutch had just acquired land as property by occupation from the “Caribs” (who still occupied Tobago), but not sovereignty and jurisdiction, which remained with the “Caribs”,

167 NATT, Governor of Barbados, “Account”, 16 June 1681. 168 Therefore, the Duke of Courland had initially “proposed to the Dutch that they should cede to his Majesty their rights in the Island of Tobago”, which was responded by the Dutch in the Hague “that they had not forgotten the cession [to the French] made by the Treaty of Nimeguen [Nijmegen] and that there was no question of settling Dutch in Tobago” (NATT, N.N. “Account on Petition to King of England, Grant by Duke of Courland [1664] and Settlement of Tobago by Captain Poyntz”, December 1683, publication No. 371). 169 NATT, Captain Tyrell, “Account”, 19 October 1757, publication No. 325, Annex. 170 NATT, N. N., “Account on Tobago”, 1781, publication No. 826; NATT, N. N., “Account on Troops and Conditions in Tobago”, 1784, publication No. 442; NATT, Sir Ralph Abercromby, “Black Troops to be raised for Defence of Trinidad”, 1797, publication No. 701. 171 NATT, Abercromby, “Black Troops”,1797. 172 NATT, French king Louis XV, “Instructions to Governor Martinique”, 21 October 1749, publication No. 320.

210

Chapter 9 Dutch Appropriation Practices

which the Dutch could, consequently, not lawfully cede to the French or English. Hence, the following chapters 10, 11, and 12 examine the Dutch colonial appropriation practices on the “Wild Coast” of the South American mainland from the re-establishment of the Essequibo colony in 1670/75 until the final Dutch surrender to the English in 1796/1814.

Chapter 10 Essequibo and the Limits of Plantations (1670/75–1803) In accordance with the Grotian legal provisions and in supplementation to the examined Dutch colonial practices in Essequibo from 1616 until the English attack of 1665, this chapter is mapping out the Dutch colonial appropriation practices of the newly established Essequibo colony from 1670/1675 until the second Dutch surrender to the English in 1796/1814, in order to determine the spatial extent of Dutch occupation in Essequibo, Lower Mazaruni, and Lower Cuyuni. Therefore, the chapter first of all traces the WIC plantations laid out in the vicinity of the Essequibo junction since 1681, before examining the free plantations of Upper Essequibo since 1699 and determining the spatial extent of plantations in Lower Essequibo, following the transfer of the Dutch fort from Kijkoveral to Fort Zeelandia in the 1730s, which resulted in the abandonment of the Upper Essequibo plantations since 1773.

Fort Kijkoveral and the WIC Plantations at the Essequibo Junction (1670/75–c. 1764) In the aftermath of the English attack of 1665,1 Fort Kijkoveral in Lower Mazaruni was recaptured by Dutch Captain Matthijs Bergenaar2 and “handed over” to the West India Company on 11 April 1670,3 before the Assembly of the WIC

1 Dutch Essequibo was attacked by the English along with Nova Zeelandia in Pomeroon (Chapter 12) and Tobago (Chapter 9) after Cromwell had failed in his “Western Design against the Spanish Caribbean in 1654–1655” (Armitage, The Ideological Origins of the British Empire, p. 136) and his failed attempt “to seize Hispaniola as a base for a subsequent invasion of the Spanish-American mainland” (Pagden, “The Struggle for Legitimacy”, p. 35). 2 WIC (Zeeland), “Proceedings”, 3 January 1686–9 January 1686, in: BRC, serial No. 104, pp. 189–192, at 192. The recapture took place in the context of the capture of the English colony in Suriname and Tobago relief by van Cruijnsen (Chapter 9). Accordingly, an English source narrates that “the main fort was not taken until the coming of the Fleet from Zealand 1667”. Furthermore, it is reported that Bergenaar had “continued to occupy the aforesaid River” (Governor Byam, “Journal”, c. 1669, p. 167). 3 WIC (Zeeland), “Proceedings”, 3–9 January 1686, p. 192. This is confirmed by Eric van der Oest, who indicates that Essequibo was briefly governed by the States General “[a]fter the Second Anglo-Dutch War (1664–1667)”, but in 1670 “returned to the local [Zeeland] chamber of the WIC” (E. W. van der Oest, “The Forgotten Colonies of Essequibo and Demerara”, in: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110690149-010

212

Chapter 10 Essequibo and the Limits of Plantations (1670/75–1803)

Nineteen approved WIC Zeeland’s petition “to erect a new Colony on the whole Wild Coast” on 23 June 1670,4 on the condition to exclude Pomeroon, “since the disposal thereof does [. . .] belong to the Committee of Nova Zeelandia” and was “struck out” of the agreement.5 Hence, the renewed WIC Charter of the second WIC of 20 September 16746 explicitly inserted “the places of Isekepe [Essequibo] and Bauwmerona [Pomeroon], situated on the continent of America”,7 before Pomeroon was finally transferred to WIC Zeeland from the Walcheren cities Middelburg, Vlissingen, and Vere8 in April 1686.9 Meanwhile, by February 1675, the WIC in Zeeland had sent Hendrik Rol as commander for the newly established colony in the Essequibo,10 who was bound to the new WIC Charter, which in September 1674 had reaffirmed the orders of the Charter of 1621 in its provisions to conclude treaties and form alliances with Indigenous Peoples “within the limits” of Essequibo and Pomeroon, but also to establish “fortresses and strongholds” and appoint “governors, warriors, and officers of justice”.11 However, Hendrik Rol, based at Fort Kijkoveral, situated “about one long cannon shot” distant from the Essequibo and Mazaruni junction (see Figure 9),12 had instead set in motion the process of establishing plantations in the vicinity of the Essequibo junction, which commenced with the foundation of WIC plantations in

J. Postma and V. Enthoven [eds.], Riches from Atlantic Commerce. Dutch Transatlantic Trade and Shipping 1585–1817, Leiden: Brill, 2003, pp. 323–365, at 325). 4 WIC (Zeeland), “Proceedings”, 2 June 1670–23 June 1670, in: BRC, serial No. 79, pp. 170–171, at 171. The validity of the contract of WIC Zeeland has been challenged several times since 1751 by the Amsterdam Chamber for Demerara. 5 WIC (Zeeland), “Proceedings”, 3–9 January 1686, p. 192; Van der Oest, “Forgotten Colonies”, p. 326. 6 Shareholders of WIC (Zeeland), “Memorial”, 30 November 1751, in: BRC, serial No. 265, pp. 71–72. 7 Dutch States General, “Charter of the New West India Company”, 20 September 1674, pp. 174–175. 8 WIC (Zeeland) and Walcheren Cities, “Provisional Contract”, 16/24 December 1657, p. 125. 9 WIC (Amsterdam), “Resolution about the Population and Cultivation of Pomeroon and Appointment of Jacob de Jonge”, 5 April 1586, in: BRC, serial No. 106, p. 193. 10 WIC (Zeeland), “Letter to commander Essequibo Hendrik Rol”, 22 February 1675, in: BC, No. 41, p. 141. Hendrik Rol had arrived in Essequibo in May 1670 (WIC [Zeeland], “Proceedings”, 26 August 1669–5 November 1674, in: BC, No. 40, pp.138–141, at 138–139. 11 More precisely, the WIC Charter ordered again “within the limits set down above, [to conclude] contracts, leagues, and alliances with the Princes and natives of the countries lying within them” (Dutch States General, “Charter of the New West India Company”, 20 September 1674, p. 175, Article 2). This went along with the order to “keep up establishments of good order, police, and justice, for other necessary services, and for the maintenance of the places” (ibid.). 12 Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 2 May 1760, in: BRC, serial No. 348, pp. 184–185, at 185.

Fort Kijkoveral and the WIC Plantations at the Essequibo Junction

213

both Lower Mazaruni and Cuyuni, which were reserved for the West India Company. Therefore, in 1681, a cassava field was laid out “(o)n a certain island in the mouth of the Cuyuni”,13 which was followed by the plantations d’Hoop14 and Fortuijn15 in 1691 and New Middelburg16 and Poelwijk (1700)17 in Lower Mazaruni. Transferred in August 1704 “above the falls”,18 Poelwijk still presented the furthest WIC plantation on the west bank of Lower Mazaruni in 1748/1749,19 but was abandoned by the WIC before October 175420 in result of the transfer of the Dutch Fort from Kijkoveral to Zeelandia in the Essequibo mouth. By contrast, the first WIC plantation in the vicinity of the Essequibo junction (Westersonburgh) was established in 1706.21 Located on the Essequibo west bank and below the first fall in Lower Mazaruni, Westersonburgh’s “break up” was ordered in January 1708,22 resulting in the clearance for the WIC plantation Duynenburgh in May 1710 at the junction of the Mazaruni and Cuyuni,23 which was situated “right opposite the fort and towards Cayuni”.24

13 Commander Essequibo Abraham Beekman, “Letter to WIC”, 1681, in: BC, No. 51, pp. 151–153. 14 WIC, “Muster Rolls: Dutch Posts and Postholders in Essequibo”, in: BRC, pp. 149–187, at 150–151. Alternative spellings are Cajoene or Caione. 15 An alternative spelling is Fortuyne. The bread plantation was still in existence in 1700 (commander Essequibo, “Journal”, Kijkoveral, 1699–1701, p. 217) and was situated abreast of the island of Fort Kijkoveral on both banks of the Lower Mazaruni (Maas, “Essequibo Plantations”, 1706, p. 135). 16 For the first time, the WIC plantation was recorded in January 1700 (commander Essequibo, “Journal”, Kijkoveral, 1699–1701, p. 217) and confirmed in May 1700 (WIC, “Muster Rolls”, pp. 150–151), but vanished until 1706 (Maas, “Essequibo Plantations”, 1706, p. 135). In 1703, the distance of the WIC plantation to Fort Kijkoveral was indicated as “1 ½ [Dutch] miles” (WIC, “Muster Rolls”, p. 153). 17 Ibid., pp. 150–151. 18 Commander Essequibo Samuel Beekman, “Letter to WIC”, 10 August 1704, in: BC, No. 92, p. 208. Arguably, this fall was Torterreba (WIC, “Muster Rolls”, p. 187), although surveyor Abraham Maas had in 1706 indicated that Poelwijk is situated parallel to the first fall (Maas, “Essequibo Plantations”, 1706, p. 135). 19 Storm van’s Gravesande, “Rios Essequebe et Demerary”, 22 June 1750, p. 139. 20 Director- General Essequibo, “Letter to WIC”, 12 October 1754, in: BRC, serial No. 298, pp. 96–100, at 96. This results from a statement of the Director General of the same date, who gave orders to “those of Agterkerke [Aechtekerke] [. . .] to retire, on the first signal of alarm, with all his slaves up to the place where Poelwijk used [sic!] to be” (ibid.). 21 Before that, the number of WIC servants increased from 43 in 1691 to 68 in 1700 (WIC, “Muster Rolls”, pp. 150–151). 22 Commander Essequibo, “Letter to WIC”, 23 January 1708, in: BB3, serial No. 35, p. 72. 23 Alternative spellings are Duynenburg or Duinenburgh and also “Oud Duynenburgh” (after 1748/49). 24 Commander Essequibo, “Letter to WIC”, 13 May 1710, in: BB3, serial No. 38, p. 73.

214

Chapter 10 Essequibo and the Limits of Plantations (1670/75–1803)

Figure 9: Fort Kijkoveral and WIC Plantations in Lower Mazaruni in 1706.

From Duynenburgh, the WIC in March 1724 proceeded to the Lower Cuyuni by laying out coffee, cocoa, and indigo plantations,25 situated “half-an-hour above that of your Lordships’ cassava plantation already laid out in Cajoeny”,26 where the coffee cultivation was concentrated in August 1726, since “[t]he grounds in Cajoeny being better for this culture than any in the Colony”.27 In September 1729, the coffee plantation was complemented by cocoa28 and “12,000 coffee shrubs and 200 cocoa trees” planted between December 1730 and February 1731.29 The plantation in December 1733 became the central place for the Company’s coffee and cocoa cultivation, “since we are not in a position to lay out new plantations for the further cultivation of the aforesaid two commodities [coffee and cocoa] with the

25 In June 1724, a coffee plantation was already established “at the corner of Barritique” (Court of Policy, “Letter to WIC”, 15 June 1724, in: BB3, serial No. 50, pp. 77), whereas a land grant for Bartica was again accorded to William Louissie in April 1736 for “a clearing for cocoa and coffee lying between the point of Bartica and the point of Essequibo” (Court of Policy, “Digest of Land Grants”, 1720–1771, p. 190). 26 Court of Policy, “Letter to WIC”, 23 March 1724, in: BRC, serial No. 48, p. 77. 27 Court of Policy, “Letter to WIC”, 4 August 1726, in: BB3, serial No. 54, pp. 78–79, at 79. In September 1729, this coffee plantation was accompanied by another one, situated “upon the Island Batavia” (commander Essequibo, “Letter to WIC”, 30 January 1730, in: BRC, serial No. 183, p. 10; commander Essequibo, “Letter to WIC”, 30 May 1730, in: BB3, serial No. 62, p. 82). 28 Commander Essequibo, “Letter to WIC”, 30 January 1730, p. 10; commander Essequibo, “Letter to WIC”, 30 May 1730, p. 82. 29 Court of Policy, “Minutes”, 1 April 1731, in: BB3, serial No. 64, p. 83.

Fort Kijkoveral and the WIC Plantations at the Essequibo Junction

215

number of slaves at our disposal here”30 and was abandoned before May 1760.31 In addition, the WIC in Lower Cuyuni experimented with indigo. Considered since July 1707,32 the “first clearing” was made in February 1732,33 before the plantation was abandoned until August 1764.34 Around 1699, the WIC plantations were accompanied by free plantations, whereupon the Court of Policy increased the number of the councillors at the Court of Policy from four to eight in June 170035 and the WIC “master-planters”36 Leendert van Genis (D’Hoop), Bernardus Hutman (Fortuijn), Anthony Dierksen Looman (Poelwijk),37 and WIC sergeant Hendrik

30 Court of Policy, “Letter to WIC”, 5 December 1733, in: BB3, serial No. 70, p. 84. 31 Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 2 May 1760, pp. 184–185. Priorly, the existence of the combined cocoa and coffee plantation was confirmed in May 1739 (commander Essequibo, “Letter to WIC”, Fort River Essequibo, 20 May 1739, in: BRC, serial No. 209, enclosure, pp. 28–30, at 29), March 1741 (Miner Thomas Hildebrandt, “Report of Mining Expedition to WIC Amsterdam”, 9 March 1941, in: BRC, serial No. 213, p. 31), July 1746 (commander Essequibo L. Storm van’s Gravesande, “Letter to WIC”, 20 July 1746, in: BRC, serial No. 232, p. 45), 1748/1749 (Storm van’s Gravesande, “Plantations of Essequibo”, 1748/1749, in: BC, No. 60, p. 137, plantation No. 89) and July 1759 (Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 20 July 1759, in: BRC, serial No. 338, pp. 175–176, at 175). 32 Commander Essequibo, “Letter to WIC”, 2 July 1707, in: BB3, serial No. 34, p. 72. 33 Court of Policy, “Letter to WIC”, 4 February 1732, in: BB3, serial No. 66, p. 83. 34 Director General, “A Brief Treatise concerning the Honourable Company’s Trading-Places”, August 1764, in: BRC, serial No. 396, enclosure 1, pp. 107–112, at 111; L. Storm van’s Gravesande, “A Brief Treatise concerning the Honourable Company’s Trading-places”, August 1764, in: BB3, serial No. 171, enclosure 1, pp. 129–131, at 129. Accordingly, the Director General then disclosed that “the Spaniards spread themselves from year to year, and gradually come closer by means of their missions, the small parties sent out by them coming close to the place where the Honourable Company’s indigo plantation stood [sic!] and being certain to try and establish themselves if they are not stopped in time.” Confirmed in May 1741 (Miner Thomas Hildebrandt, “Account [23 April 1741–9 May 1741]”, Alt Cartado, 4 June 1741, in: BRC, serial No. 215, pp. 32–34, at 34), July 1743 (Miner Thomas Hildebrandt, “Journal”, 20 May 1743–19 July 1743, in: BRC, serial No. 222, pp. 39–40, at 39), July 1759 (Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 20 July 1759, in: BRC, serial No. 338, pp. 175–176, at 175) and May 1760 (Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 2 May 1760, pp. 184–185), the indigo plantation was not indicated in Storm van’s Gravesande, “Plantations of Essequibo”, 1748/1749, p. 137. 35 Commander Essequibo, “Journal”, Kijkoveral, 1699–1701, p. 220. This happened through the “appoint[ment of] four new Councillors” (ibid.) 36 WIC, “Muster Rolls”, pp. 150–151. 37 Instead of signing the “Regulations of the Court of Policy” respectively “Proceedings of the Court of Policy” he had added the “mark x” (Court of Policy, “Regulations and Warnings”,

216

Chapter 10 Essequibo and the Limits of Plantations (1670/75–1803)

Bierman38 were joined by the four free plantation owners Adriaen Hollander (Oosterbeek), Jan de Latombe (Nieuw Cortrick), Matthys Thierens (Hoff van Breda), and Christjaan Godlobb Uschner (Noordenbeek)39 between July and November 1701.40 At the same time, both the commander and secretary of the Essequibo colony lost their councillor positions.41 Nevertheless, the ratio between the councillors of the WIC and free planters remained in favour of the WIC, as the councillors of the free planters were selectively deputized, while all WIC plantations remained directly represented in the Court.

Plantations at the Essequibo Junction (1699–1771) Although the WIC Zeeland Chamber in October 1685 had “in the strongest fashion” opposed to “have thrown open the Colony of Essequibo” for free trade,42 the WIC plantations were accompanied by free plantations in Essequibo since December 1699, namely Oosterbeek (Director Adriaen Hollander, later renamed St. Jan),43 established on both banks of Upper Essequibo between the Essequibo junction and the first fall,44 “Hoog en Droogh”,45 situated above Oosterbeek

5 July 1701, in: BRC, serial No. 129, p. 222–224, at 224; Court of Policy, “Proceedings”, Essequibo, 19 November 1701, in: BRC, serial No. 130, p. 225). 38 Court of Policy, “Regulations and Warnings”, 5 July 1701, p. 224; Court of Policy, “Proceedings”, Essequibo, 19 November 1701, p. 225; WIC, “Muster Rolls”, pp. 150–151. 39 The three latter accorded the documents of the Court of Policy by “token” (Dutch Original: Handteijken) (Court of Policy, “Regulations and Warnings”, 5 July 1701, p. 224; Court of Policy, “Proceedings”, Essequibo, 19 November 1701, p. 225), while the assignment of the names to the plantations was derived from Court of Policy, “Proceedings”, Essequibo, 19 November 1701, in: BRC, serial No. 130, p. 225. 40 Court of Policy, “Regulations and Warnings”, 5 July 1701, p. 224; Court of Policy, “Proceedings”, Essequibo, 19 November 1701, p. 225. 41 Ibid. Accordingly, commander Samuel Beekman in November 1701 was exclusively listed as commander instead as commander and Councillor (Court of Policy, “Proceedings”, Essequibo, 19 November 1701, in: BRC, serial No. 130, p. 225). 42 This was indicated as “eleven years after the erection of the new Company” (WIC Shareholders [Zeeland], “Memorial”, 30 November 1751, pp. 71–72). 43 Commander Essequibo, “Journal”, Kijkoveral, 1699–1701, pp. 217–218. 44 Maas, “Essequibo Plantations”, 1706, p. 135. 45 Commander Essequibo, “Journal”, Kijkoveral, 1699–1701, p. 219. Alternative Spellings are Hoogendroog (Maas, “Essequibo Plantations”, 1706, p. 135) and Haai en Drooj (commander Essequibo, “Letter to WIC”, 13 May 1710, p. 73). See also commander Essequibo, “Journal”, Fort Kijkoveral, 1699–1701, in: BRC, serial No. 127, p. 214–221, at 217. Accordingly, Pieter Tollenaer was indicated as “free planter” in the Journal entry of January 1700 and indicated as “Director”

Plantations at the Essequibo Junction (1699–1771)

217

(Director Pieter Tollenaer),46 Vryheid (Abraham Cousyns),47 Batavia (Jacobus Tournalje), Nieuw Cortrijk (Jan de Latombe)48 and Noordenbeek (Christjaan Godlobb Uscher) in Upper Essequibo,49 Heerenbeek (Messrs. Goedhart) and Eendragt (Johannes de Wilde) below the Essequibo junction, Westerbeek in Lower Mazaruni50 and the spatially unspecified plantations of Andries Antheunissen, Hoff van Breda (Matthys Thierens), and Hoff van Rumpst (Pieter Tauli).51 Moreover, by 1706, Dutch free planters in Upper Essequibo had also

of the “plantation ‘Hoog en Droogh’” in February 1700 (ibid., p. 219). The plantation was abandoned in February 1735 (Court of Policy, “Digest of Land Grants”, 1720–1771, p. 189). 46 Pieter Tollenaer was consistently listed as Director of the plantation, except the listing of his brother Anthony in November 1701 (Court of Policy, “Proceedings”, Essequibo, 19 November 1701, in: BRC, serial No. 130, p. 225). 47 Court of Policy, “Proceedings”, Essequibo, 19 November 1701, p. 224. For the first time, the plantation was recorded in May 1701 (commander Essequibo, “Letter to WIC”, 14 May 1701, in: BRC, serial No. 128, pp. 221–222, at 221) and was situated on both banks of the Upper Essequibo junction (Maas, “Essequibo Plantations”, 1706, p. 135). Until 1748/49, the plantation was transferred to the west bank of Lower Essequibo and the owner (“eigenaar”) changed to A. Spoors (Storm van’s Gravesande, “Plantations of Essequibo”, 1748/1749, p. 137, plantation No76). 48 Nieuw Cortrijk was situated below the first fall on the east bank of Upper Essequibo (Maas, “Essequibo Plantations”, 1706, p. 135) and still existed in that place in 1748/49 (Storm van’s Gravesande, “Plantations of Essequibo”, 1748/1749, p. 137, plantation No. 23 [Cortrijk]). The date of the thematic Sketch-map is specified as 1748/49, since the officially date is given with 1748, but the indicated “volcano” had been only “discovered [in the] year 1749” (Storm van’s Gravesande, “Plantations of Essequibo”, 1748/1749, p. 137), wherefore the date of 1749 appears more likely as the map’s year of origin. In addition, the accompanying letter of the map, written by the Essequibo commander on 8 September 1749, reads: “Your Honours will also find marked on it [the map] above in the Essequibo River in the Creek Siparouni an active volcano, which was discovered there by the present postholder of Arinda a year ago [1748]”, which, according to “the Indians”, had begun “to burn continually [and] cast out stones [. . .] about six years ago”, wherefore “almost all have retired from thereabout” (commander Essequibo, “Letter to WIC”, 8 September 1749, in: BRC, serial No. 253, p. 63). 49 Maas, “Essequibo Plantations”, 1706, p. 135 (derived location). 50 Court of Policy, “Proceedings”, Essequibo, 19 November 1701, in: BRC, serial No. 130, p. 225. The name of the Westerbeek director was omitted in November 1701 (ibid.) and in May 1710 indicated as “Heer Bate” (commander Essequibo, “Letter to WIC”, 13 May 1710, p. 73). See also Maas, “Essequibo Plantations”, 1706, p. 135. 51 Court of Policy, “Proceedings”, Essequibo, 19 November 1701, p. 225; Maas, “Essequibo Plantations”, 1706, p. 135. In 1748/49, a plantation with the name “Hof van Breda” emerged on the site of the former WIC plantation Westersonburgh (1706–1708) with Abraham van Cruijse as owner, when former Vrijheid owner Thierens was listed as owner of plantation No. 35 (Storm van’s Gravesande, “Plantations of Essequibo”, 1748/1749, p. 137). In the 1760s, both plantation owners re-emerged with plantations on Wacquename island.

218

Chapter 10 Essequibo and the Limits of Plantations (1670/75–1803)

established the plantations Hof van Holland,52 Waterung, Vriedenburg, and Rosendaal.53 All of them were situated in the vicinity of the Essequibo junction (see Figure 10).54 At least until 1771 limited to the great fall “grande manna val”, the number of free plantations in Essequibo increased between 1706 and 1748/49, but became significantly smaller in size.55 Accordingly, the Court of Policy in September 1742 granted the grounds in Wacaipire to Jan Baptist Stok “to the length of 600 rods”56 and accorded the petition of Christiaan Finet for the “ground adjoining his clearing down to the Creek Tipuri” in April 1739, along with petitions of God Wijtlant for “bread-grounds from the Creek Woenipiere” in December 1739, Jan Jansen for grounds in the Creek Corieij extending “from the Creek Aijrware-Caboera to the Creek Emerawaboe” in January 1742, Engel Locke for an area extending from “Aroewaij as far as Coerecourocabora to the length of 600 rods” in April 1746 and Mooses Isakse de Vries in August 1741 for grounds “from the Abire Creek to the Marige Fall”.57 More grounds were accorded by the Court of Policy in the 1750s, such as in October 1755 to the former Arinda postholder Jacob Fredrik Mushak,58 Jan Stok for “the two islands over against the creek Arwaik” and two islands opposite “the old plantation Nieuw Kortrijk” in April 175659 and Philippus van der Wehe 52 Confirmed in 1710 (along with Westerbeek, Haaj ein Drooj and Cortrijk) with Abraham Buisson as director, (commander Essequibo, “Letter to WIC”, 13 May 1710, p. 73), the plantation Hof van Holland still existed in 1748/49 on the west bank below the Essequibo junction (Storm van’s Gravesande, “Plantations of Essequibo”, 1748/1749, p. 137, plantation No. 81 (Hof van Holland)). 53 Maas, “Essequibo Plantations”, 1706, p. 135; Storm van’s Gravesande, “Plantations of Essequibo”, 1748/1749, p. 137, plantation No. 83 (Vriendenburg), plantation No. 18 (Rosendaal). 54 Maas, “Essequibo Plantations”, 1706, p. 135. 55 Storm van’s Gravesande, “Plantations of Essequibo”, 1748/1749, p. 137; Maas, “Essequibo Plantations”, 1706, p. 135. 56 Court of Policy, “Digest of Land Grants”, 1720–1771, p. 192. In 1748/49, Jan Stok was also listed as owner of the plantation Cortrijk (Storm van’s Gravesande, “Plantations of Essequibo”, 1748/1749, p. 137) and became known for his ill-treatment of Indigenous Peoples (Chapter 11). 57 Court of Policy, “Digest of Land Grants”, 1720–1771, pp. 190–193. While Mooses de Vries died in December 1746 (commander Essequibo, “Letter to WIC”, 7 December 1746, in: BRC, serial No. 234, pp. 46–48, at 48), the Court of Policy also accorded a leave for Oosterbeek Director Andries Pieterse “to lay out for a private coffee and cocoa place a piece of ground lying in the River Essequibo between the small Creeks Timitie Coere and Soericierse” (Court of Policy, “Digest of Land Grants”, 1720–1771, p. 190). 58 Mushak was postholder of Arinda from September 1749 to June 1755 (WIC, “Muster Rolls: Dutch Posts and Postholders in Essequibo”, pp. 149–187, at 152–161). 59 Court of Policy, “Digest of Land Grants”, 1720–1771, p. 196. The plantation of Jan Stok on the eastern bank of Upper Essequibo was at least in existence until September 1753, since the

Figure 10: Plantations in Upper Essequibo in 1706 by Abraham Maas.

Plantations at the Essequibo Junction (1699–1771)

219

220

Chapter 10 Essequibo and the Limits of Plantations (1670/75–1803)

in September 1753 for grounds “next to the boundary of Jan Stok upwards”. Also in April 1756, the Court had approved the transfer of “more than 2,000 acres” of the grounds of the deceased E. G. Schulz to his former wife, who later on remarried David Scherver,60 whereas the first transfer of plantations is recorded for December 1733, when the plantation Vrijheid was transferred to Anthony Thierens.61 The Court in the mid-1760s, approved several private sales of land, such as the conveyance of land by David Scherver to J. Pieterse in Upper Essequibo “for the sum of 400 guilders”62 and the huge sale of the plantation Saint Jan (formerly Oosterbeek) “for 120,000 guilders” by the governor of Saint Eustatius to Messrs. Windhuysen and La Barre, who “arrived here last week to take possession of the plantation”.63 Thereupon, the widow of Niels Andreas Schulz, Susanna Steencken, in May 1771 successfully requested the consolidation of the plantations Rosendaal and Three Sisters.64 At that time, the plantation of the widow E. G. Schulz, situated on both banks of the Upper Essequibo just below the “grande mana val”, presented the furthest Dutch plantation in Upper Essequibo.65 Afterwards, a further spatial extension of plantations in Upper Essequibo appears unlikely, as the plantations in those parts were increasingly abandoned in favour of the Lower Essequibo since 1773. Meanwhile, the free planters had since 1722/23 also commenced to cultivate plantations in Lower Mazaruni and Cuyuni, which was previously reserved for the Company. Starting with the land grant of Johannes Keyts for “300 rods” in the Cuyuni mouth in September 1723, the Court of Policy also accorded the petitions of sergeant Anthonie de Miermond in February 1734 for “a small piece of grant to Peter de Wehe was accorded for the grounds extending “from the boundary of Jan Stok upwards, 600 rods” (Court of Policy, “Digest of Land Grants”, 1720–1771, p. 195). 60 Court of Policy, “Digest of Land Grants”, 1720–1771, pp. 195; 189; Storm van’s Gravesande, “Plantations of Essequibo”, 1748/1749, p. 137, plantation No. 25. 61 Court of Policy, “Digest of Land Grants”, 1720–1771, p. 189; Storm van’s Gravesande, “Plantations of Essequibo”, 1748/1749, p. 137, plantation No. 24. 62 Court of Policy, “Digest of Land Grants”, 1720–1771, p. 198. Most likely, David Scherver in 1748/49 was also the owner of plantation No. 31, situated on the west bank just above the Essequibo junction (Storm van’s Gravesande, “Plantations of Essequibo”, 1748/1749, p. 137). 63 Director General Laurens Storm van’s Gravesande, “Letter to WIC”, 1 June 1768, in: BB3, serial No. 205, pp. 154–155. 64 Born as Susanna de Heere, this woman was married to Niels Schulz until his death and in January 1769 married to C.F.V.S.G. Stuncken (Steencken) (Court of Policy, “Digest of Land Grants”, 1720–1771, pp. 201; 204). In 1748/49, two Schulz plantations were indicated. Since plantation No. 25, situated abreast of the “vall” belonged to E. G. Schulz, the plantation of Niels Schulz was most likely plantation No. 28 on the western bank of Upper Essequibo (Storm van’s Gravesande, “Plantations of Essequibo”, 1748/1749, p. 137, plantation No. 28). 65 Storm van’s Gravesande, “Plantations of Essequibo”, 1748/1749, p. 137, plantation No. 25.

Plantations at the Essequibo Junction (1699–1771)

221

ground at the lower end of Creole Island to lay out a coffee garden” and for “a piece of land behind Creole Island” in April 1735, which was followed by the petition of councillor Mong in August 1738 for “the Island Arwasje”, along “with 300 rods along the bank opposite the island” and the timber leave for “the remainder of the Creole Island”, accompanied by the same for Director Johannes Backer in June 1735 “to fell some timber in the River Caione for buildings for his private place”. Limited to the Cuyuni mouth, more islands of the Cuyuni were granted in the 1740s, namely to Stephanus Gerardus van der Heijden in March 1743 for “half the islet that lies by the Creole Island” (along with land in Lower Mazaruni), Daniel Couvreur in January 1744 “for the little island lying by the great fall” and again to Stephanus van der Heijden for “the Island Arajoe” in January 1745. Christiaan Finet’s petition for “some grounds in Cajoene” was “deferred for further inquiry” in the same session. The Lower Cuyuni land grants continued in 1761, when Christian Crewitz received grounds at the Cuyuni mouth, extending “from the boundary of the land of S. G. van der Heyden to the edge of the former indigo plantation upwards of 200 rods”.66 He was followed in August 1768 by Du Pasquier, who succeeded in his petition for “the enjoyment of [. . .] 1,000 acres of land”, which extended from the former WIC “indigo plantation lying in Cajoene”. In addition, the free planters also encroached into Lower Mazaruni since July 1722,67 based on the Court’s resolution “to clear a piece of breadground at Point Bartica”,68 whereupon land grants were accorded by the Court of Policy between 1723 and 1736.69 Nevertheless, the peak of free plantations in Lower Mazaruni emerged since August 1739, most likely caused by the transfer of the Dutch Fort to the Essequibo mouth in the early 1730s and 66 Court of Policy, “Digest of Land Grants”, 1720–1771, pp. 189–197. In October 1761, the Crewitz plantation most likely presented the furthest Dutch plantation in the Cuyuni, as the Court of Justice had ordered “everyone travelling or going up that river to provide himself with a proper pass, which must be shown to C. Crewitz, at whose residence they are to make a halt”. Moreover, Christian Crewith (Crewith) was instructed “to investigate what kinds of articles are brought down from the Cayoeny, and especially by slaves” (Court of Justice, “Minutes”, 5 October 1761, in: BB3, serial No. 147, p. 118). 67 Court of Policy, “Digest of Land Grants”, 1720–1771, pp. 200; 187. An alternative spelling is Masseroenij. 68 Situated at the junction of Essequibo with the Mazaruni (ibid.). At the same time, the upper parts of all three rivers were reported as inadequate for laying out sugar plantations, since “they are full of rocks, falls, and islands, and much danger is to be feared for large sugar canoes” (Engineer E. D. Maurain-Saineterre, “Report to WIC”, 19 March 1722, in: BRC, serial No. 165, pp. 252–253, at, 252), while a land grant for Bartica point was again accorded in April 1736 to William Louissie for “a clearing for cocoa and coffee lying between the point of Bartica and the point of Essequibo” (Court of Policy, “Digest of Land Grants”, 1720–1771, p. 190). 69 Court of Policy, “Digest of Land Grants”, 1720–1771, pp.189–190.

222

Chapter 10 Essequibo and the Limits of Plantations (1670/75–1803)

the successive establishment of new WIC plantations in the vicinity of Fort Zeelandia, when the old WIC plantations (Poelwijk, Duynenburgh, and Fortuijn) were transferred to free planters and councillors. Accordingly, the Court of Policy in August and October 1739 granted to present Justice Councillor and previous Captain Abraham van der Cruijsen70 “the two islands, Patepateijma and Waijkoenipat”, along with grounds extending from both Suijker Creek to Siharicoury,71 Cattonij to Assakaeroeka72 and Simiery, whereas “a portion” thereof was conveyed to Stephanus Gerardus van der Heijden in April 1761,73 who in March 1743 likewise acquired grounds extending from “the old station at Cartabo to the boundary of T. Bate”74 on Schapen Island,75 “half the islet that lies by the Creole Island [in Cuyuni]”,76 as well as the former WIC plantation Old Duynenburgh and parts of Fortuijn,77 situated on the west bank of Lower

70 It is the same Abraham van der Cruijnse, who captured Torarica (in present-day Suriname) in February 1666 and relieved Tobago from the English. 71 Court of Policy, “Digest of Land Grants”, 1720–1771, p. 191. 72 Ibid., p. 196. In April 1759, those grounds were conveyed by van Cruijse to Abraham Couzijn (ibid.). Furthermore, the widow of the said Abraham Cousijn also received “the grounds [extending from] the Creek Coerecoerecabara [Upper Essequibo] to the Creek Simiseroe” in October 1768, while the neighbouring “1,000 acres of land from the fallen-in ground on the upper bank of Essequibo at the west side and right at the mouth of Cajiene, the fallen-in ground of Abm. Cousijn” were granted to A.S. de Touche in July 1769 (ibid., p. 201). 73 Court of Policy, “Digest of Land Grants”, 1720–1771, p. 197; Storm van’s Gravesande, “Plantations of Essequibo”, 1748/1749, p. 137. 74 Ibid., p. 192. In January 1746, the neighbouring land at Cartabo was granted to “the Surgeon, Jan Pieter Bollé”, who had requested “the abandoned clearing of Cartabo”, which was “conceded with the proviso that the Honorable Company retains the right to build there as many houses as may be necessary” (ibid., p. 193). At the same time, Jean Pierre Bollé in Upper Essequibo received “the islands which lie over against his purchased land, provided that not more than 500 acres are comprised” (Court of Policy, “Digest of Land Grants”, 1720–1771, pp. 192–193). 75 This is arguably the island, indicated as plantation No. 109 with Stephanus van der Heijden listed as “eigenaar” in the legend of the Storm van’s Gravesande map of 1748/1749, which is, however, not indicated in the map itself (Storm van’s Gravesande, “Plantations of Essequibo”, 1748/1749, p. 137). Furthermore, plantation number 109 may also be the island in Cuyuni, granted to him in January 1745. 76 Court of Policy, “Digest of Land Grants”, 1720–1771, p. 192. 77 Maas, “Essequibo Plantations”, 1706, p. 135, plantation Fortuijn; Storm van’s Gravesande, “Plantations of Essequibo”, 1748/1749, p. 137, plantation No. 43 (van der Heijden).

Plantations at the Essequibo Junction (1699–1771)

223

Mazaruni before 1748/4978 (see Figure 11).79 Until March 1770, van der Heijden had thus acquired almost all the land of the former WIC plantations and adjacent islands, since the former councillor also received “the grounds of the widow van der Webe” in Masseroeny,80 comprising “600 rods of land”, including the “clearing of the plantation Poelwyk”, which was accorded to Philippus van der Wehe in September 1759,81 after the abandonment of the plantation by the WIC before October 1754. Previously, in March 1768, the Court of Policy had also granted van der Heijden the allowance “to keep some cattle on the Island of Fort Kijkoveral” on condition “that the island continue to remain the possession of Company”, where he was accompanied in July 1769 by A.S. de Touche, who acquired “1,000 acres of land fro the fallen-in ground on the upper bank of Essequibo [. . .] at the west side and right at the mouth of Cajoene, the fallen-in ground of Abm. Cousijn”, after C. J. Hekke in October 1766 had received the land of Jan Hérault in Masseroeny and Mr. Du Pasquier received “a certain piece of land in possession in August 1768”, that is “1,000 acres of land from the indigo plantation lying in Cajoene”, which was “granted and conceded” during an “Extraordinary gathering” on 15 August 1768. Moreover, Christian Crewitz in October 1761 had acquired “200 rods” in Cajoene, which extended “from the boundary of the land of S. G. van der Heyden to the edge of the former indigo plantation upwards”, whereas E. Palmer in January 1769 acquired “500 acres of land from the Neger Kop downwards in Masseroeny”, and Pieter Kerks in July 1770 “1,000 acres of the fallen-in grounds of Daniel Couvreur in Masseroenij, to begin where he pleases”.82

78 Storm van’s Gravesande, “Plantations of Essequibo”, 1748/1749, p. 137, plantation No. 110 (map legend), whereas Eric Willem van der Oest gives the number of Essequibo plantations with 30 (1735), 70 (1766), 95 (1769), and 140 (1780) (Van der Oest, “Forgotten Colonies”, pp. 329; 335), without reflecting the spatial extent of those plantations. 79 Storm van’s Gravesande, “Plantations of Essequibo”, 1748/1749, p. 137, plantation No. 90 (Old Duynenburgh) and 43 (former WIC plantation Fortuijn) (map legend), the latter as being situated above Dronkeman’s Island and below Finet, Piepersberg and Poelwijk (ibid.). The private ownership of Duynenburg was confirmed in July 1759, since the Director General again confirmed that “the estates of Old Duynenburg” are “now allotted to private holders” (Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 20 July 1759, in: BRC, serial No. 338, p. 175). 80 Court of Policy, “Digest of Land Grants”, 1720–1771, pp. 201–202. An alternative spelling is van der Wehe. 81 Court of Policy, “Digest of Land Grants”, 1720–1771, p. 196. 82 Ibid., pp. 199–203.

224

Chapter 10 Essequibo and the Limits of Plantations (1670/75–1803)

Figure 11: Plantations at the Essequibo junction in 1748/49 by Laurens Storm van’s Gravesande.

Moreover, free planter Engelbert Piepersberg until 1748/4983 had acquired the grounds of the plantations Rust en Vreden and Altona, situated on both banks of Lower Mazaruni.84 The former was conveyed to Philippus van der Wehe in September 1759,85 including “the lower side of the grounds of Caria (in Masseroenij) as far as the fall Tortoraba”,86 while Christiaan Finet and Daniel Couvreur, after having requested “the same lands” in January 1745,87 were in 83 Since Engelbert Piepersberg received only two plantations in Lower Mazaruni before January 1750 (Court of Policy, “Digest of Land Grants”, 1720–1771, pp. 187–194) and plantation No. 92, situated on the western bank of Lower Mazaruni above Old Duynenburgh, is clearly named as “Altona”, plantation No. 45 with “eigenaar” Piepersberg is most likely the plantation “Rust en Vreden”, whose name is unidentifiable in the Sketch-map (Storm van’s Gravesande, “Plantations of Essequibo”, 1748/1749, p. 137). 84 Storm van’s Gravesande, “Plantations of Essequibo”, 1748/1749, p. 137, plantation No. 92 (Engelbert Piepersberg, Altona). 85 Situated below Poelwijk on the eastern bank of Lower Mazaruni, indicated as plantation number 45 (Storm van’s Gravesande, “Plantations of Essequibo”, 1748/1749, p. 137). 86 Court of Policy, “Digest of Land Grants”, 1720–1771, p. 196. 87 Court of Policy, “Minutes”, 3 January 1745, in: BB3, serial No. 74, p. 85. Thereafter, the requests were “put off until they have come to an understanding” (ibid.), while both had previously also petitioned for land in Upper Essequibo and Cuyuni. While Christiaan Finet in April 1739 received “a small piece of ground adjoining his Clearing down to the Creek Tipuri

Plantations at the Essequibo Junction (1699–1771)

225

1748/49 listed as plantation “eigenaars” on the east bank of Lower Mazaruni, just above Dronkeman’s Island,88 extending “on the mainland from the waterside of Pieter de Bakker to the first fall” along with the Island of Coebol (Finet),89 which Finet received in January 1746, while Couvreur acquired the plantation grounds just opposite on the western bank.90 Both were abandoned until July 1770, when Pieter Kerks’s petition was accorded for “1,000 acres [sic!] of the fallen-in grounds of Daniel Couvreur in Masseroenij to begin where he pleases”,91 while Christiaan Finet had already conveyed his plantation to Cornelis Laurens Boelpap in January 175492 and the Island of Coebol to Peter Marchial in July 1753,93 who had received the grounds extending from the “Sawari Creek [. . .] upwards, 1,000 rods of land” in July 1747 and an island “above the plantation of Oud Poelwijck” in July 1748,94 which presented the furthest plantation in Lower Mazaruni. In addition, Marchial in 1748/49 was listed as “eigenaar” of the furthest plantation on the western bank of Lower Mazaruni, situated opposite of the WIC plantation Poelwijk,95 before he was expelled from there by “large numbers” of Acowaio, after his acquittal by the Court of Justice in January 1756,96 which was predated by an earlier Acowaio attack on the Marchial plantation

[Upper Essequibo], it is granted” (Court of Policy, “Digest of Land Grants”, 1720–1771, p. 190). Furthermore, Daniel Couvreur in January 1744 “asked for the little island lying by the great fall in Cajoene it is granted” (ibid., p. 192). By contrast, Finet’s request for land in Cuyuni in March 1743 achieved a divergent result: “C. Finet having asked for some grounds in Cajoene, it is deferred for further inquiry” (ibid., p. 194). 88 Storm van’s Gravesande, “Plantations of Essequibo”, 1748/1749, p. 137, plantation No. 44 (Finet). 89 Court of Policy, “Digest of Land Grants”, 1720–1771, p. 193. 90 Storm van’s Gravesande, “Plantations of Essequibo”, 1748/1749, p. 137, plantation No. 44 (Finet); plantation No. 93 (Couvreur). 91 Court of Policy, “Digest of Land Grants”, 1720–1771, p. 203. Couvreur’s plantation remained for certain until October 1754, since the grant of Frans Appelhans of October 1754 accorded to the petitioner “the so-called Gebrandus Island, and on the mainland but above the land of Daniel Couvreur, 500 rods” (ibid., p. 195). 92 Court of Policy, “Digest of Land Grants”, 1720–1771, p. 195. The amount of the price is omitted. 93 Apparently the same as the Island of Koeijboe. 94 Court of Policy, “Digest of Land Grants”, 1720–1771, p. 194. An alternative spelling is Pieter Marchal. 95 Storm van’s Gravesande, “Plantations of Essequibo”, 1748/1749, p. 137, plantation No. 95. 96 A. Christianse, “Examination of Carib Chief Arraytana”, Aymara-Aykocroe, 17 December 1755, in: BRC, serial No. 314, enclosure, pp.126–127, at 126. Marchial “entered the service of Mr. Secretary Spoors on his Honour’s plantation” (ibid.) and in March 1770 succeeded with a petition for “a piece of land in the Creek Suppename”, which was situated in Lower Essequibo, furthermore indicated as being situated at the “beginning from the land of Mr. William Croydon on the east

226

Chapter 10 Essequibo and the Limits of Plantations (1670/75–1803)

in August 1755, where “two of his people” were killed and five wounded “most of whom have since died”.97 The attack was conducted in response to his incitement of Caribs to kill several Acowaio and also included “those [plantations in Lower Mazaruni] whose owners, according to common report, are accused of having grossly ill-treated that nation”,98 after they had “remained quiet, and done nothing” between August 1755 and the main hearing of the Court case against Marchial in January 1756.99 In August 1755, the Acawaio had been also reported to be “very strong in the interior, and some of whose villages both in Essequibo and in [Lower] Massaruni and Demerary are situated next to our plantations”.100 In response, the Dutch commander in Essequibo had placed a garrison at the former Fort Kijkoveral in July 1756101 and opposed the demands of the Lower Mazaruni planters and councillors “to send out an invitation to the Carib Indians to take the field against the Acuways”,102 whereupon several planters abandoned their plantations in Lower Mazaruni throughout the 1750s, such as Christiaan Finet (1754), Abraham van der Cruijsen (1759) and Engelbert Piepersberg (1759), while Jan Hérault, who in September 1759 had received the grounds of the “abandoned place and land at Carlekkoe”, conveyed his grounds to C. J. Hekke in October 1766,103 after the Dutch Cuyuni post was attacked by the Spaniards in August 1758. With the exception of former councillor Stephanus van der Heijden,

side as far as the Creek Asakaboere, which before this belonged to the widow J. Boter” (Court of Policy, “Digest of Land Grants”, 1720–1771, p. 202). 97 Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 27 August 1755, in: BRC, serial No. 309, pp. 120–121. At the same time, Marchial and “[m]ost of the planters living in Massaruni [had] retired to an island with their slaves and their most valuable goods, [and] none of them dared to stay at night on their plantations” (ibid.). 98 Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 27 August 1755, in: BRC, serial No. 309, pp. 120–121. 99 Christianse, “Carib Chief Arraytana”, Aymara-Aykocroe, 17 December 1755, p. 126. 100 Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 27 August 1755, in: BRC, serial No. 309, pp. 120–121. 101 Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 7 July 1756, in: BRC, serial No. 317, p. 129. 102 Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 27 August 1755, in: BRC, serial No. 309, pp. 120–121. However, this was rejected since “there are many difficulties connected with this”. Accordingly, the Director General, thus, reasons that “if the Caribs come (which they will certainly do at the first invitation), they will come several hundred strong and begin by asking for bread and other provisions, of which we have none.” Furthermore, Laurens Storm van’s Gravesande stated that “[w]e must also consider whether we can take the responsibility before Almighty God of causing so much bloodshed as would certainly be occasioned here, the more so since I presume and really believe that actual cause has been given to the Acuways” (Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 27 August 1755, in: BRC, serial No. 309, pp. 120–121). 103 Court of Policy, “Digest of Land Grants”, 1720–1771, pp. 195–196; 199.

Plantations at the Essequibo Junction (1699–1771)

227

who extended his plantations in Lower Mazaruni until March 1770,104 after having failed to acquire permanent grounds on Wacquename Island in April 1757105 and in the Creek Oene on the western bank of Lower Essequibo in 1766,106 the initial Lower Mazaruni planters, most notably Abraham van der Cruijsen and Engelbert Piepersberg, had left the Lower Mazaruni and proceeded to Lower Essequibo (Araunama),107 where the Dutch Fort Zeelandia was established on Flag Island since about August 1739.108 Thus, van der Cruijsen in October 1746 had received “the grounds in the Creek Capoeij”,109 extending “from the mouth on either side as far as the Creek Tapacoona to begin in the river from the Creek Paritipoecoe to the Creek Priceroe along the sea-shore”,110 after his petition for “a piece of land on Varken Island” was rejected in January 1744, as Varken Island was “entirely kept for the Company”. In January 1750, he also bought both land of Paulus de Berg on Wacquename Island for “800 fl.” and “the New Island lying outside Wacquename”, which was confirmed in July 1763111 and in October 1771 transferred to his heirs “Jan

104 At the same time, only a few more land grants were accorded, such as to the later Cuyuni postholder assistant Gerrit Dierkse van Leeuwen, who in July 1757 received a grant of “not more [. . .] than 500 acres” “for the Island Noriwaka, up in Masseroenij” (ibid., p. 196). 105 Ibid., p. 196. Thus, van der Heijden received “the land and grounds between the boundaries of the plantation De Vriendschap in April 1757 and those of Mr. Salomon Persik”, situated on Wacquenam Island (Court of Policy, “Digest of Land Grants”, 1720–1771, p. 196), but had to transfer them again in April 1761 to Engelbert Piepersberg (ibid., p. 197), as those grounds were granted to him under the condition that “between the boundaries might be found ungranted [land]”, but was “registered here a memoria” (ibid., p. 197). 106 Ibid., p. 199. Similar, Stephanus van der Heijden in 1766 had petitioned for grounds at the size of “1,000 acres or 400 rods from the Creek Oene to reckon downwards” (ibid., p. 199), situated “on the west shore of Essequibo” (ibid., p. 203) in the neighbourhood of Pomeroon (ibid., p. 204), after the first plantations were laid out in Oene since 1744 (ibid., pp. 193–205). Those grounds in Oene were granted to him “provisionally” (ibid., p. 199) and not renewed, despite several petitions since 1767 (ibid., p. 200) and in December 1769, instead, accorded to J. Fanning, councillor J. C. Richter and Stephanus van der Heiden’s son Abraham (ibid., p. 202). 107 This is the Arawak name of Lower Essequibo (Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 2 May 1760, p. 185). 108 Commander Essequibo, “Letter to WIC”, Essequibo, 20 May 1739, in: BRC, serial No. 209, enclosure, pp. 28–30, at 28; Court of Justice, “Minutes”, 1/2 August 1748, in: BB3, serial No. 82, p. 89; Court of Justice, “Minutes”, 4 January 1751, in: BB3, serial No. 96, p. 94. 109 This presents a confluence of Essequibo, close to its mouth (ibid., p. 199). 110 Court of Policy, “Digest of Land Grants”, 1720–1771, p. 194; Storm van’s Gravesande, “Plantations of Essequibo”, 1748/1749, p. 137, plantation No. 48. 111 Court of Policy, “Digest of Land Grants”, 1720–1771, pp. 189–194.

228

Chapter 10 Essequibo and the Limits of Plantations (1670/75–1803)

and Abraham van der Cruijse[n] and G. H. Zwitser”,112 who “conveyed each one of them over to the other, and again over to each a third part of the land belonging to the said plantation Zelandia”.113 Similar, Engelbert Piepersberg in April 1761 on Wacquename acquired the grounds of Stephanus van der Heijden and in July 1762 bought from Salomon Persik “one-half of his third part of the Island Wacquename, and that on the west side [. . .] for a sum of 2,500 guilders”,114 after in April 1759 having received from Jan Cruijse “his land in It [t]eribicie, stretching from the haven Oboedij to the Creek Cariaka”.115

Fort Zeelandia and Lower Essequibo (1730–1803) From January 1708116 until February 1730, the Dutch Fort was moved from Kijkoveral to the Creek Bonnesique in the Essequibo mouth for security reasons, before finally being relocated to nearby Flag Island117 until August 1739, where the first session of the Court of Policy was held “at the New Fort”.118 Situated “about 8 to

112 Ibid., p. 205. This entry also states that “the late Abraham van der Cruijse being now associated in the plantation Zeelandia, situated on the Island Wacquename”, while already in October 1769 “Anthony Thierens conveyed to H. D. Doedens from the grounds of the heirs of van der Cruijsse on the east side of the Island Wacquename, 300 rods facade, and half the depth of the island, beginning from the upper boundary downwards at 9½ fl. per acre” (ibid., pp. 200–201). 113 Ibid., p. 205. 114 Ibid., p. 197. In May 1766, the other parts of Salomon Persik’s land were granted to J. Barkeij and J.C. Eichter, since the Court of Policy resolved “that [. . .] the grounds had been so long neglected by Mr. Persik, to whom they belonged, they should be granted” (ibid., p. 199), while Engelbert Piepersberg died around April 1766 (Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 13 December 1765, in: BRC, serial No. 411, pp. 130–131). 115 Court of Policy, “Digest of Land Grants”, 1720–1771, p. 196. In December 1740, the said Jan Cruijnse Versteek had “asked leave to cut a clearing for bread in Itterbicie” (ibid., p. 191). 116 Commander Essequibo, “Letter to WIC”, 23 January 1708, p. 72. 117 Alternative spellings are Flaggen Island or Vlaggen Eyland. 118 This was confirmed in December 1739, when the commander indicated the dispatch as being written “at the new Fort, River Essequibo” (commander Essequibo, “Letter to WIC”, Essequibo, 20 May 1739, in: BRC, serial No. 209, enclosure, pp. 28–30, at 29). Furthermore, the fort is confirmed as the meeting place of the Court of Justice in August 1748 (Court of Justice, “Minutes”, 1/2 August 1748, p. 89) and January 1751 (Court of Justice, “Minutes”, 4 January 1751, p. 94).

Fort Zeelandia and Lower Essequibo (1730–1803)

229

10 miles” below the Essequibo junction119 and “distant only one tide from the mouth”,120 Fort Zeelandia on Flag Island was accompanied by free plantations which were granted between February 1740 and July 1755121 to, among others, S. C. van Berckeyck, Paulus Vermeere, Bernard Jacob Storm van’s Gravesande, “the Spanish shoemaker Rodriques”122 and Laurens Storm van’s Gravesande; the latter was promoted to director general after the dispute between WIC Zeeland and Amsterdam in 1750/51123 and subsequently moved from Papen124 to Flag Island125 to govern the Essequibo colony until 1772, together with his Secretary and “a certain number of councillors”.126 Hence, the last land grant for Flag Island was accorded to Laurens Lodewyk van Bercheyck in April 1757 “for 15 rods of land for a house and hereditament”, although the Court of Policy in July 1748 had “resolved here at the Fort Zeelandia, to accord no more grounds to any one as hereditament”.127 Thereupon, Fort Zeelandia was accompanied by three new WIC plantations, namely De Pelgrim, Aegterkerke,128 and New Duynenburgh.129 Established until July 1730 in the Creek Bonnesique,130 the “grounds” of plantation De

119 Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 2 May 1760, p. 185. 120 Secretary in Essequibo A. A: Brown, “Letter to WIC”, 6 June 1777, in: BC, No. 302, pp. 540–541; E. Alvarado, “Report on the Essequibo”, Mission del Hato de la Divina Pastora, 30 April 1755, p. 116. This report also contains a description of the military fortification (ibid.). 121 Each of the grant accorded an area size between 15 and 50 rods. In this context, Eric van der Oest assumes that the establishment of “many new plantations on fertile soil closer to the estuary in the late 1730s” was caused by “soil exhaustion” and the fort transfer to Vlagge Island (Van der Oest, “Forgotten Colonies”, p. 328). 122 Court of Policy, “Digest of Land Grants”, 1720–1771, pp. 191–195. 123 WIC (Zeeland), “Letter to commander Essequibo”, 22 June 1750, in: BRC, serial No. 258, pp. 66–68. In April 1752, Laurens Storm van’s Gravesande before April 1752 became Director General (WIC [Zeeland], “Letter to Director General”, Middelburg, 10 April 1752, in: BRC, serial No. 267, pp. 73–74, at 73). 124 Accordingly, Storm van’s Gravesande, at that time Secretary, in August 1738 was permitted “to take possession of the Papen Island, over against the little Vlaggen Island” (Court of Policy, “Digest of Land Grants”, 1720–1771, p. 190). 125 In April 1752, land was also granted to “Bernard Jacob Storm van’s Gravesande”, situated “above Government [House] 15 rods square on which to set his dwelling” (ibid., p. 194). 126 E. Alvarado, “Report on the River Essequibo”, Mission del Hato de la Divina Pastora, 30 April 1755, pp. 117–118. 127 Court of Policy, “Digest of Land Grants”, 1720–1771, pp. 194–201. 128 Alternative spellings are Aegtekerke and Aechtekerke. 129 Storm van’s Gravesande, “Plantations of Essequibo”, 1748/1749, p. 137, plantation No. 105 (Aegtekerke) and 106 (New Duynenburgh). However, their location on the map is unidentifiable. 130 Court of Policy, “Digest of Land Grants”, 1720–1771, p. 198; Storm van’s Gravesande, “Plantations of Essequibo”, 1748/1749, p. 137, plantation No. 10.

230

Chapter 10 Essequibo and the Limits of Plantations (1670/75–1803)

Pilgrim in April 1763 were “in a very disadvantageous condition” and “cannot continue to exist much longer, and absolutely must be parted with”.131 Instead, (new) Duynenburgh was established until 1748/49 in the vicinity of the Dutch Fort on Flag Island (see Figure 12), but vanished from the historical records after January 1762,132 wherefore it was arguably the plantation, which “the Councillors of Civil and Criminal Justice” had in August 1769 “cum annexis, order, & c. No. 90” resolved to sell “on Vlaggen Eijland [. . .] by auction with all its slaves and effects”.133 Finally, the WIC plantation Aegterkerke, also established before 1748/49134 and known for its brutal treatment of African slaves in 1754, 1767 (along with Soestdijk), and 1769,135 was at least established until June 1783, when the Aegtekerke slaves had again “fled into the forest”, as “it was no longer endurable for them to keep everything in proper order”.136 However, the precise location of this WIC plantation remained unidentifiable.137 In addition, neighbouring Varken Island was also considered as “belong[ing] wholly to the Honourable Company”, wherefore the petitions of Abraham van der Cruijsen (January 1744) and Johann Pieter Schuler (October 1744) were declined.138 Nevertheless, an exception was made for Jacobus van Rooden in April 1763, since “no more grounds are at the Company’s disposition and disposal, except the aforenamed Varken Island” and “the Heer van Rooden is one of the oldest settlers and possessor of a capital plantation”. Prior, the petition of former councillor Cornelis Boter for “the lowest part of Varken Island”, who in September 1759 was likewise considered as “one of the oldest settlers of this Colony”, was resolved to be refereed “to their Honours, with a promise to recommend the same to their most favourably”.139

131 Court of Policy, “Digest of Land Grants”, 1720–1771, p. 198. 132 WIC (Zeeland), “Letter to Director General”, 11 January 1762, in: BRC, serial No. 364, p. 211. 133 Court of Policy, “Digest of Land Grants”, 1720–1771, p. 205. 134 Storm van’s Gravesande, “Plantations of Essequibo”, 1748/1749, p. 137, plantation No. 105 (Aegtekerke) and 106 (New Duynenburgh). 135 Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 19 February 1754, in: BB3, serial No. 108, p. 98; WIC (Zeeland), “Letter to Director General”, September 1767, in: BB3, serial No. 194, pp. 146–148; Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 12 May 1769, in: BB3, serial No. 220, pp. 165–167). 136 Dutch Administrator of Essequibo, “Letter”, 15 June 1783, in: BRC, serial No. 591, pp. 11–12, at 11. 137 Storm van’s Gravesande, “Plantations of Essequibo”, 1748/1749, p. 137, plantation No. 105 (Aegtekerke). 138 Court of Policy, “Digest of Land Grants”, 1720–1771, pp. 192–193. 139 Ibid., pp. 197–198. Consequently, van Rooden received “the outside 400 rods facade, and to the depth of half the island” (ibid.).

Fort Zeelandia and Lower Essequibo (1730–1803)

231

Figure 12: Fort Zeelandia and “Weeg naar Duynenburgh” (Flag Island) in 1748/49.

In contrast, land was freely granted for sugar plantations on Wacquename and Leguaan island since 1741/1744, such as the land grant of Simon Cornelis van Berckijck, who conveyed his land comprising “two-thirds of the island” in November 1749 to “Cornelis Boter and Co. by public auction”, and Paulus de Berg, who in January 1750 conveyed his grounds “for 800 fl. to Abraham van der Cruijsse[n]”, the latter likewise receiving “the New Island lying outside Wacquename” (see Figure 13).140 The conveyance of land continued on Wacquename until August 1770 and was, among others, undertaken by William Croydon and Anthony Thierens in October 1767.141 Similarly, land grants were accorded on Leguaan Island since January 1744, such as to Niels Andreas Schulz in January 1745 for “1,000 rods”, situated “at the upper end on Leguaan Island at the side of Wacquename” and Johann Pieter Schuler, who in October 1745 acquired “the grounds still unassigned on Leguaan Island”,142 which was most likely until 1748 [1749] transferred to A. van Doorn, since the Sketch-map of the director general for Leguaan Island indicated the Schulz plantation on the west side and the van Doorn

140 Ibid., pp. 193–194. 141 Ibid., pp. 195–198. 142 Ibid., pp. 192–193.

232

Chapter 10 Essequibo and the Limits of Plantations (1670/75–1803)

plantation on the opposite side of the island.143 Hence, a conveyance process among councillors proceeded during the 1760s and continued until 1770, for example by councillor Jacob van Roden in October 1766, Anthony Thierens in March 1768,144 Jacobus Barkey in January 1769, the councillors G. H. Trotz and A. van Doom in August 1769, and councillor H. W. Kaaks in February 1770, who conveyed “the grounds [between] Councillor Kaaks and [. . .] Burgher Captain Anthony Thierens” to the guardians of Elizabeth van der Cruijsen, while the petition of C. Booter “for the island lying below the point of Leguaan Island” was rejected as it “belongs to the plantation Zelandia”, and was “associated” to “the late Abraham van der Cruijse[n]” in 1771.145

Figure 13: Plantations in the Essequibo mouth by Laurens Storm van’s Gravesande in 1748/49.

143 Storm van’s Gravesande, “Plantations of Essequibo”, 1748/1749, p. 137, plantation No. 97 (Schulz) and 96 (A. van Doom). 144 Court of Policy, “Digest of Land Grants”, 1720–1771, p. 199. And, again in October 1767, 460 rods for “2,600 fl.” (ibid., p. 200). The two exceptions were the Lutheran congregation and Captain A. Thierens, requesting the prolongation of their grounds in 1768 (ibid., p. 200). 145 Ibid., pp. 201–205.

Fort Zeelandia and Lower Essequibo (1730–1803)

233

Moreover, the Court of Policy since 1727 accorded land grants in Supenaam,146 which was predated by an order to Carel de Bruijn in 1721 “to fell timber”, which had eased the former WIC prohibition of September 1719.147 Land grants for Supenaam were continuously accorded until 1763, while in March 1770 the request of Jan Anthony was refused. Likewise, land for “bread-gardens” was granted in the Creek Itteribicie between August 1730 and October 1768, such as Michiel Zeliackx (Manarie), Pieter van Wittinge (Harouwa), Jan Christiaanse (Allekieuw Balli), Jan Ravensberg (Moetoera), Jan Crynse[n] Versteeg and Cornelis Boter and Matthijs Buisson. Finally, the Court of Policy from the mid-1740s until March 1768 also accorded plantation grounds in the Creeks Oene (1744, Andries Heijse) and Capoeij (1745, Gillies Danielsen and Jacques Salignacq), for example to Abraham van Cruijsen148 and Stephanus and Abraham van der Heijden, Sebastiaan Christiaansen and Paulus Cordes. Although an increased conveyance took place on the whole west bank of Lower Essequibo between 1769 and November 1771,149 the Creek Capoeij presents an exception, since new land grants were still accorded until July 1771, such as the land grants for Moruca postholder Diedrik Neelis (March 1770) and C. van Heemstede Vlieland and (July 1771).150 Instead, the sugar plantations in Demerara increased between 1767 and 1768 by 34 to “about fifty” with “over a thousand slaves more”,151 after the first pioneering petition for Demerara was granted in November 1725 to Jan Christiaense for “cut[ing] in Dominie’s Creek a clearing for a bread-garden and buildings”, who was until 1748/49 followed by Essequibo planters, such as Christiaan Finet, C. Persik, J. Bakker and Jacob van Roden and again in 1762 acquired the grounds

146 Ibid., pp. 187–202. In particular, the Court of Policy in July 1727 has “giving leave to all settlers to fell timber on the Creek Itterbicie, to be bartered with the English for flour and other necessaries” (ibid., p. 187). 147 Ibid., pp. 187–189. An alternative spelling is Suppename. In 1719, the WIC prohibited to fell timber “in the Colony of Essequibo, or the rivers of Bouweron or Demerary, on pain of a fine” and timber confiscation (ibid.). 148 Court of Policy, “Digest of Land Grants”, 1720–1771, pp. 188–200; Storm van’s Gravesande, “Plantations of Essequibo”, 1748/1749, p. 137. 149 Court of Policy, “Digest of Land Grants”, 1720–1771, pp. 198–205. At the same time, some new land was still acquired, such as in July 1770: “Antoine France” for “500 acres of land next the grounds of the postholder, Diedrik Neelis, on the west sea-side of Essequibo, near the Creek Capoeij” accorded “provided the same be worked and measured as soon as possible” (ibid., p. 203). 150 Court of Policy, “Digest of Land Grants”, 1720–1771, pp. 202–205. 151 Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 9 February 1769, in: BRC, serial No. 451, enclosure, p. 2.

234

Chapter 10 Essequibo and the Limits of Plantations (1670/75–1803)

of Jan Latouche in Dominie’s Creek for 1,000 guilders.152 Prior, the WIC had since September 1691153 maintained a post or dye-store in Demerara, which was situated “[f]rom the Fort [Kijkoveral] by sea, 30 [Dutch] mijls”,154 which was transferred to Cuyuni in March 1745,155 before in April 1755 the “the jurisdiction of Demerara”156 was given “in the hands of a governor, whom the Prince of Orange has made subordinate to the governor of Essequibo”, which was clothed “by the son of M. Graveson [Jonathan Gravesande]”. Instead, the post in Mahaicony,157 which was situated “(f)rom the fort [Kijkoveral] by sea, 40 [Dutch] mijls” and had complemented the Demerara post since May 1700158 to carry out trade in boats with the Warouws, by whom “the district is mostly inhabited”,159 was since September 1763 just maintained “to keep possession of the country”160 and in 1764 extended to both “Mahayka and Maykouny 152 Court of Policy, “Digest of Land Grants”, 1720–1771, pp. 199, 187–194; Storm van’s Gravesande, “Plantations of Essequibo”, 1748/1749, p. 137 (map legend for Demerara). 153 Therefore, the Dutch presence in Demerara was in 1707 limited as “the Company’s dyestore in Dimmerarij (say Maeijcounij)” respectively “the company’s dye-store in Dimemrarij” (WIC, “Muster Rolls”, p. 155). For the Demerara post, Adriaen Provo was the first “master, with one soldier” (commander Essequibo Samuel Beekman, “Master Roll of the Company’s Servants in Essequibo”, 6 September 1691, in: BC, No. 74, pp. 192–193, at 193) who was succeeded by Amos van Groenewegen before 1699 (WIC, “Muster Rolls”, p. 150; commander Essequibo, “Journal”, Kijkoveral, 1699–1701, p. 215). The main purpose of the post was to trade with Indigenous Peoples in orange dye (commander Essequibo, “Journal”, Fort Kijkoveral, 1699–1701, p. 215). The post was continuously listed until November 1745 with Niklas Collart as postholder (WIC, “Muster Rolls”, pp. 150–161), when it became “unnecessary”, due to “the opening of the river” (commander Essequibo, “Letter to WIC”, 19 March 1745, in: BB3, serial No. 76, p. 86) and vanished completely after November 1748 (WIC, “Muster Rolls”, pp. 160–161). 154 WIC, “Muster Rolls”, pp. 152; 187. 155 Commander Essequibo, “Letter to WIC”, 19 March 1745, in: BB3, serial No. 76, p. 86) In March 1745, Ignatius Courthial in Cuyuni petitioned to “cut a road through the wood in the River Cayoeny” to bring mules overland. For the collection of “recognition money”, a post in Cuyuni was considered necessary (ibid.). 156 Spanish original reads “Jurisdiccion de themeraria” (E. Alvarado, “Report on the Course of the River Essequibo and its Tributaries”, Mission del Hato de la Divina Pastora, 30 April 1755, in: BRC, serial No. 307, pp. 116–118, at 116). 157 Alternative spellings are Maijconij, Mahaicony, Maijcoene, Waijcoene, Maijcoenj, Maicoene and Majcone. 158 WIC, “Muster Rolls”, pp. 152–168; Storm van’s Gravesande, “Trading Places”, August 1764, p.129. 159 An alternative spelling is “Naatje-Garouna”. Furthermore, the Director General stated that “[i]f there was no post here [in Demerara] the Indians would soon be driven away by the tyranny and harsh treatment of the settlers” (Storm van’s Gravesande, “Trading Places”, August 1764, p. 129). 160 Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 27 September 1763, in: BB3, serial No. 164, p. 126.

Fort Zeelandia and Lower Essequibo (1730–1803)

235

[which] lies about eight hours up the creek which is situated between Berbices and Demerary, about seven hours eastward above Demerary”,161 before the post in Mahaicony was completely abandoned after October 1775162 and land grants in Maheyka remained rejected in May 1771 “until the sea-coast on the east side of Demerara was populated”.163 According to Eric van der Oest, the increase of plantations in Demerara continued until 1780, rising from 121 (1766) to 206 (1769) and 240 (1780),164 whereas the Sketch-map of Essequibo’s commander, Storm van’s Gravesande, had listed 18 Demerara and 110 Essequibo plantations in 1748/49,165 wherefore the numbers of Eric van der Oest are arguably referring to both Essequibo and Demerara. By contrast, plantations in the river Pomeroon [Bouweron] were prohibited, since the Court of Policy kept rejecting petitions of colonists, such as in June 1754, when an allowance to cutting timber was granted to Jan Swartz and Edward Ling for Waini (Weijne) “but in nowise in Bouweron”,166 as well as in October 1768, January 1769, July 1770167 and May 1771,168 while Pomeroon was still “not throw[n] open” in June 1777,169 although the Court of Policy in July 1760 had conceded to a certain P. A. Schoneman “the preferential claim to a certain creek in the mouth of the aforesaid river [Bouweron]” for the “case of the opening of the River Bouweron” and in May 1771 accorded land grants in the neighbourhood [sic!] of Pomeroon (“beyond Oene by Bouweron”).170 Meanwhile, the director general in December 1773 had indicated for the Essequibo that “there are no longer any grants of lands to be made”171 and in June 1777 reported the virtual abandonment of plantations above Fort Zeelandia, as “most of 161 Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 15 June 1764, in: BB3, serial No. 170, p. 128. 162 WIC, “Muster Rolls”, pp. 152–168. The post again appeared in January 1775 (ibid., p. 169), but vanished again in October 1775 permanently (ibid., pp. 170–175). 163 Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 21 June 1771, in: BRC, serial No. 498, p. 87. 164 Van der Oest, “Forgotten Colonies”, p. 329, Tab. 12.1. 165 Storm van’s Gravesande, “Plantations of Essequibo”, 1748/1749, p. 137 (map legend). 166 Court of Policy, “Digest of Land Grants”, 1720–1771, pp. 192–195. 167 Ibid., pp. 200–201. 168 Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 21 June 1771, serial No. 498, p. 87, BRC Vol. 4, London. Thus, at the court’s session of May 1771 “about sixty petitions [were again] presented for grants of land [,] (n)o decision could be come to concerning the majority of these, because the Court did not know how far it was possible to accede to them; they have, however, been placed in the hands of one of the surveyors, who is to report to the Court, whereupon some decision will be arrived at” (ibid.). 169 Secretary in Essequibo A. A. Brown, “Letter to WIC”, 6 June 1777, in: BC, No. 302, pp. 540–541. 170 Court of Policy, “Digest of Land Grants”, 1720–1771, pp. 197; 204. 171 Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 23 December 1773, in: BB3, serial No. 255, p. 183.

236

Chapter 10 Essequibo and the Limits of Plantations (1670/75–1803)

the old planters, as soon as the lower lands were brought under cultivation, transferred their plantations which lay above this fort or Flag Island, brought off all their slaves, mills, cattle, etc., and practically abandoned the old plantations; but, in order nevertheless to retain their right, as they fancy, to those upper lands, they sent thither all their old and decrepit slaves, who can be of no use on the new plantations”.172 Again, the director general ad interim of the Court of Policy held in “the Capital Stabroek in Demerara” in February 1792 reported that it would be impossible to ascertain “how and to whom all the abandoned upper lands by expiration of time (having been left uncultivated) are supposed to belong to”,173 which was confirmed in June 1803, since “there are to be found in the upper rivers of this Colony, and likewise in the various creeks, a great number of abandoned plantations and uncultivated land”,174 before the Dutch handed over the Essequibo colony to the English by the Anglo-Dutch Treaty of 13 August 1814.175 Against this background, the following chapters 11 and 12 trace the Dutch colonial appropriation practices with regard to the inland and sea-coast posts and examine the limits of Dutch jurisdiction, interference, and alliances with Indigenous Peoples.

172 Secretary Essequibo A. A. Brown, “Letter to WIC”, 6 June 1777, pp. 540–541. In consequence, there was “not one sugar, coffee or cotton plantation” situated “above Fort Island”, with the exception of the plantation “of the ex-Councillor S. G. van der Heyden, situated a great tide above this island, at the mouths of the two rivers Mazaruni and Cuyuni [Old Duyneburgh]” (ibid.). The same was valid for the “creeks of Bounasieke, Arriwary, Supinaam, and Itteribisie, each of which has only one sugar plantation at its mouth” (ibid.). 173 Court of Policy, “Proceedings”, Stabroek, Rio Demerary, 27 February 1792, in: BRC, serial No. 648, pp. 132–133. At the same time, the interim Director General indicated that there are “ungranted lands behind the plantations which are running inland and above the rivers and creeks”, which “cannot be given unless being first surveyed on account of their vast extent”, while “the limit boundary is not fixed with the Crown of Spain” (ibid.). 174 Council of the American Colonies and Possessions of the Batavian Republic, “Proposed Charter for the Colonies of Esseuibo and Demerara”, 22 June1803, in: BRC, serial No. 681, pp. 182–183. 175 Great Britain and the Netherlands, “Convention relative to the Dutch Colonies, Trade with the East and West Indies”, London, 13 August 1814, in: BRC, serial No. 723, pp. 228–230.

Chapter 11 Dutch Inland Posts and the Limits of Jurisdiction and Interference (1737–1790) Complementing the examination of the Dutch colonial occupation in Upper and Lower Essequibo between 1670/75 and 1803, this chapter traces the Dutch inland posts, which were established in Upper Essequibo in the period 1737–1790 (Arinda) and in Lower Cuyuni in the periods 1755–1758 and 1767–1771. At the same time, the chapter investigates the violent removal practices of the Catalonian Capuchins in the Cuyuni since the 1730s, along with the responses of both Indigenous Peoples and the Dutch, before the relation between the Dutch and Indigenous Peoples in terms of jurisdiction and interference are researched.

Arinda and the Limits of Jurisdiction (1737–1790) The Dutch plantations limited to the first fall, the West India Company had also established a trading outpost in Upper Essequibo in January 1737, situated below Creek Sipuaruni (see Figure 14). Although trade with Indigenous Peoples between 1721 and 1737 had yielded no significant quantity of marean, dye, salt-fish, or red slaves,1 the commander deemed Jacobus van der Burgh’s post as relevant, since “we become acquainted among the Indians further inland, and this trade may by degrees become considerable”.2 Known as Arinda between 17413 and 1790,4 the location of the post until August 1764 changed twice, namely before June 1751,

1 Commander Essequibo, “Letter to WIC”, 21 March 1733, in: BB3, serial No. 69, p. 84; Court of Policy, “Digest of Land Grants”, 1720–1771, pp. 178–180; Court of Policy, “Letter to WIC”, 4 August 1726, p. 78; commander Essequibo, “Letter to WIC”, 26 September 1727, in: BB3, serial No. 58, p. 80. In exchange for dye, Indigenous Peoples received in January 1737: “We pay to the Indians for 4 balls of this dye one large axe; for three balls one medium axe, for two balls one small axe, three balls of dye weighting four pounds”(commander H. Gelskerke, “Letter to WIC”, 12 January 1737, in: BC, No. 133, pp. 277–279, at 278), Indigenous Peoples were likewise payed for going salting and the transportation of salt fish from Arinda to the fort, at least between December 1732 and November 1734 (WIC, “Muster Rolls”, pp. 179–180). 2 Commander H. Gelskerke, “Letter to WIC”, 12 January 1737, p. 277. 3 WIC, “Muster Rolls”, p. 160. 4 Ibid., pp. 150–182. For the last time, Arinda was mentioned in February 1790 (commander Essequibo, “Journal”, 8 July 1790, in: BRC, serial No. 634, p. 78). https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110690149-011

238

Chapter 11 Dutch Inland Posts and the Limits of Jurisdiction and Interference

after the transfer of the post to the creek Rupununi5 was already ordered in June 1750,6 as this presented “the direct route of the tribes [de natien] who come from up in Orinoco and Corentyn and pass through the country to trade or make war higher up”,7 and again in March 1751,8 before the post was finally transferred to the Rupununi before August 1769,9 although the director general had already in August 1764 claimed that Arinda was then transferred to the Rupununi, situated “about seventy hours (at a guess, because it has never been exactly measured) above Fort Zeelandia”.10 Determined as trading place for “red slaves and annatto dye” in September 1763,11 Arinda’s relevance for trade was in August 1764 determined as minor, since trade “contributes but little to the importance of this post”. Instead, Arinda was indicated as being of “great service in keeping up the communication and friendship with the inland nations by means of which great discoveries might be made”12 and to undertake “future explorations of the lands

5 Alternative spellings are Ripenouni, Ripenuwini. 6 Consequently, the indication “Nieuw Arinda” at the Rupununi junction of the map of 1748/ 1749 expressed a plan and was not carried out yet (Storm van’s Gravesande, “Plantations of Essequibo”, 1748/1749, p. 137). 7 WIC (Zeeland), “Letter to commander Essequibo”, 22 June 1750, in: BRC, serial No. 258, pp. 66–68. 8 Acting commander Essequibo, “Letter to WIC”, 6 March 1751, in: BB3, serial No. 98, p. 95. 9 WIC (Zeeland), “Letter to States General”, 21 August 1769, in: BB3, serial No. 226, p. 173. 10 The second de facto transfer of Arinda between August 1765 and August 1769 is confirmed in August 1764, when the post was still not removed, as the Arinda location was determined as being situated “below [sic!] Siparuni” and “not far above [sic!] the post two other rivers (called Sibaruna and Ripenuwini [. . .]) fall into the River Essequibo”, respectively “at about four degrees and a few minutes’ latitude north”, when the Upper Essequibo was still unknown “a few days above the post” and “no one having gone in that direction” (Storm van’s Gravesande, “Trading Places”, August 1764, p. 129). Similarly, the postholder in August 1765 had “not yet removed the post”, since the selected site “at the corner of the Ripenuwini was covered with 4 feet of water in the rainy season”, whereupon he “had found a very good site half-an-hour higher up”, where he “had found the Macoussis and Wapissanes, the two nations living there, at war, which had stopped him half way” (Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 13 August 1765, in: BB3, serial No. 177, pp. 136–137). The transfer was then with certainty carried out until 1769, when the location of the post was indicated as situated “above Fort Zeelandia [. . .] in the River of Essequibo, towards the Portuguese side, above [sic!] the little River Rupununy, is a post called Arinda” (WIC [Zeeland], “Letter to States General”, 21 August 1769, in: BB3, serial No. 226, p. 173). 11 Governor Storm van’s Gravesande, “Letter to Governor Crommelin”, 18 August 1764, in: BRC, serial No. 397, pp. 114–115; commander L. L. van Bercheyck, “Journal”, Demerara, 2 November–27 November 1763, in: BRC, serial No. 168, enclosure, p. 127. 12 Storm van’s Gravesande, “Trading Places”, August 1764, p. 129; Director General, “Brief Treatise”, August 1764, p. 111.

Arinda and the Limits of Jurisdiction (1737–1790)

239

and natives in the interior”,13 since the expedition of the “great discoveries” remained unsuccessful in May 1714, when the WIC in Amsterdam had ordered the Essequibo commander to carry out a secret gold expedition to “the Lake of Parime, also called Rupowini, being very famous for its richness in gold”,14 which was inspired by a similar undertaking to the Orinoco, mandated by the Society of Suriname in July 1711.15 Thereafter, subsequent Dutch expeditions to “the Lake of Parima” between 1739 and 174116 remained likewise unsuccessful17 and an expedition to the “Calikko or Crystal Mountain” in 1746 failed due to the opposition of Indigenous Peoples, since the “Indian nations living in that district had not permitted them to approach it without a deal of difficulty”, as the mines are “situated full three days’ journey inland [where] the Indian nations were all at war with each other, and were nearly all at war, too, with the Portuguese, who were continually making raids upon them and carrying them off, and that this was a source of great danger to any Christians who came there”.18 In August 1764, the director general clearly admitted that “(w)e must have no expectations of getting information concerning any mines from the Indians”,19

13 Van’s Gravesande, “Letter to Crommelin”, 18 August 1764, pp. 114–115; commander L. L. Van Bercheyck, “Journal”, Demerara, 2 November–27 November 1763, in: BB3, serial No. 168, enclosure, p. 127. 14 WIC, “Letter to commander Essequibo P. van der Heyden Resen”, Amsterdam, 1 May 1714, in: BRC, serial No. 153, Annex, pp. 238–240, at 238. Furthermore, it is indicated that “there is also situated the so-called place Manoa, or El Dorado, or the Golden City, where, as in the whole region of Guiana through which the aforesaid river runs, there are very many gold and silver mines” (ibid.). 15 Ensign of the Secret Expedition to the Orinoco, “Journal”, 18 March – 13 July 1711, in: BC, No. 95, Annex 12, pp. 224–228. which was initiated by an encounter of the Governor of Suriname and the Carib Chief Tawaimara (Taweymanre, Taweymaire) of Copoerica, situated “about ten days by water above the little fort which the Spaniards possess in the aforesaid river Orinoco” (Willem Buys and Johann Althusius, “Documents relating to a Secret Expedition from Surinam to the Orinoco in search of a certain Treasure”, Amsterdam, 27 October 1707, in: BC, No. 95, pp. 209–214, at 209. 16 Commander Essequibo, “Letter to WIC”, 8 February 1742, in: BRC, serial No. 220, p. 36. 17 Ibid.; commander Essequibo, “Letter to WIC”, 14 September 1739, in: BRC, serial No. 212, pp. 30–31; Secretary Essequibo Laurens Storm van’s Gravesande, “Letter to WIC”, 30 April 1741, in: BRC, serial No. 214, p. 32; commander Essequibo, “Letter to WIC”, 10 June 1741, in: BRC, serial No. 218, p. 35. This was the so-called Nicolas Horstman expedition. 18 Commander Essequibo, “Letter to WIC”, 7 December 1746, in: BB3, serial No. 78, pp. 87–88. Another Crystal Mine is indicated in the neighbourhood of the first Arinda post a significant distant below (ibid.). 19 Storm van’s Gravesande, “Trading Places”, August 1764, p. 129. In this context, the Director General reason that this “was also the case in Cuyuni and Mazaruni, where the vast number of Indians [. . .] through fear of the Spaniards, allow no strangers to come into their country”

240

Chapter 11 Dutch Inland Posts and the Limits of Jurisdiction and Interference

Figure 14: Drawing of the Arinda post below Siparuni of 1748/49.

whereas the mythological narrative about the devil Jawaho had an additional deterrent effect on the Dutch,20 who was believed to dwell in “a very high

(Director General, “Brief Treatise”, August 1764, p. 109), which also corresponds with the statement of the commander in August 1764 that about Mazaruni “it is known but little or not at all”, while “a nation which had never seen a white man” in the context of colonist Piepersberg, who was “the only man to my knowledge who has been any distance up the river, in pursuit of thirteen of his runaway slaves” had “refused him admittance to its land [sic!], he having got his slaves back through the medium of a free Indian known to that nation, and by means of payment” and “had not dared to leave his boat” (Storm van’s Gravesande, “Trading Places”, August 1764, p. 129). 20 Director General, “Instructions to postholder at Arinda”, Fort Zeelandia in Rio Essequibo, 14 August 1764, in: BB3, serial No. 171, enclosure 2, pp. 131–133, at 132.

Arinda and the Limits of Jurisdiction (1737–1790)

241

pyramid built of stone” in the Upper Rupununi (Ripenuwini),21 which became most influential, after Pieter Tollenaer was in 1740 sent to examine the pyramid, returned with “a rough drawing thereof” and information about “various images which he had seen near it cut in the stone” and had suddenly died “shortly after his return”.22 Thereupon, the Dutch avoided the Upper Rupununi and even “itinerant hawkers” were “very careful not to come near those places”.23 Only in June 1769, Arinda postholder Gerritt Jansse24 carried out his order and proceeded up the Rupununi,25 where he encountered the Makushi, known to the Dutch earliest since October 1753,26 and the “the nation of the Parhavianes, who were [formerly] living up in Essequibo [but] being too greatly molested by the Caraibans, removed thither”. Thereupon, the postholder arrived at the Wapishana, described as the “nation [that] lives near the Crystal Mine on both sides of the river Maho”.27 Nonetheless, Jansse also failed in gaining access to the mines, although the postholder made presents to the Wapishana Chief, namely “a bottle of powder and some small shot”, as the Chief still “strictly forbade him to search or to dig [. . .] up the crystal which grows there in many places in a red dry soil”, which obliged him to “wandering about the place, which they allowed him to

21 Ibid. Similar narratives were applied by the “chiefs and elders” of the respective Indigenous Peoples to keep the locations of minerals secret (Storm van’s Gravesande, “Trading Places”, August 1764, p. 129) or to participate in mining operations, since “they nore their people dared put a hand to the work, because the earth trembled when they only began to stir it, and they would surely perish” (Ensign of the Secret Expedition to the Orinoco, “Journal”, 18 March–13 July 1711, in: BC, No. 95, Annex 12, pp. 224–228, at 228), as stated by the Carib Chiefs Taywomary and Quatrymo of Orinoco in March 1712). 22 Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 13 December 1765, in: BRC, serial No. 411, pp. 130–131. 23 Storm van’s Gravesande, “Trading Places”, August 1764, p. 129. The Director General furthermore assumed that the “true cause [was] their ungrounded fear of the savage nations living in those parts” (Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 3 June 1769, in: BB3, serial No. 221, p. 167). 24 Appointed as postholder in December 1767 (Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 9 December 1767, in: BB3, serial No. 195, pp. 148–149, at 149) and described as “the honest, upright and sober fellow” (Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 3 June 1769, p. 166). 25 Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 3 June 1769, p. 166. An alternative spelling is Maccousis. 26 Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 20 October 1753, in: BB3, serial No. 106, p. 97. Furthermore, the Makushi had been also encountered by a previous postholder in August 1765 (Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 13 August 1765, p. 136). 27 Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 3 June 1769, p. 166. Alternative spellings are Wapissannes and Wapissanes.In this context, it is reported that they “live in the Savannahs by day, but at night they retire to inaccessible rocks and cliffs, where they have their houses and caves, all the approaches to which, however steep, are still defended by pallisades [sic!] through fear of the powerful nation of the Manoas or Magnamos” (ibid.). An alternative name is Magnauts.

242

Chapter 11 Dutch Inland Posts and the Limits of Jurisdiction and Interference

do, but always with a few young Wapissanes by his side”. For that reason, Jansse returned to Fort Zeelandia and was immediately sent back to the Rupununi with “a few instructions how to behave” and an order to “obtain, in a friendly manner, permission from the Wapissannes to cross the Maho, and go to the neighbouring nations”, for which Jansse had “departed” and would decamp “as soon as the water [. . .] begins to fall a little”.28 However, Janse, and some Caribs were attacked by Cerekon Chief Maripuma from Orinoco during this follow-up expedition and, in contrast to initial reports,29 in fact not slain, but captured and brought to Orinoco, before the postholder “fortunately escaped” before May 1769.30 Another attempt for a third expedition is not documented and appears unlikely, since Gerritt Jansse was officially replaced by Pieter Schreuder in December 1771,31 while postholder Le Clair in 1774 and again in 1776 was instead busy in establishing trade with the Magnauts, who live “near the Portuguese frontiers”, which was still unknown in January 1776,32 before the Dutch post Arinda was mentioned for the last time in February 1790.33 Previously, the Essequibo commander in February 1763 had intended to conclude a “Treaty of Commerce” with the Magnauts, to whom “[t]he Portuguese in Brazil are indebted [. . .] for the discovery of the gold and diamonds”,34 which was thwarted by the Carib attack upon the Magnauts.35 Instead, in November 1766 the Magnauts were forming a settlement with a Portuguese missionary in the Maho creek, along with several Supenays and “nations of whom it sometimes is said that they have their faces on their breast and are cannibals”, and had “driven away the Caribs and other nations” from the creeks Aurora and Maho, when the Carib Chief Marjarewyna went there to inquire.36 Consequently, in February 1769 they were reported to occupy the area “(a) good way up the river [Upper Essequibo]”, where

28 Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 3 June 1769, p. 166. 29 Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 15 March 1769, in: BB3, serial No. 216, pp. 161–162. 30 Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 12 May 1769, in: BB3, serial No. 220, p. 165. 31 WIC, “Muster Rolls”, p. 168. 32 Director General G. H. Trotz, “Letter to WIC”, 23 January 1776, in: BB3, serial No. 271, pp. 190–191. 33 Commander Essequibo, “Journal”, 8 July 1790, in: BRC, serial No. 634, p. 78. The post vanished from the muster-roll already after June 1785 (WIC, “Muster Rolls”, p. 174). 34 Storm van’s Gravesande, “Trading Places”, August 1764, p. 129. 35 L. Storm van’s Gravesande, “Letter to WIC”, Essequibo, 17 May 1762, in: BB3, serial No. 154, p. 124. 36 Essequibo Assistant H. Milborn, “Letter to Director General of Essequibo”, 19 November 1766, in: BC, No. 247, pp. 421–422, at 421. Assertively, this was based on the report of “a Carib” (ibid.).

Arinda and the Limits of Jurisdiction (1737–1790)

243

“several [“well-populated”] villages of that nation” are established, “which white people have never seen”.37 In 1769, the Indigenous Peoples of Upper Essequibo had also strictly forbidden the Portuguese access, threatening that “the whole nation would immediately break up and ‘trek’ further into the inland, thus losing the whole advantage”, whereupon the Portuguese had “not only abandoned” but also “strictly forbidden” any exploration.38 Similarly, the “vast number of Indians” of the Cuyuni and Mazaruni had prohibited “strangers to come into their country”,39 which is confirmed by the report of plantation owner Engelbert Piepersberg in August 1764, who had proceeded to the unknown parts up the Mazaruni in pursuit of thirteen of his runaway slaves and arrived at “a nation which had never seen a white man” and had “refused him admittance to its land”.40 Prior, the Upper Essequibo had developed into an area of frequent illtreatment by the Dutch, as the Indigenous Peoples filed numerous complaints to the commander in Essequibo. In response, regulations and orders were enacted for Dutch colonists and several Court sessions held, most notably against Nicolas Stedevelt, Jan Stok, and Peter Marchial, whereas the first known case of “brutal dealings” in Upper Essequibo happened in December 1747, when Hermanus Banink and Gerrit Goritz were killed after having severely ill-treated Indigenous Peoples,41 which had left the commander unimpressed, who instead wondered “that this does not happen much oftener, because the brutal dealings of that sort of people, who hesitate at nothing, must stir the Indians to revenge”, while at the same time feared that those tribes between the Amazon and this river [Essequibo], which are tolerably powerful, will be embittered extremely and, fearing that vengeance will be taken for this murder may perhaps raid our highest-lying plantations, and thus bring us into a war which might be by no means advantageous for this colony.42

In addition, cases of enslavement and abduction took place in the 1740s and 1750s, such as in August 1748, when a Dutch colonist abducted the daughter of

37 Director General Laurens Storm van’s Gravesande, “Letter to WIC”, 21 February 1769, in: BB3, serial No. 212, pp. 159–159, at 158. 38 Director General (in Demerary), “Letter to WIC”, 12 May 1769, in: BB3, serial No. 220, p. 165. 39 Director General, “Brief Treatise”, August 1764, p. 111. 40 Furthermore, it was reported that Piepersberg received “his” slaves back through “the medium of a free Indian known to that nation, and by means of payment”, but “had not dared to leave his boat” (Storm van’s Gravesande, “Trading Places”, August 1764, p. 129). 41 WIC (Zeeland), “Letter to commander Essequibo”, 22 June 1750, pp. 66–68. 42 Commander Essequibo Storm van’s Gravesande, “Letter to WIC”, 29 December 1747, in: BC, No. 162, pp. 315.

244

Chapter 11 Dutch Inland Posts and the Limits of Jurisdiction and Interference

Baraka from Moruca, who was sanctioned with repatriation,43 in January 1752, when colonist Christian Tonsel44 took away the children of the Caribs of Barima as “pledges for debts”,45 after the cases of Peter Bakker46 and Jean Peter Maillard (Peter Marchial) in January 1750, who “had fetched them [the Caribs of Mazaruni] from their dwellings” under the pretension “that it was by the orders of his Honour the commander”, whereupon Marchial was “sharply admonished to leave the Indians there unmolested in their liberties, and to duly pay them for their services rendered”.47 Hence, the abductions continued until the first takeover by the English in 1781, such as the murder case in Moruca in June 1766,48 the abduction of a Warouw by Louis La Tor in April 1778,49 and in the case of the wanderer Nicolas Stedevelt, who in April 1760 had made “frivolous use of his Excellency’s name” in Upper Cuyuni and “ill-used the free Caribs, but also bound and put them in irons, and taken a woman away”.50 In result, Stedevelt was sentenced to be “arrested and placed in the fortress”, ordered “to pay a fine of 250 guilders” and cautioned “that, should he not be more prudent for the

43 Court of Justice, “Minutes”, 1/2 August 1748, p. 89; Court of Justice, “Minutes”, 1 and 2 August 1748, in: BRC, serial No. 246, p. 56. 44 Shareholders of WIC (Zeeland), “Memorial”, 30 November 1751, in: BRC, serial No. 265, pp. 71–72. An alternative spelling is Christian Fousel (Court of Justice, “Minutes”, Fort Zeelandia, 3 and 4 January 1752, in: BB3, serial No. 100, p. 96). 45 Court of Justice, “Minutes of Proceedings”, Fort Zeelandia, 3/ 4 January 1752, in: BB3, serial No. 100, p. 96. The same passage is translated in Court of Justice, “Proceedings”, Fort Zeelandia, 3/4 January 1752, in: BRC, serial No. 266, pp. 72–73, at 73. In this translation it is indicated that “Christian Tonsel” would have “continually tyrannizes over them all, and that he took away their children and friends as pledges for debts” (ibid.). At the same time, “Bastian Christaansen also represents that the said Fousel had taken away a boy slave belonging to him, and offers as proof the evidence of the present Indians. This having been all considered, the said Fousel is sent for, and after appearing, he is reprimanded and ordered to deliver to the Carib his children, and to Bastian Christiaansen the boy in question” (ibid.). 46 Court of Justice, “Minutes”, 10 January 1750, in: BRC, serial No. 255, p. 64. 47 Ibid. At the same time, the Essequibo commander in January 1750 reported for Upper Essequibo that “[t)he wantonness goes so far that certain of these do not hesitate even to go with some tribes to make war upon others, or greatly to maltreat them, often carrying off free people and selling them as slaves, and abusing the Indian women” (WIC [Zeeland], “Letter to commander Essequibo”, 22 June 1750, pp. 66–68). 48 WIC (Zeeland), “Letter to Director General”, 19 June 1766, in: BRC, serial No. 413, pp. 133–134. Thereupon, the WIC approved measures since “in such cases one cannot be too prudent or cautious, in order to give no ground for dissatisfaction to the Indians” (ibid.). 49 Director General G. H. Trotz, “Journal”, 26 April 1778–17 October 1778, in: BC, No. 307, pp. 547–551, at 547. 50 Court of Justice, “Minutes”, Rio Essequibo, 8 April 1760, in: BRC, serial No. 346, p. 182.

Arinda and the Limits of Jurisdiction (1737–1790)

245

future, he will be banished from the land”.51 By contrast, plantation owner Jan Stok was in January 1750 sentenced for his “intolerable and inexcusable dealings” in Upper Essequibo, since Stok had “attacked the nations, our friends close by the post Arinda, caused all the men to be killed and carried the women and children away as slaves, ruined all the provision gardens, and perpetrated many other unheard of things” and charged “with custody”, after the concerned Indigenous Peoples had “intended to take vengeance, therefore, so that the other wanderers who were still up [the river] were in extreme peril of life, and the plantations up the Essequibo ran the risk of being deserted”,52 whereas Jan Stok of Essequibo53 was described as “a brutal and Godless man”, who “according to unanimous report [had] committed horrible enormities there”. At the same time, the commander of Essequibo had also “closed” the Upper Essequibo and prohibited colonists to trade there.54 Already considered in 173755 and shortly implemented in January 1748,56 the closure of the river in January 1750 was of little permanence, since the commander “was compelled by the Council of Justice again to make the trade open under certain conditions”,57 but had managed “to prohibit until further orders traffic with the Indians on the Rivers Essequibo, Mazaruni, and Cayuni”,58 as the colonists would never be condemned by the Court “as they deserve” and “the Indians who have been maltreated dwelling too far 51 Ibid. Witness in the case was Bastiaan Christiaansen, while “the complaining Indians being heard” in Court. Although Stedevelt had denied “having made use of the name of his Excellency”, Christiaansen confirmed that he “had bound a Carib, of the name of Arinopo”, whereupon the Court finally sentenced Stedevelt for using the name of the commander, but not for bounding the Carib (Ibid.). 52 Commander Essequibo, “Letter to WIC”, 10 January 1750, in: BRC, serial No. 256, p. 64; commander Essequibo, “Letter to WIC”, 10 January 1750, in: BB3, serial No. 91, pp. 92–93. 53 Jan Stok is recorded as plantation owner in Essequibo (above the junction) since September 1742. 54 Commander Essequibo, “Letter to WIC”, 10 January 1750, in: BRC, serial No. 256, p. 64; commander Essequibo, “Letter to WIC”, 10 January 1750, in: BB3, serial No. 91, pp. 92–93. 55 Commander Essequibo Storm van’s Gravesande, “Letter to WIC”, 29 December 1747, in: BC, No. 162, pp. 315. At this point of time, it was not carried out due to “much opposition on account of the profit which some draw from there through the slave trade” (ibid.). 56 Court of Justice, “Minutes of Proceedings”, Fort Zeelandia Rio Essequibo, 8 January 1748, in: BRC, serial No. 242, p. 55. This time, the commander indicated that in consequence if the “ill-behaviour of the traders in the Upper Essequibo [. . .] two or three Christians having already been killed by the natives”. 57 Commander Essequibo, “Letter to WIC”, 10 January 1750, in: BRC, serial No. 256, p. 64; commander Essequibo, “Letter to WIC”, 10 January 1750, in: BB3, serial No. 91, pp. 92–93. 58 In June 1750, the WIC in Zeeland also argued for closing the river, since the prohibition to trade in upper Essequibo “would cause no damage to the Colony for those people would then turn to some other and more useful means of livelihood, and the Carib nation would still bring

246

Chapter 11 Dutch Inland Posts and the Limits of Jurisdiction and Interference

away and having never seen the European Colonies, dare not come down to complain”. In addition, the commander emphasized that in known cases “legal proof is always wanting”, since “the Indians are not believed [in Court] [sic!]”.59 This practice is impressively illustrated in the well-documented Court case of Peter Marchial of 1755/56. Notorious to the Court of Justice since 1748,60 Lower Mazaruni plantation owner Jean Pieter Marchial was in 1755 accused to have incited61 the Carib Chief of Barima to kill eight Acowaio, but despite the detailed Court testimony of the Carib Cacique Araytana of Barima in January 1756 released as “innocent of the charges”,62 since the accusations were “found to be without lawful and valid proof”63 and the commander of Essequibo explained that it was “prescribed custom here that no Indian’s testimony can hold good against that of Christians”.64 Henceforward, the Carib Chief of Barima Araytana (Maraywakke)65 was examined by Adriaen Christiaanse on 17 December 1755 in Aymara-Aykoeroe,66 who gave a detailed account on the events unfolding during his journey for making bread in Mazaruni (Tawaaykoere, near Cawaritana), gain support from other Carib Owls to “resist the Spaniards”67 and “take revenge” for the killing of

slaves enough [and] they could betake themselves in the direction of Orinoco” (WIC (Zeeland), “Letter to commander Essequibo”, 22 June 1750, pp. 66–68). 59 Ibid. During the Court case, the names “Jean Pieter Marchial” and “Jan Pierre Maillard” were used interchangeably (ibid.). See Court of Justice, “Minutes of Proceedings”, Fort Zeelandia, 7/8 April 1755, in: BB3, serial No. 117, p. 103. 60 In January 1750, Marchial had already “fetched” the Caribs from Massaruni “from their dwellings” and let them “work for [. . .] four months, without payment” (Court of Justice, “Minutes”, 10 January 1750, in: BRC, serial No. 255, p. 64) and abducted the daughter of a certain Baraka from Moruca (Court of Justice, “Minutes”, 1/2 August 1748, p. 89). Pieter Marchial (Pierre Maillard) was a plantation owner since 1747. 61 Court of Justice, “Minutes”, Fort Zeelandia, 7/8 April 1755, in: BB3, serial No. 117, p. 103. 62 Christianse, “Examination of Arraytana”, Aymara-Aykocroe, 17 December 1755, p. 126; Adriaen Christiaense, “Examination of Carib Chief Arraytana”, Aymara-Aykoeroe, 17 December 1755, in: BB3, serial No. 124, enclosure, p. 106. 63 Court of Justice, “Minutes”, 5 January 1756, Essequibo, in: BRC, serial No. 313, pp. 123–124. 64 Christianse, “Examination of Arraytana”, Aymara-Aykocroe, 17 December 1755, p. 126; Adriaen Christiaense, “Examination of Carib Chief Arraytana”, Aymara-Aykoeroe, 17 December 1755, in: BB3, serial No. 124, enclosure, p. 106. 65 Most likely, Araytana is the same Carib Chief of Barima, indicated as the Saliva–Carib Cacique Aretana in the context of the Taricura attacks in the Orinoco during the 1730s. 66 Christianse, “Examination of Arraytana”, Aymara–Aykocroe, 17 December 1755, p. 126. This was done by the interpreters Stephanus Gerardus van der Heyden and Bastiaan Christiaansen (ibid.). 67 Ibid. The Dutch original reads: “Antw.– Mijn reijs was, om dat Ik ontboden weird, door order van mijn maet zijn Excellentie, die miju zeyde, bij hem komende, dat sijn Ed. Had

Arinda and the Limits of Jurisdiction (1737–1790)

247

his brother Tarawera “by the nations”.68 At Marchial’s plantation, Araytana was then incited to “go and kill” the Acowaio, who would have been “looking for [him]” and would have had prepared “a large number of arrow-heads [. . .] to kill your people upon their departure”. At the same time, Engelbert Piepersberg, plantation owner in Lower Mazaruni at least since 1748/49, had requested Araytana “[after having] murdered the nation” to “let Oeracajare bring the women to me”, whereupon Araytana had confessed to have murdered the Acowaio in union with the Mazaruni Caribs and to having “brought the women down”, sold three of them to Marchial “and also had to give him a boy into the bargain as a present for encouraging me to commit the murder”, before the Cacique was forced to hand over “two of the best slaves” to Mr. Pypersberg and brought “one old slave” to “my ally, his Excellency”.69 In contrast, Marchial had during the first hearing in April 1755 asserted “to having placed the pistol on Awacnoie’s breast; also that Accowais had been killed in his presence” without taking “part in it, either directly or indirectly”, whereas the “creole” Domingo and the “negro” Andries agreed that Marchial had “placed his pistol on the breast of an Indian called Awacnoie, who was indebted to him” and had said that “‘You must and you can pay me; these are Accowais; kill them’”. In result, “an Accowai and an Arawak” were killed.70 Nevertheless, the Court of Justice acquitted Marchial in January 1756, who had initially refused “to be heard solely upon the accusations of a single Carib”.71 Most notably, the Marchial Court case of 1756 also reveals that the Dutch had no jurisdiction over Indigenous Peoples, since Araytana was also neither pleaded guilty, sentenced nor charged for having murdered the Acowaio.72 The same applies to the murder of several Dutch colonists on Marchial’s Mazaruni plantation by the Acowaio after the first case hearing in 1755, attacks on other

verstaen, dat de Spanjaers. Ons vervolgde en ook Dood Sloeg dat dat de Reden was, om hem te ontbieden om hem te Segge, dat hij op sijn hoede mogte Sijn, om’t Saemen Tegen de Spanjaerds te komen bestaen, en ook dat Ik alle de andere Caribische uijlen moest waarschoewen, om met haer onderhebbende volk in Gereedheijd te Sijn, om te konnen bestaen” (Ibid.). 68 Christianse, “Examination of Arraytana”, Aymara-Aykocroe, 17 December 1755, p. 126. 69 Ibid. Likewise, Marchial would have told him that “they intend taking flight to Camoeran, above Masseroeny”, but also already “killed their friends” and seek “to kill [the Carib Chiefs] Arraytana, Awarawe, Karochpo, Aurachpo, and Oerakayare for revenge”, while the Acowaio would “not [be] his Excellency’s allies” (ibid.). 70 Court of Justice, “Minutes of Proceedings”, Fort Zeelandia, 7/8 April 1755, in: BB3, serial No. 117, p. 103. 71 Christianse, “Examination of Arraytana”, Aymara-Aykocroe, 17 December 1755, p. 126; also in: BB3, serial No. 124, enclosure, p. 106. 72 In this context, Jacob Schiltkamp highlights that “only a guilty suspect could be sentenced” (Schiltkamp, “On Common Ground”, p. 79).

248

Chapter 11 Dutch Inland Posts and the Limits of Jurisdiction and Interference

Dutch plantations, whose owners had been identified as “having grossly illtreated that nation”73 and Marchial’s expel from his plantation by “large numbers” of Acowaio,74 as well as to the murder cases of Bannink and Goritz in Upper Essequibo in 174775 and the cases of the postholders in Moruca (December 1767),76 Cuyuni (March 1758),77 and Arinda (December 1767).78 In brief, the practices of the Court clearly indicate that the Dutch had also in practice no jurisdiction over Indigenous Peoples, who were neither charged nor sentenced for crimes against Dutch colonists nor accepted in the Court with regard to crimes carried out against them. Therefore, the Court of Justice in Essequibo acted in line with the European colonial law of the time, since the Dutch had by occupation only acquired land as property, but not jurisdiction, although the director general had since the boundary dispute with the Catalonian Capuchins in the 1740s sporadically claimed that either the Caribs of Mazaruni (April 1764)79 or the Caribs of Cuyuni would “belong to our jurisdiction, and all their trade being carried on in the Dutch Colonies” (December 1748).80

73 Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 27 August 1755, in: BRC, serial No. 309, pp. 120–121. 74 Christianse, “Examination of Arraytana”, Aymara-Aykocroe, 17 December 1755, p. 126. 75 WIC (Zeeland), “Letter to commander Essequibo”, 22 June 1750, pp. 66–68. 76 Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 9 December 1767, in: BB3, serial No. 195, pp. 148–149, at 149. 77 Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 6 March 1758, in: BB3, serial No. 130, p. 109. Thereupon, the Cuyuni postholder Johannes Neumann in March 1758 was discharged and sent “back to Europe [. . .] to prevent him from doing mischief amongst the Indians” (ibid.). 78 Court of Policy, “Provisional Instructions for postholder in Cuyuni Pierre Martyn”, Rio Essequibo, 16 September 1766, in: BB3, serial No. 184, pp. 140–141, at 140. 79 Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 9 April 1764, in: BRC, serial No. 394, p. 105. 80 Commander Essequibo, “Letter to WIC”, 2 December 1748, in: BRC, serial No. 248, pp. 57–59, at 58. Similar, this spatial strategy was applied “some weeks ago [when] a war having broken out between the Carib nation and that of the Warouwen, which is carried on very obstinately” and would “stop their [Spaniards] further progress, and possibly, if the Caribs obtain the upper hand, they may even be driven somewhat further off, without our having in the least degree to meddle therewith” (ibid.).

The Dutch Cuyuni Post and Capuchin Violent Removal (1730–1790)

249

The Dutch Cuyuni Post and Capuchin Violent Removal (1730–1790) Almost two decades later, the Dutch post Arinda in Upper Essequibo was joined by a short-lived outpost in Upper Cuyuni, which existed from May 1755 until August 1758 and again between March 1767 until December 1771. At the same time, the Upper Mazaruni remained exclusively occupied by Indigenous Peoples,81 despite an “annatto store” in October 1686,82 whereupon the Company in “up country” (1687)83 traded in annatto dye and red slaves, which was strictly prohibited for colonists and planters, as resulting from the renewal of the prohibition by the commander at Kijkoveral in April 1730, proclaiming that “the rivers of Masseroeny and Cajjoeny [which] for years past been kept for the private trade of the Honourable Company [and] each and every one is hereby expressly forbidden to carry on any trade in them under the penalty of confiscation of the vessels, slaves, and other goods, and the imposition of an additional fine of 50 Caroly guilders”.84 However, the WIC trade in Upper Cuyuni and Mazaruni was small in quantity, since negotiations were impaired by both the core period of the Carib-Acowaio war from June 168085 to January 1688,86 and the French presence between 1682 (Orinoco, Trinidad)87 and 1689 (Barima),88 after Essequibo commander Hendrik Roll had in March 1673 reported that “(p)eace had been made

81 At that time, the plantations were limited to Lower Cuyuni and Mazaruni. 82 Essequibo Council, “Minutes”, 20 October 1686, in: BRC, serial No. 110, pp. 202–203, at 202. 83 Commander J. de Jonge, “Letter to WIC”, Bowrona, 8 May 1687, in: BB3, serial No. 19, pp. 62–63; commander Pomeroon, “Journal Baurona”, 13 June 1686–12 January 1687, in: BB3, serial No. 19, Annex, p. 64), 1701 (Court of Policy, “Regulations and Warnings”, Fort Kijkoveral, 5 July 1701, p. 67) and 1706 (commander Essequibo, “Letter to WIC”, Fort Kijkoveral, June 1706, in: BB3, serial No. 32, pp. 71–72). 84 WIC (Zeeland), “Letter to commander Essequibo A. Beekman”, 21 August 1681, in: BC, No.61, p. 82. 85 Commander Essequibo, “Letter to WIC”, 28 June 1680, in: BRC, serial No. 94, pp. 183–184, at 183. The continuation of the war is, for example, confirmed in 1681 (commander Essequibo, “Letter to WIC”, 1681, in: BRC, serial No. 95, pp. 184–184, at 184). 86 In this context, commander Jacob de Jonge determines the erection of a “gallows in Berbice”, which “intended to hang the ‘Owl’, or Chiefs of the Indians” as the cause of the war (commander J. de Jonge, “Letter to WIC”, Pomeroon, 28 January 1688, in: BRC, serial No. 113, p. 206). 87 In this context, the French were reported to “keeping Trinidad and Orinoco blockaded and invested” in July 1682 (commander Essequibo, “Letter to WIC”, 18 July 1682, in: BRC, serial No. 96, p. 185. 88 Commander A. Beekman, “Letter to WIC”, 12 October 1689, in: BC, No. 71, p. 190.

250

Chapter 11 Dutch Inland Posts and the Limits of Jurisdiction and Interference

with the Caribs in Barima and the Arawaks”.89 Accordingly, the commander in June 1680 indicated that the trade in hammocks and letter-wood was stopped “on account of the war between those [. . .] of Cuyuni, Essequibo, and Mazaruni and the Accoways, who live up country”.90 This was confirmed in 1681, when “(b)y reason of the Accoway war in Cuyuni [. . .] the trade in hammocks, especially in new ones, has resulted badly, for no one dares to trust himself among that faithless tribe”,91 after the Company’s “old negro Gilles” was “poisoned [up in Cuyuni]”.92 The “Accoway war in Cuyuni [sic!]” ongoing in 1681,93 the war had still in July 1682 caused that the river Cuyuni “no longer furnishes provisions”.94 Again, the WIC trade was reduced in June 1686 due to the French presence, since the result of the expedition of WIC out-runner Dantje to the “the savanna up in Cuyuni, from the Pariacotten”95 was limited to “a little maraen oil96 and hammocks”, as “the French are making expedition through the country up there in order to buy everything”.97 Thereupon, the WIC “dye store” in Mazaruni was, most likely, abandoned in result of the Akawaio attack on the Caribs, who had left “their houses and gardens [and] fled to the forest”,98 since the store afterwards vanished completely from the records. Certainly, Dutch trade in Cuyuni improved again in 1699 and 1700, especially the trade in annatto dye (orange dye)

89 WIC (Zeeland), “Proceedings”, 20 July 1673, in: BRC, serial No. 83, p. 173. 90 Commander Essequibo, “Letter to WIC”, 28 June 1680, in: BRC, serial No. 94, pp. 183–184, at 183. 91 Commander Essequibo, “Letter to WIC”, 1681, in: BRC, serial No. 95, pp. 184–185, at 184. 92 Commander Essequibo A. Beekman, “Letter to WIC”, 28 June 1680, in: BC, No. 49, pp. 149–150. 93 Commander Essequibo, “Letter to WIC”, 1681, p. 184. 94 Commander Essequibo, “Letter to WIC”, 18 July 1682, in: BRC, serial No. 96, p. 185. This took place “on account of the war between the Caribs and the Accoways”. Similarly, Neil Whitehead indicates that the “persistent conflict between the Akawaio and Caribs” “hindered” Dutch traders from accessing the Mazaruni and Cuyuni (Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, p. 151). 95 Commander Essequibo Abraham Beekman, “Letter to WIC”, 7 June 1686, in: BC, No. 68, p. 182. 96 Commander Essequibo, “Letter to WIC”, 5 April 1732, in: BB3, serial No. 68, pp. 83–84. 97 Commander Essequibo, “Letter to WIC”, 7 June 1686, in: BB3, serial No. 17, p. 62. A slightly different translation is provided by: commander Beekman, “Letter to WIC”, 7 June 1686, p. 182. 98 Essequibo Council, “Minutes”, 20 October 1686, in: BRC, serial No. 110, pp. 202–203, at 202; Council of Essequibo, “Minutes”, Essequibo, 20 October 1686, in: BB3, serial No. 18, p. 62.

The Dutch Cuyuni Post and Capuchin Violent Removal (1730–1790)

251

and provisions such as bread, pork, fish, and turtles flourished.99 A “dye store” established in September 1699 in Cuyuni,100 was followed by a trading post in 1703, situated “up in the savanna, 6 weeks by boat”, which however vanished again from the Company’s muster-roll in 1704. At that time, the trade significantly declined since the establishment of the first Capuchin mission in the Orinoco in 1724 and subsequent practice of violent removals.101 In result, the trade in Cuyuni in July 1730 became “of less profit, except for the orange dye”, since “most of the Indians have left those parts.”102 In contrast, the Company’s trade in Mazaruni was focused on “red slaves”,103 recorded since September 1699, when the son of the Carib Chief “Owl” Makrawacque and the Company’s “old negro” Jotte undertook a joint expedition to Upper Mazaruni, “to bring down [to the fort] four or five slaves, whom the said son has offered to sell”.104 Although Indigenous Peoples from Mazaruni also traded in annatto dye, salt-fish, crabs, fowls and turtles from 1699 until 1700 and again between May 1732 until October 1735,105 such as the Carib Chief “Owl”

99 Commander Essequibo, “Journal”, Kijkoveral, 1699–1701, pp. 216–220; WIC, “Muster Rolls”, pp. 178–180. The WIC for a short period of time also traded for horses “up in Cuyuni”, which was stopped since the trade “does not go as briskly as it used to” (WIC [Zeeland], “Letter to commander Essequibo”, 23 October 1693, in: BRC, serial No. 121, p. 212; commander Essequibo, “Letter to WIC”, 1 April 1697, in: BRC, serial No. 124, p. 213) 100 Commander Essequibo, “Journal”, Kijkoveral, 1699–1701, p. 216. 101 WIC, “Muster Rolls”, pp. 149–187. 102 Commander Essequibo A. Beekman, “Letter to WIC”, 7 June 1686, in: BC, No. 68, p. 182. Furthermore, the commander indicated that he “ha[d] seen no Indians from that side [. . .] (f) or six months” (ibid.), which was arguably caused by the violent removal practice of the Capuchin missions (Chapter 7). 103 Trade in “red slaves” by Dutch postholders and “Caribs”, as well as the capture of African slaves by Indigenous Peoples in exchange for payment, is still hardly researched for the Wild Coast (WIC, “Muster Rolls”, pp. 179–180; commander Essequibo, “Letter to WIC”, 13 May 1710, in: BRC, serial No. 147, pp. 233–234; commander Essequibo, “Letter to WIC”, 2 October 1743, in: BRC, serial No. 224, p. 40; commander Essequibo, “Letter to WIC”, 3 April 1741, in: BRC, serial No. 226, p. 42; Acting commander Essequibo, “Letter to WIC”, 23 December 1750, in: BRC, serial No. 261, pp. 69–70), August 1778 (Administrator of the Company’s Plantations C. Boter, “Letter to WIC (Amsterdam)”, 31 August 1778, in: BC, No. 310, pp. 553–554), 1796–1797 (WIC, “Muster Rolls”, pp. 179–180) and the Convention concluded with the Spaniards. 104 Commander Essequibo, “Journal”, Kijkoveral, 1699–1701, p. 217. The expedition returned to Kijkoveral on 22 September 1699 “with four female slaves, two children, and a boy”, whereupon Makrawacque’s son was “paid by the commander [and] went away satisfied” (ibid.). An alternative spelling is Owl Mackerawacke. 105 WIC, “Muster Rolls”, pp. 179–180.

252

Chapter 11 Dutch Inland Posts and the Limits of Jurisdiction and Interference

Away and Correcanne,106 and were also paid for boat hire and the transportation of good between May 1732 and October 1735,107 the Mazaruni trade in “red slaves” continued at least until August 1755, when the Carib Chief Araytana had handed over enslaved Acowaio108 to Lower Mazaruni plantation owners Peter Marchial and Engelbert Piepersberg and the director general at Fort Zeelandia.109 By contrast, the Upper Mazaruni was still “unknown” to Essequibo colonists in August 1764110 and has instead served the Caribs of Cuyuni as retreat in 1770 and 1790, when the violent removal practices of the Capuchin missions (undertaken since the 1730s) increased in the Cuyuni,111 after Dutch colonist Christiaan Finet had in December 1748 reported to the commander in Essequibo that “the Spaniards [. . .] [are] continually taking them by surprise in their dwellings and carrying them off, with their wives and children, to send them to Florida” and the “Chief of the Spaniards” would have had “placed before his eyes the unfairness of this treatment, as well as the consequences of it [. . .] [and] had replied that the whole of America belonged to the King of Spain, and that he should do what suited himself, without troubling about us”. Already in December 1746, the Indigenous Peoples would have been “in the highest state of indignation”, whereas “four of their Chiefs [. . .] had sent knotted cords to all the Indian houses, which is their sign to meet on a certain day” and had “expressed a desire to surprise the Mission and level it to the ground”. In response, the Dutch commander indicated that “when they come to men that I can provide no redress for them, and that they must take measures for their own security”.112

106 Commander Essequibo, “Journal”, Fort Kijkoveral, 1699–1701, pp. 218–219. 107 WIC, “Muster Rolls”, pp. 179–180. 108 This was arguably done from a place called Coenawaroeka. 109 Ibid. 110 Storm van’s Gravesande, “Trading Places”, August 1764, p. 129. 111 Court of Policy, “Letter to WIC”, 14 July 1731, in: BB3, serial No. 65, p. 83; WIC (The Ten), “Proceedings”, 17 October 1685, in: BC, No. 65, pp. 174–175. 112 Commander Essequibo, “Letter to WIC”, 7 December 1746, in: BRC, serial No. 234, pp. 46–48, at 48; commander Essequibo, “Letter to WIC”, 2 December 1748, in: BB3, serial No. 85, p. 90; commander Essequibo Storm van’s Gravesande, “Letter to WIC”, 2 December 1748, in: BC, No 167, pp. 321–323. By this strategy, the commander felt “assured that in a short time no Spaniard will be visible any more above in Cuyuni”. At the same time, the Dutch commander attempted to restrain the Caribs from attacking the Capuchin missions in response, since “such a step would certainly be revenged upon us by the Spaniards” (commander Essequibo, “Letter to WIC”, 7 December 1746, pp. 46–47).

The Dutch Cuyuni Post and Capuchin Violent Removal (1730–1790)

253

Thereupon, the Dutch had established a post “above in Cuyuni” until May 1755113 which was most likely prompted by the presence of the Capuchin missions, since the commander at Fort Zeelandia ordered the erection of the Cuyuni post after the Capuchin missions were known to the commander in July 1746114 and for him had become “quiet another affair” in September 1754, when Laurens Storm van’s Gravesande mistakenly assumed that the missions were “not in the Creek Mejou”,115 but “some miles lower, on the River Cuyuni”. Thereupon, the director general again requested the WIC in Zeeland to inform him “at the earliest moment [about] the so long sought definition of frontier, so that I may go to work with certainty”,116 before establishing the Cuyuni post before May 1755117 “about fifteen hours above the place where Cuyuni unites with Massaruni”118 and “ten or twelve hours from the Spanish dwellings”.119 In contrast, the post was 113 Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 31 May 1755, in: BRC, serial No. 118, pp. 103–104. Thereupon, the post was, for the first time, listed on the Company’s muster-roll on 1 June 1755 as “the Honourable Company’s new [sic!] post in Cajoine” (WIC, “Muster Rolls”, p. 162) with Johannes Neumann as first postholder (commander Essequibo, “List of the Honourable Company’s Servants in Essequibo and Demerary”, 1 June 1755, in: BB3, serial No. 119, p. 104), who was however dismissed until March 1758 “on account of his bad behaviour” and sent “back to Europe [. . .] in order to prevent him from doing mischief among the Indians” (Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 6 March 1758, in: BB3, serial No. 130, p. 109). 114 Commander Essequibo L. Storm van’s Gravesande, “Letter to WIC”, 20 July 1746, in: BC, No. 155, pp. 305–306, at 305; commander Essequibo, “Letter to WIC”, 20 July 1746, p. 45. At that time, the Director General confirmed that “the report of the Caribs [. . .] some months ago is true, namely that the Spaniards have established a Mission up in the said river [. . .] with the intention of founding yet another Mission and fort some hours further down this river” (commander Essequibo, “Letter to WIC”, 7 December 1746, in: BRC, serial No. 234, pp. 46–48, at 46). In December 1746, the river was perceived as being situated “on your Honours’ territory” (ibid.). However, there was never a Capuchin mission on the banks of the Cuyuni itself. Instead, the Capuchins had founded a few missions at the Cuyuni confluence Yuruario (Chapter 7). 115 An alternative spelling is Mejon. 116 Director General Storm van’s Gravesande, “Letter to WIC”, 2 September 1754, in: BC, No. 181, pp. 346–349, at 347–348. 117 Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 31 May 1755, in: BB3, serial No. 118, pp. 103–104. 118 Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 1 September 1750, in: BRC, serial No. 342, p. 180. 119 Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 31 May 1755, pp. 103–104. Arguably, this was further triggered by the information that the Spaniards in December 1748 were “gradually approach [ing] the Upper Cuyuni” (commander Essequibo, “Letter to WIC”, 2 December 1748, pp. 57–58) and May 1755, when it was reported that the Capuchin missions “have taken in complete possession the Creek Iruwary which flows into the Cayuni, which indisputably is your Honour’s territory” (Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 31 May 1755, pp. 103–104). Nevertheless, based on information of colonist Frederik Persik, the commander in Essequibo in June 1750 perceived both the Mission “in a certain little river called Imataca, situated far off in Orinoco” and the

254

Chapter 11 Dutch Inland Posts and the Limits of Jurisdiction and Interference

in March 1746 initially considered to be placed on the road of Ignatius Courthial (see Figure 15),120 which was built until 1750,121 in order to collect the “recognition money for the mules, cows and horses passing by”.122 Notably, the post was established despite the “unknown” boundary,123 as the director general in January of the same year (1755) was fully aware that there is no definition of boundaries “neither in the Treaty of Münster [. . .] nor in any other [. . .] about this”, while the “respective Charters granted to the West India Company at various times by the States-General”, had only determined “the general limits of the Company’s territories” and WIC Memorials just indicated brought limits, determined “on the one side, [by] that far-stretching and wide-spreading river, the Amazon, and on the other side, [by] the great and mightily-flowing river, the Orinoco, occupying an intermediate space of ten degrees of north latitude from the Equator”.124 At the same time, the unknown boundary had prevented the commander from applying consequent measures against the Capuchin missions, such as in July 1746, when Storm van’s Gravesande considered to “driving them from there” but “dare[d] not to take the responsibility”, since “such a step being one of great consequence [. . .] as the true frontier-line there is unknown to me”.125 Again, the commander in Essequibo regretted in March 1747 that he “should already long ago have seized and demolished the first fort above in Cuyuni [. . .] if I were but rightly conscious how far the limits of your territory extend”, as “an error in this might be the cause of quite too evil consequences”,126 whereupon the WIC had ordered him in September 1747 to apply “indirect means”, that is “without yourself appearing Mission “up in the River Cuyuni” as being “very much nearer to the side of the Spanish than to our territory” (WIC [Zeeland], “Letter to commander Essequibo”, 22 June 1750, p. 66; WIC (Zeeland Chamber), “Proceedings”, 22 June 1750, in: BC, No. 172, pp. 228–234; Storm van’s Gravesande, “Letter to WIC”, 20 July 1746, p. 305). 120 Commander Essequibo, “Letter to WIC”, 19 March 1745, in: BB3, serial No. 76, p. 86. 121 Storm van’s Gravesande, “Rios Essequebe et Demerary”, 22 June 1750, p. 139. 122 Commander Essequibo, “Letter to WIC”, 19 March 1745, in: BB3, serial No. 76, p. 86. The commander therefore decided to transfer the Demerara post to “this road” in Cuyuni, since “the post which lie in Demerary [is] now unnecessary there on account of the opening of the river” (ibid.). 123 Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 31 May 1755, pp. 103–104. 124 WIC (Zeeland), “Letter to Director General Storm van’s Gravesande”, 6 January 1755, in: BC, No. 186, pp. 355–359, at 357. 125 Storm van’s Gravesande, “Letter to WIC”, 20 July 1746, p. 306; commander Essequibo, “Letter to WIC”, 20 July 1746, p. 45. The Dutch Original reads “de regte grenscheijdinge mij niet bekent Sijn” (ibid.). 126 Commander Essequibo, “Letter to WIC”, 23 March 1747, in: BC, No. 158, pp. 309–311, at 310. The Dutch original reads “the limiten van UEGA territoir” (ibid.).

The Dutch Cuyuni Post and Capuchin Violent Removal (1730–1790)

255

therein”.127 Hence, van’s Gravesande again in June 1750 admitted that he does “dare not openly oppose them as might very easily be done, by means of the Carib nation, their sworn enemies” as the boundaries are “still unknown”, but considered this necessary “in order successfully to oppose the continual approach of the neighbouring Spaniards, who, if they are not checked, will at last shut us in on all sides”.128 As the director general in September 1754 with certainty claimed “that mission was so absolutely and indisputably in our territory”,129 he made a written complain to the governor of Cumaná and threatened “that, if he persisted in the design of founding a mission in the River Cayuni, I should be obliged to oppose myself there against effectually”,130 after he had taken the previous promise of the Spanish governor “that it should not be progressed with”131 as “sterling value”.132

Figure 15: The Courthial Road between Cuyuni and Orinoco in 1750.

Prior, the commander in Essequibo in December 1746 had grounded his claim against the erection of the Capuchin mission on the basis of the Dutch occupation by plantations in the Lower Cuyuni, in particular by the former [sic!] WIC coffee plantation and the Company’s indigo plantation (established in 1732,

127 WIC (The Ten), “Letter to commander in Essequibo Storm van’s Gravesande”, 9 September 1747, in: BC, No. 161, pp. 314–315. 128 WIC [Zeeland], “Letter to commander Essequibo”, 22 June 1750, p. 66. 129 Director General Storm van’s Gravesande, “Letter to WIC”, 2 September 1754, in: BC, No. 181, pp. 346–349, at 347–348). The Dutch original reads “indisputabel op ons territoir” (ibid). 130 Director General Storm van’s Gravesande, “Letter to WIC”, 2 September 1754, p. 349. 131 Commander Essequibo, “Letter to WIC”, 8 September 1749, in: BB3, serial No. 89, p. 92. 132 Director General Storm van’s Gravesande, “Letter to WIC”, 2 September 1754, p. 349.

256

Chapter 11 Dutch Inland Posts and the Limits of Jurisdiction and Interference

abandoned until August 1764),133 and had determined the Cuyuni mouth as the site, where the river “falls into the river Essequibo at the place where the old plantation Duynenburg used [sic!] to stand on the one side and where Mr. Van der Cruysse[n] dwells on the other side, half a cannon-shot below Fort Kykoveral”.134 Hence, the Capuchin missions were assertively situated “on your Honours’ territory”, “in our own land [. . .] in breach of all custom” and “absolutely and indisputably in our territory”.135 Identically, Laurens Storm van’s Gravesande in September 1759 determines the river Cuyuni as the site, where “your Lordships having had for very many years the coffee and indigo plantation there, also that the mining master, with his men, having worked on the Blue Mountain in that river without the least opposition”. Thus, the director general concludes that “the possession of that river, as far, too, as this side of the Wayne, which is pretended to be the boundary-line (although I think the latter ought to be extended as far as Barima)”, wherefore “your Lordships’ right of ownership is indisputable, and beyond all doubt”.136 Despite the Grotian legal provision that occupation lawfully acquires only land ownership as property, the claim was repeated in July 1746137 and reaffirmed in March 1767, as the director general again claimed that the Capuchin missions would be “situated on our frontier, even on our territory”.138 Meanwhile, the Spaniards had attacked the Dutch Cuyuni post in August 1758139 on initiative of the Capuchin missions, since the report of the Capuchin Prefect Fray Benito de la Garriga140 about the Carib attack on the Guaica missions

133 Director General, “Brief Treatise”, August 1764, p. 111; Storm van’s Gravesande, “Trading Places”, August 1764, p. 129. The Director General in August 1764 also disclosed that “the Spaniards spread themselves from year to year, and gradually come closer by means of their Missions, the small parties sent out by them coming close to the place where the Honourable Company’s indigo plantation stood [sic!] and being certain to try and establish themselves if they are not stopped in time” (ibid.), whereas the indigo plantation was confirmed until May 1760 (Hildebrandt, “Account (23 April 1741–9 May 1741)”, Alt Cartado, 4 June 1741, p. 34); Hildebrandt, “Journal”, 20 May 1743–19 July 1743, p. 39; Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 20 July 1759, in: BRC, serial No. 338, p. 175; Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 2 May 1760, p. 185, although the indigo plantation was not indicated in Storm van’s Gravesande, “Plantations of Essequibo”, 1748/1749, p. 137). 134 Commander Essequibo, “Letter to WIC”, 20 July 1746, p. 45. 135 Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 2 September 1754, pp. 347–348. 136 Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 1 September 1750, p. 180. 137 Commander Essequibo, “Letter to WIC”, 20 July 1746, p. 45. 138 Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 27 March 1767, in: BRC, serial No. 424, p. 143. The Dutch original reads “op onse grense selver op ins territoir” (ibid.). 139 WIC, “Muster Rolls”, p. 163. 140 Director General, “Letter to WIC”, Rio Demerary, 9 September 1758, in: BB3, serial No. 132, pp. 109–110, at 110.

The Dutch Cuyuni Post and Capuchin Violent Removal (1730–1790)

257

on the Supama in 1757141 “gave rise”142 to the secret expedition, fitted out by Interim commander Don Felix Ferreras and carried out by Don Santiago Bondalde to reduce the “Dutch and other foreigners influence [upon] the heathen Indians against the establishment of the [Capuchin] settlements, from which it results that the spread of the Gospel is not more extended in this province”, stop “the inhuman traffic of enslaving Indians” and also to prevent “any extension of the claims which the Dutch are every day advancing further in this part of his [the Spanish king’s] dominions”. In result, Bonalde ordered to “apprehend the Dutch man Jacobus upon the Island of Curamueuru” and the Carib Chief Bumutu,143 attacked the Dutch post in Cuyuni in August 1758, burnt the hut144 and imprisoned the postholder Johan Stephen Iskes, who was placed there since March 1758,145 along with Bijlegger Guilliaam Baptist de Bruijn146 and “their wives and a negro 141 Prefect of Capuchin missions Benito de la Garriga, “Letter to commander Felix Ferreras”, Suay, 9 June 1758, in: BRC, serial No. 331, Annex 1, pp. 145–148. Accordingly, the Guaica Chief was killed in the attack by the “Caribs of the forest”, who was “engaged in establishing [a] village”, whereupon the Guaicas “returned again to the forests” and the village was “completely lost” (ibid., pp. 145–46). Furthermore, a Spanish investigation of May 1757 came to the conclusion that the attack on the Guaicas at Avechica was made by the Carib Chief Caiarivare, “living in the interior on the River Cuyuni and at the very mouth of the River Corumo [. . .] with some Dutchmen from the Colony of Essequibo, engaged in Slave Traffic”. Furthermore, the investigation determined “the closing [of] the pass of the River Usupama [Vsupama], and hindering them [the Caribs] from passing without being discovered” due to the foundation of “ a settlement in the neighbourhood of Avechica” as “principal reason for their murdering [of] the said [Guaica] Captain” (De la Garriga, “Letter to commander Ferreras”, Suay, 9 June 1758, p. 145). 142 Governor Guayana J. Valdés, “Decree”, 30 October 1758, in: BRC, serial No. 331, Annex 9, pp. 157–158, at 157; Prefect of Capuchin missions Fray Benito de la Garriga “Report to King of Spain”, Alta Gracia, 6 July 1769, in: BRC, serial No. 463, pp. 19–25, at 23. 143 Provisional commander Guayana F. Ferrera, “Decree”, Fortress of Guayana, 27 July 1758, in: BRC, serial No. 331, Annex 2, pp. 150–151. At that time, the Spaniards were prohibited “by law and by repeated Ordinances” of the Spanish King (ibid.). Moreover, Bonalde was ordered on 27 July 1758 to “take their [the Dutch’s] slaves” and place them “at the disposition of the Reverend Father Prefect [. . .] for the purpose of being instructed in the Christian religion and settled” along with “Indians of any other nation, and bring them as prisoners, well-guarded, to this fortress, delivering up to the Reverend Father Prefect all the Indians that may be taken under the name of slaves” (ibid.). 144 The States General, “Remonstrance to the Court of Spain”, 31 July 1759, in: BB3, serial No. 136, enclosure 1, pp. 111–113, at 112. This was reported by the Director General in September 1758; BRC 340: 176, Director General, “Letter to WIC”, Demerary, 9 September 1758, p. 109; Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 9 September 1758, in: BRC, serial No. 330, pp. 143–144, at 143. 145 Formerly, he was a miner in the Company’s service (WIC, “Muster Rolls”, pp. 160, 163. 146 J. Valdés, “Decree”, Santo Thomé de la Guayana, 27 October 1758, in: BRC, serial No. 331, Annex 4, p. 153; WIC, “Muster Rolls”, p. 163. The Spanish names are Stephen Hiz and Juan Bautista Brum (Stephen Hiz, “Declaration”, Ciudad de Guaiana, 3 November 1758, in: BRC,

258

Chapter 11 Dutch Inland Posts and the Limits of Jurisdiction and Interference

slave”,147 who was later identified as “the creole Ariaen, and his wife and children”,148 whereas “nothing whatever” was heard about “the Indian Famuto”.149 Thereupon, the Dutch Cuyuni post remained abandoned until August 1767, after the Cuyuni Caribs had informed the Dutch in September 1758 about the “successful raid” of the Spaniards,150 while the States General of the United Provinces had filed a remonstrance for redress at the Court of Madrid on 31 July 1759151 and the astonished Dutch in Essequibo demanded “the release of the prisoners” and “proper satisfaction for so manifest a violation of treaties and of the rights of nations”,152 as there is no “doubt concerning the ownership of this portion of Essequibo, [which is] most undoubtedly belonging, as it does, to the West India Company”. Although the Spanish commander in the Orinoco initially refused the Dutch claims, as “the River Cuyuni is Spanish territory”153 and situated “in the dominions of the [Spanish] king my Sovereign”,154 the Spaniards until 1761 had released the Dutch prisoners, whereupon bijlegger Guilliaam de Bruijn in August 1761 succumbed of his injuries from imprisonment155 and postholder Stephanus Iske in February 1762 re-emerged on the Company’s muster-roll as

serial No. 331, Annex 16, pp. 165–166, at 165; Chief Jean Bautista Brum, “Declaration”, Santo Thomé, 3 November 1758, in: BRC, serial No. 331, Annex 17, pp. 167–168). 147 Valdés, “Decree”, Santo Thomé de la Guayana, 27 October 1758, p. 153. During the Spanish Juridical Proceedings in Santo Tomé, the Dutch post was determined as a “hut covered with palm branches and without side walls” two days’ navigation “downstream” (Don Santiago Bonaldes, “Declaration”, Ciudad del a Guayana, 31 October 1758, in: BRC, serial No. 331, Annex 3, pp. 159–160) 148 Director General, “Letter to WIC”, c. 1759, in: BRC, serial No. 334, p. 172. 149 Bonaldes, “Declaration”, Ciudad del a Guayana, 31 October 1758, pp. 159–160. Bumutu was claimed to be “persecuting the settled Indians of his nation”, who would capture “those of other nations for the purpose of selling them to the Dutch” (ibid.). The Spanish original reads “el Indio Caribe Hamado Bumutu” (ibid.). 150 Director General, “Letter to WIC”, Demerary, 9 September 1758, p. 109; Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 9 September 1758, p. 143. 151 Director General, “Letter to WIC”, Essequibo, 28 August 1761, in: BB3, serial No. 146, p. 111. In September 1758, he States General claimed that the Cuyuni “ha[d] always [been] considered [. . .] as a domain of this State, and have, in consequence, built on its banks a so-called post, being a wooden habitation [. . .] guarded by a postholder and outpostman with some slaves” (ibid.). 152 Director General, “Letter to commander of Guayana”, Essequibo, 30 September 1758, in: BRC, serial No. 340, enclosure 1, pp. 177–178. 153 Director General, “Letter to WIC”, c. 1759, in: BRC, serial No. 334, p. 172. The Dutch original reads “Spaensch territoir” (ibid.). 154 Councillor J. Padilla y Moron, “Report”, Cumaná, 28 December 1758, in: BRC, serial No. 331, Annex 20, pp. 169–170; Governor of Cumaná N. de Castro, “Letter to Director General”, 10 November 1758, in: BRC, serial No. 340, enclosure 2, p. 179. 155 Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 28 August 1761, in: BRC, serial No. 358, pp. 202–203, at 202.

The Dutch Cuyuni Post and Capuchin Violent Removal (1730–1790)

259

bijlegger at the post in Moruca,156 but had left the WIC service until January 1763, after Iske in November 1762 was “in a bad state of health, and only just able to walk”.157 Meanwhile, the Capuchin missions continued their violent removal practices in Cuyuni and the Indigenous Peoples had in August 1761 “sent in complaint upon complaint” in response to the undertakings of “a party of Spaniards and Spanish Indians in Cuyuni”, who went “down to the lowest fall, where your Lordship’s indigo plantation is situated, driving all the Indians thence, and even, it is said, having killed several”.158 Hence, in February 1762 the Capuchin missionaries had again sent out “daily patrols”, which are encroaching the area “as far as the great fall (just below which your Lordships’ creoles live)” and had until May 1762 prompted that “all the Caribs have also left that river [Cuyuni], and gone to live above Essequibo”,159 where “swarms of Caraibans” were reported to surround the Arinda post in August 1765 and 1767 “had taken up a position there”.160 Again, the Capuchin missionaries had been driven away the Caribs of Cuyuni in September 1763,161 whereupon the Dutch remained idle. Similarly, the Dutch had already in 1748 refused redress to the Caribs “when they come to men” and instead emphasized that “they must take measures for their own security”,162 when the Dutch colonist Christiaan Finet had reported to the commander in Essequibo about the Spanish practice in “continually taking them by

156 WIC, “Muster Rolls”, p. 164. 157 Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 6 November 1762, in: BRC, serial No. 374, pp. 217–218. 158 Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 28 August 1761, p. 202. 159 Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 17 May 1762, in: BRC, serial No. 368, p. 214. 160 Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 13 August 1765, pp. 136–137; Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 9 December 1767, in: BB3, serial No. 195, pp. 148–149, at 149). 161 Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 27 September 1763, in: BB3, serial No. 164, p. 126. 162 Commander Essequibo, “Letter to WIC”, 7 December 1746, in: BB3, serial No. 78, pp. 87–88; commander Essequibo, “Letter to WIC”, 2 December 1748, p. 58; commander Essequibo, “Letter to WIC”, 2 December 1748, in: BB3, serial No. 85, p. 90). At the same time, the Dutch commander attempted to restrain the Caribs from attacking the Capuchin missions, since “such a step would certainly be revenged upon us by the Spaniards” (commander Essequibo, “Letter to WIC”, 7 December 1746, in: BRC, serial No. 234, pp. 46–48; commander Essequibo, “Letter to WIC”, 7 December 1746, 78, pp. 87–88). The spatial strategy was considered before December 1748 for the war between the Caribs and Warows “which is carried on very obstinately” and might “stop” the progress of the Spaniards and “if the Caribs obtain the upper hand, they may even be driven somewhat further off, without our having in the least degree to meddle therewith” (ibid.).

260

Chapter 11 Dutch Inland Posts and the Limits of Jurisdiction and Interference

surprise in their dwellings and carrying them off”,163 which was, most likely, ongoing since the 1730s.164 Again, in January 1757 the Dutch had refused the request of the Caribs of Cuyuni for “powder and shot”,165 before military commander van Berckeyck after the Spanish raid on the Dutch Cuyuni post in December 1758 had disclosed the Spanish commander in Cumaná that the Caribs would plan an attack on the Catalonian missions, self-evidently in order to demonstrate the “good relations and friendship with his [Spanish] neighbours” and for the prevention that “a savage and brutal nation from doing any harm to your nation”,166 although the director general in September 1758 had simultaneously considered to “mak [e] use of the Caribs” in order “to pay them [the Spaniards] back in their own coin and drive them from their present position”.167 Instead, the director general in December 1764 concluded an agreement with the Caribs of Cuyuni, namely that the Dutch are giving “an assurance of protection against the Spaniards” in exchange for the Carib’s support in reestablishing the Cuyuni post,168 as Laurens van’s Gravesande was “not been able to get any Indians up to the present to aid me in re-establishing the post in

163 Commander Essequibo, “Letter to WIC”, 2 December 1748, pp. 58, 90. 164 Court of Policy, “Letter to WIC”, 14 July 1731, in: BB3, serial No. 65, p. 83. 165 Court of Justice, “Minutes”, Fort Zeelandia Rio Essequibo, 3 January 1757, in: BRC, serial No. 318, pp. 130–131. Also, the Caribs and Panacay had offered their support in case of an attack, while the English Governor Clark of Barbados had warned the Dutch on 8 August 1754, as a master vessel and “a large number of small vessels with 500 men” had arrived in Trinidad for Cumana (NATT, Barbados Governor Clark, “Report”, 8 August 1754, publication No. 673). Most likely, this was the Secret Boundary Expedition of Spain. 166 Military commander Essequibo, “Letter to Spanish commander Orinoco”, 8 December 1758, in: BRC, serial No. 334, Annex, p. 173. However, the letter was “sent back unopened” (Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 29 May 1759, in: BRC, serial No. 335, p. 174). 167 Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 9 September 1758, in: BRC, serial No. 330, pp. 143–144, at 143. In this context, the Director General added in May 1760, “even in a case of the utmost emergency” would “hesitate before authorizing the cruelties indulged in by the Caraiban nation” (Director General, “Letter to WIC”, Essequibo, 2 May 1760, in: BB3, serial No. 140, p. 114). 168 Director General, “Letter to WIC Zeeland”, 28 December 1764, in: BC, No. 234, p. 404. On 15 June 1764, it was considered necessary to “make the necessary arrangements with the Caribs in Cuyuni to station an under-officer there with eight men” (Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 15 June 1764, in: BRC, serial No. 395, p. 108; Director General, “Letter to WIC”, Demerary, 24 October 1760, in: BRC, serial No. 352, pp. 196–197, at 197), after the Director General on 18 October 1763 had indicated that “[i]t is certain, your Lordships that this is not the time to think of the reestablishment of the post in “Cuyuni”, as “the Spaniards having driven all the Indians out of the river” (Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 18 October 1763, in: BRC, serial No. 389, p. 228).

The Dutch Cuyuni Post and Capuchin Violent Removal (1730–1790)

261

Cuyuni, and without their help it cannot be done”.169 The director general in September 1765 indicating that the assurance “was easy to promise” and the Caribs had accepted the agreement and “offer[ed] a helping hand” in establishing the post,170 which they had fulfilled until 1766,171 before the Cuyuni post was completely “re-established” on 20 March 1767172 and listed on the Company’s muster-roll on 31 March 1767.173 Beforehand, WIC Zeeland on 9 March 1767 had faulted the slow progress of the “erection of the post in Cayuni”174 and encouraged the re-establishment of the post since September 1765,175 after “a new Mission” was established by the Capuchin missionaries in August 1765, which was perceived to be established “between Cajoeny and Masserouny [. . .] in the middle of our land”. Most notably, the Dutch had not complied to their assurance of protection, as was inserted in the 1764 agreement with the Cuyuni Caribs, despite the re-establishment of the post in Cuyuni in 1767 (until 1770) with Pierre Martin176 as postholder, Gerrit van Leeuwe and Jan Witting as assistants

169 Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 28 December 1764, in: BRC, serial No. 399, pp. 116–117, at 117. 170 WIC, “Letter to Director General”, 19 September 1765, in: BRC, serial No. 404, p. 121–122, at 122. 171 Nevertheless, the Director General in June 1767 reported that the Indigenous Peoples in Cuyuni “are unwilling to do the least thing for the postholder” by “obstinately refuse to do so”, and “when he threatens to shoot upon them, they reply that they have bows and arrows with which to answer” (Director General, “Letter to WIC”, Demerary, 27 June 1767, in: BB3, serial No. 191, p. 144; Director General, “Letter to WIC”, Demerary, 27 June 1767, in: BRC, serial No. 425, pp. 143–144, at 143). 172 On 20 March 1767, the Director General transmitted that “the post in Cajoeny [is] now being re-established” (Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 20 March 1767, in: BB3, serial No. 189, pp. 142–143, at 143). 173 WIC, “Muster Rolls”, p. 166. 174 Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 9 March 1767, in: BB3, serial No. 188, p. 142. On 18 October 1763, Storm van’s Gravesande explained the delay by the lack of Indigenous Peoples to support the work (Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 18 October 1763, p. 228) and on 1 October 1766 with the sickness of Pierre Martin, who was in September 1766 ordered “to build dwellings and lay out bread-gardens, with the assistance of the Indians”, still in December 1766 reported sick (Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 1 October 1766, in: BB3, serial No. 185, p. 141) and on 20 March 1767 “not yet quite recovered” (Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 20 March 1767, in: BRC, serial No. 422, pp. 141–142, at 142; Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 20 March 1767, p. 142; Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 9 February 1769, in: BRC, serial No. 451, enclosure, p. 2). 175 Ibid. 176 Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 13 August 1765, pp. 136–137; Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 20 March 1767, p. 142; Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 9 February 1769, p. 2.

262

Chapter 11 Dutch Inland Posts and the Limits of Jurisdiction and Interference

(bijleggers) and Jan Willemse as pilot.177 Instead, it was reported178 that “a great part of the Caraibans” had in 1768 settled “there when the post was reestablished”, but already fled in February 1769 after “a large party of Indians was captured and taken away”, while the Spaniards had also “threatened to come again during the next dry season and [then to] proceed as far as Masseroeny to capture a party of Caribs there, and that they would then sail down the Masseroeny and again up the Cuyuni and visit the post on their way”, which “filled the rest with terror, and they are gradually drawing off”.179 Still, in June 1770 a party of Caribs “departed from Cajoeny to Masseroeny to make dwelling places there, and some have gone to Upper Siepanamen [Siparuni] to live there”.180 Likewise, the Cuyuni postholder had jumped ship in February 1768181 on his request of December 1767 “to be placed elsewhere, saying that he cannot live there because the place is unhealthy”,182 and his indication that “the Indians flatly refusing to come and live anywhere near the post so long as he is there”.183 Hence, Pierre Martin was followed by bijlegger Jan van Wittinge, who in June 1770

177 WIC, “Muster Rolls”, pp. 149–187. 178 Director General, “Reply to Runaway Slaves Petition”, 1767, in: BRC, serial No. 434, Annex, p. 158. 179 Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 3 March 1769, p. 159; Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 9 February 1769, p. 1. 180 Postholder J. van Wittingh, “Letter to Director General”, post of Cajoeny, 1 June 1770, in: BB3, serial No. 232, enclosure, p. 176. 181 Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 9 February 1768, in: BB3, serial No. 200, p. 151; Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 9 February 1768, in: BRC, serial No. 438, pp. 161–162. In contrast, the postholder’s position on the Company’s muster-roll was listed as “vacant” since 1767 and Pierre Martin as new postholder in Mahaicony in April 1768 (WIC, “Muster Rolls”, pp. 166–168). The replacement of the postholder became a problem, since the Indigenous Peoples of Cuyuni and Moruca had declared they “will on no account have a Frenchman there” (Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 9 April 1768, in: BB3, serial No. 204, pp. 152–154), while “[t]he proximity of the Spaniards, and especially of the Spanish Missions, renders it impossible to place the slightest trust in Catholics” (Director General, “Letter to WIC”, Demerara, 8 December 1766, in: BB3, serial No. 187, pp. 141–142). After “a troop of more than 100 Warouwans, all well-armed [. . .] arrived at the post Maroco saying that they came to see whether there was a Frenchman there, and intending to kill him if it were so” (commander Demerara, “Letter to WIC”, 18 February 1768, p. 152; Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 9 February 1768, p. 161), the WIC in July 1768 gave in by stating that “you cannot do otherwise than accede to the wish of the Indians in Cuyuni and Moruca, and send no Frenchmen thither as postholders, and therefore not even Pierre Martin” (WIC [Zeeland], “Letter to Director General”, 18 July 1768, in: BRC, serial No. 446, pp. 179–181, at 180). 182 Director General, “Reply to Runaway Slaves Petition”, p. 158. 183 Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 9 February 1768, p. 151; Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 9 February 1768, pp. 161–162.

The Dutch Cuyuni Post and Capuchin Violent Removal (1730–1790)

263

declared his reassignment for New Year’s Day 1770.184 Hence, bijlegger Gerrit Van Leeuwen185 remained the sole WIC servant in Cuyuni until the post was abandoned in December 1771,186 after post assistant Jan van Wittinge had until May 1769 without authorization187 transferred the post to the island Toenamoeto,188 “lying between two falls”,189 after the Spaniards in February 1769 had established two more missions “not far above the post” and yet another in a creek a little higher up, flowing into the Cajoeny, both of which have been strongly manned”. Thus, the director general in February 1769 assumed that “[i]t is finished now, my lords; neither postholders nor posts are of any use now”190 and in March indicated that the Spaniards would have had “practically [obtained] the mastery of the river [Cuyuni] [. . .] at the end of the past year [1768] [. . .] openly (as if in open warfare) in breach of the right of nations, in breach of all Treaties of Alliance with his Catholic Majesty”.191 In consequence, WIC Zeeland in July 1769 issued another remonstrance at the Court of Spain, while the director general in March 1770 had again expressed his wish that he “would have liked to move the post gradually higher up the river”.192 Hence, the Dutch Cuyuni post was, instead, abandoned in December 1771193 and never re-established. Accordingly,

184 Postholder Van Wittingh, “Letter to Director General”, post of Cajoeny, 1 June 1770, p. 176. 185 Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 9 February 1769, p. 1. 186 WIC, “Muster Rolls”, pp. 166–168; Director General, “List of WIC Servants”, 31 December 1771, in: BB3, serial No. 246 enclosure, p. 180. 187 Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 25 March 1770, in: BRC, serial No. 481, pp. 45–46; postholder Van Wittingh, “Letter to Director General”, post Cajoeny, 5 May 1769, in: BB3, serial No. 220, Incl. 2, p. 166. 188 By contrast, the Spanish Governor of Cumaná in 1770 indicated that the Dutch post was situated “on an island called Caramacúra, in the River Cuyuni, in the territory of the Missions (no doubt the same as that called by the Dutch in the paper mentioned the River Coyoenij” (Governor Cumaná P. J. de Urrutia, “Reply to Royal Order of 23 September 1769”, Cumaná, 10 May 1770, in: BRC, serial No. 484, pp. 74–76, at 75). 189 Postholder J. van Wittingh, “Letter to Director General”, Cajoeny, 5 May 1769, in: BB3, serial No. 220, enclosure 2, p. 166. The reason for the transfer was that “on that island, the post will be better and healthier”. 190 Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 3 March 1769, p. 159. 191 Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 15 March 1769, in: BRC, serial No. 456, p. 6; commander Guayana M. Centurion, “Report”, Guayana, 5 April 1770, in: BRC, serial No. 483, pp. 70–74, at 70–71. 192 Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 25 March 1770, in: BRC, serial No. 481, p. 45–46; Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 25 March 1770, in: BB3, serial No. 231, pp. 175–176, at 175. 193 WIC, “Muster Rolls”, pp. 166–168.

264

Chapter 11 Dutch Inland Posts and the Limits of Jurisdiction and Interference

still in March 1773 the positions for the Cuyuni post were listed as “vacant offices”194 and the plan of 1785 to send the replaced Moruca postholder, Arnoldus Dyk, to “the old post in Cuyuni” was never implemented,195 as the post vanished completely from both the Company’s muster-roll, kept until 1786, and Dutch records until the Dutch Capitulation in 1796.196 Instead, in July 1790 “four Indian Owls” coming “from the Spanish Missions” stated that they would “dwell in Mazaruni”.197

The Limits of Dutch Interference (1673–1776) Intensified after the Court acquittal of Peter Marchial of Lower Mazaruni in 1756198 and the murder of the Guaica Chief of the Avechica mission (Supama) by Caribs in 1757,199 the second Carib-Acawaio war, after a neutralization period in 1763, culminated again in 1765, after the Caribs had “robbed them [the Acowaio] of everything in Upper Demerary”200 and were in May 1765 in Upper Mazaruni “at war with that of the Acuways”, who “had massacred all the women and children in a Caraiban village on the Masserouny”. Subsequently, in December 1765, the Carib Chief of Upper Mazaruni (assertively because of having “an old grudge against the Acuway nation”) would have had requested the support of a “Spanish goat”,201 who would

194 General Chartered Dutch West India Company, “Resolution at the Meeting of Ten”, Amsterdam, 26 March 1773, in: BRC, serial No. 514, p. 107–108, at 107. 195 Court of Policy, “Instructions for Moruka”, 3 March 1785, in: BRC, serial No. 604, pp. 28–31, at 31. 196 WIC, “Muster Rolls”, pp. 168–175. 197 Commander Essequibo G. E. van Meyerhelm, “Journal”, Essequibo, 8 July 1790, in: BRC, serial No. 633, p. 78. 198 Repeatedly, Araytana had referred to the friendship status with the Dutch and the prohibition of harm by the Director General (Court of Justice, “Minutes”, 5 January 1756, Essequibo, p. 123). 199 Arguably, this incident has triggered the Spanish Raid upon the Dutch Cuyuni post. It was also reported that “[a]mong the Acuways [Acuwaijen] it remains quiet; we hear nothing more of them; but their Chiefs have not yet come to me, so that we must still be on our guard” (Court of Justice, “Minutes”, 5 January 1756, Essequibo, pp. 123–124). 200 Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 30 May 1766, in: BRC, serial No. 412, pp. 131–135, at 135. By contrast, Neil Whitehead assumes a stronger Spanish influence on the Akawaios of the Sierra Imataca and Dutch influence on the Caribs of Mazaruni (Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirits, p. 166). 201 Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 13 August 1765, pp. 136–137; Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 18 January 1766, in: BB3, serial No. 181, pp. 138–139, at 138.

The Limits of Dutch Interference (1673–1776)

265

have had been “eager to escape Capuchin evangelisation”,202 since his insistence on “others of his [Carib] nation”, who would assertively live “under this [Dutch] jurisdiction to help him to fight the Acuways” was “refused”, whereupon “the Acuways” in 1765 were “on their guard, and ready to receive them [the Caribs] well”, after having been “warned by the other Caraibans”.203 However, the Caribs only in May 1766 were “getting ready to attack them [the Acowaio] in still greater numbers”, whereas the Acowaio “had assembled, several hundred strong, on the place of the Owl Maritane”, that is “right up between the Rivers Demerary and Essequibo”, wherefore the Dutch were “expecting a bloody battle every day”,204 after the director general still in April 1766 had indicated that “although there is a great feeling of bitterness on both sides”, the war was very much “restricted to a few skirmishes that occurred under cover of night”.205 Despite, the Carib-Akowaio war in 1767 proceeded “in a very halfhearted and sluggish manner”, while the director general assumed that “there is great probability that it will soon be settled”,206 the Carib-Acowaio war reached its peak in May 1768, after the Carib Chiefs threats,207 the “killing of three Caraibans on the coast of Berbices” by Acowaio in February 1768208 and their subsequent fear in April 1768 “of being unexpectedly attacked by the Caraibans” in Upper Demerara.209 In May 1768 a body of six hundred Caraibans had passed the fort there and together with several other bodies had taken the road to Upper Demerary and Essequibo, so that now our Caraibans of Essequibo and Masseroeny will take up arms and the war will become universal.210

Hence, the decisive battle took place on 31 May 1768, when “the Caraibans above Berbices having been defeated by the Acuways”.211 Notably, during the

202 Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, p. 167. 203 Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 13 August 1765, p. 136; Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 18 January 1766, p. 138. 204 Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 30 May 1766, in: BB3, serial No. 183, pp. 139–140, at 140; Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 30 May 1766, p. 135. 205 Director General Essequibo, “Letter to WIC”, 6 April 1766, in: BB3, serial No. 182, p. 139. 206 Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, p. 167. 207 Precisely, the Carib Chiefs had announced “that if the Acuways do not behave well or allow the negroes to escape they will attack the Acuways themselves” (Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 10 February 1768, in: BB3, serial No. 201, p. 151). 208 Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 10 February 1768, p. 151. 209 Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 9 April 1768, pp. 152–154. Those Acowaio were known to the Dutch as “Arawak Acowaio or Wapenansis” (ibid.). 210 Director General, “Letter to WIC”, Demerara, 6 June 1768, in: BB3, serial No. 206, p. 156. 211 Ibid.

266

Chapter 11 Dutch Inland Posts and the Limits of Jurisdiction and Interference

whole second Carib-Acowaio war (1755–1768), the director general had strictly ordered all WIC servants, colonists, and planters to non-interference, such as in 1765 and 1767,212 and had in May 1766 instructed the commander in Demerara on “spot” in Upper Demerary “in case of unforeseen events” again not to interfere, directly or indirectly, in the matter, nor to help either of the nations in the slightest manner, and to make an effort, if there be still time, to reconcile the two parties and prevent bloodshed, through the mediation of the Arawaks, who are friends of both sides.

Moreover, the Demerara commander was ordered “to take special care that strict neutrality is maintained by the citizens”,213 before in April 1768 once again reaffirming his order to earnestly warn all the citizens and his soldiers [. . .] they are not to interfere, directly or indirectly, except to make peace if possible, and especially are they to take care not to provide either party with arms or otherwise to assist them, since such action might bring the other party upon us and have fatal results, especially for those colonists who live up the river in isolated places.214 According to Neil Whitehead, those orders were expressed due to the Dutch “fear” of getting again involved in the Carib-Akawaio war,215 after the Acowaio had attacked the Lower Mazaruni plantations in August 1755. In contrast, the Dutch had during the first Carib-Acowaio war (June 1680–January 1688)216 (unsuccessfully) attempted to interfere, since the commander at Kijkoveral in June 1680 “with many but fruitless arguments, tried to persuade the highest Chief to make peace

212 WIC (Zeeland), “Letter to Director General”, 2 December 1765, in: BRC, serial No. 407, p. 127. Priorly, the Dutch Director General had “expressly forbid[den]” the Caribs “to molest our Acuway subjects” (Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 20 March 1767, pp. 142–143; Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 20 March 1767, p. 143), which had no impact, since the Caribs continued their war with the Acowaio after 1765. 213 Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 30 May 1766, p. 140; Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 30 May 1766, p. 135. In this context, the Director General, nevertheless, claimed that he had “several times” successfully applied the means of both “persuasion and threats” (ibid.). 214 Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 12 May 1769, in: BB3, serial No. 205, pp. 154–156, at 154. Non-interference was also practiced by the Essequibo colony with regard to the Carib Warouw war of December 1748, but support offered to the Caribs of Waini against a nation from Orinoco, whom the Caribs of Waini expelled. 215 Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, pp. 166–167. 216 Commander Essequibo, “Letter to WIC”, 28 June 1680, in: BRC, serial No. 94, pp. 183–184, at 183. The continuation of the war is, for example, confirmed in 1681 (commander Essequibo, “Letter to WIC”, 1681, in: BRC, serial No. 95, pp. 184–184, at 184); Commander Pomeroon J. de Jonge, “Letter to WIC”, Pomeroon, 28 January 1688, in: BRC, serial No. 113, p. 206.

The Limits of Dutch Interference (1673–1776)

267

with the aforesaid nation” in order to stop “the war between those [i.e., the Indians] of Cuyuni, Essequibo, and Mazaruni, and the Accoways, who live up country”. However, the “highest Chief” in June 1680 responded by “threaten[ing], [that] if we would not let them continue the war, to depart in great numbers to Barima and elsewhere”. Consequently, the commander was “compelled to desist” since “[t]hese being the most important traders in dye”.217 Hence, the commander again unsuccessfully considered to “bethink me of means for conciliating that tribe” and instructed a WIC servant “if it be possible, to make peace between the Accoways and the Caribs”, before the Essequibo commander in October 1686 attempted to dissuade the Carib chief Makorawacke218 from attacking the Acowaio in Upper Mazaruni,219 situated “close by the Caribs and the annatto store”, and preventing them from going to “war with the Akuwayas upon the Demerara” by persuading the Carib Chief “to [instead] go and salt pork above in the Mazaruni River” or “make war far away in Mazaruni and moreover inland”, but Makourawacke “had not complied thereto”.220 Instead, the war had in January 1688 even extended to Berbice, when Pomeroon governor De Jonge indicated that the “Indian war” had spread. Therefore, de Jonge on 23 January 1688 intended to proceed “to help to free [sic!] that river”.221 Similar to the second Carib-Acowaio war, the Dutch had also switched from interference to non-interference in the case of the Magnauts of Upper Essequibo.222 Accordingly, the Dutch in August 1724 (on information of Carib Chief Jackannarie that the Magnauts would have killed “all the Caraibans and Acuways they could get hold of”) had fitted out at least two expeditions of the postholder of Wacupo with “a great a force of Indians, well-armed with bows and arrows and the necessary ammunition of war”223 to “proceed against the said

217 Commander Essequibo, “Letter to WIC”, 28 June 1680, in: BRC, serial No. 94, pp. 183–184, at 183. 218 He was also determined as the “father-in-law of the Company’s old negro Jotte” (Essequibo Council, “Minutes”, 20 October 1686, p. 202). 219 Previously, Makourawacke had attacked the Acuwayas of Upper Mazaruni (“some months ago”) and killed “some Akuwayas dwelling not far from the annatto store”, whereupon the “friends” of the Acowaio from “above the annatto store in Mazaruni” had “killed both married women and children of the Caribs [of Chief Jan Genasie “above in Mazaruni”], [and] have so intimidated the rest that they, having abandoned their houses and gardens [and] have fled to the forest” (Essequibo Council, “Minutes”, 20 October 1686, p. 202). 220 Essequibo Council, “Minutes”, 20 October 1686, p. 202. 221 De Jonge, “Letter to WIC”, Pomeroon, 28 January 1688, p. 206. 222 Alternative spellings are Magnouws, Magnamos or Manoas. 223 The expeditions were scheduled for December 1724 (Court of Policy, “Minutes”, 3 September 1724, in: BRC, serial No. 52, p. 78) and about March 1724, as goods were “delivered in

268

Chapter 11 Dutch Inland Posts and the Limits of Jurisdiction and Interference

Magnouws, and to kill or capture all”,224 as the Caribs and Akowaio concerned would be “under the protection of this river [and represent] a source of great advantage to the same, being frequently sent up above, salting, by the Honourable Company and by the colonists, it being, moreover, a great and insufferable insult for Christians to be told by heathens that they were coming to kill them”.225 Again, in 1751 the commander in Essequibo considered to apply violence against the Magnauts, as they are “attacking and driving away the other nations far up in the Essequibo”, had “killed a certain trader named Pieter Lons”226 and in October 1753 also the three Essequibo colonists “Marchaud, Porret and Walye”. Thus, Laurens Storm van’s Gravesande ordered Arinda postholder Muschak to “inform himself of their villages, number, and strength” and “attack them with the assistance of the Caribs”, who had “offered their services for this purpose”.227 By contrast, the Dutch in the 1760s changed their Magnauts approach to non-interference, since they remained idle in December 1763 during the war between the Caribs and Magnauts, situated “a good way up” on the banks of the Essequibo, which took place after the Caribs assembled and had “lain in ambush for the Manoas”. In result, “both sides lost heavily” during the “sharp fight” and “the Caraibans were totally defeated and put to flight”. Hence, the Dutch in February 1763 had attempted to conclude a “Treaty of Commerce” with the Magnauts, which was, however, hindered by a Carib attack, whereupon the Magnauts were “feeling themselves too weak after their losses [and] postponed their journey”.228 Other attempts to draw the Magnauts closer to the Dutch Essequibo colony failed in 1774 and 1776, after the Magnauts had been “injudiciously and childishly driven away”.229

payment to 60 Indians who have been at post Wacquepo to serve 60 days against the Magenauts” (WIC, “Muster Rolls”, pp. 149–187), whereas Whitehead reports that the Magnauts “first came to trade directly with the colony of Essequibo in 1722, and again in 1723, but were stopped from doing so” (Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, p. 168). 224 Court of Policy, “Minutes”, 3 September 1724, in: BRC, serial No. 52, p. 78. The expedition was carried out “on the condition that for each head which he and his men take they shall receive two large axes, and for every slave taken and brought here as much in cash as such slaves are worth in public sale” (ibid.). 225 Court of Policy, “Minutes”, 16 August 1724, in: BB3, serial No. 51, p. 78. 226 However, the Maganauts remained at least until 10 June 1751 (Acting commander Essequibo, “Letter to WIC”, 10 June 1751, in: BRC, serial No. 264, p. 71. 227 Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 20 October 1753, pp. 96–97. Moreover, Neil Whitehead indicates that “the Manoas, or Maganouts” have “occupied the region of the Rio Negro headwaters” (Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, p. 168). 228 Director General Essequibo Laurens Storm van’s Gravesande, “A Brief Treatise”, August 1764, p. 129. 229 Director General, “Letter to WIC”, Rio Essequibo, 17 May 1762, p. 124; Storm van’s Gravesande, “Trading Places”, August 1764, p. 129.

The Limits of Dutch Interference (1673–1776)

269

Identically, the Dutch practised non-interference in the Carib-Warouw war of November 1748, since the “obstinately” war might “stop their [the Spaniards] further progress” and would “even” drive them “somewhat further off, without our having in the least degree to meddle therewith”, as the Spaniards had already commenced to “gradually approach the Upper Cuyuni”.230 In contrast, the only exception presented the Dutch offer to provide “powder and shot” for the Caribs of Waini of July 1746, who were facing the threat of an attack of the Spaniards of Cumaná. At the same time, the Moruca postholder was instructed to “assist the Caribs” in order to “maintain the Company’s territory”. In result, the Dutch assistance against the Spanish became unnecessary, since the Waini Caribs had in March 1747 already received the Orinoco nation “reasonably”.231 In sum, this chapter has traced the timely and spatially extent of two Dutch posts in Upper Essequibo (1737–1790; Siparuni and Rupununi) and Lower Cuyuni (1755–1758 Island of Curamueuru; 1767–1771 Island of Toenamoeto/ Cramacúra). Moreover, the chapter has revealed that the Dutch had neither exercised jurisdiction nor sovereignty over Indigenous Peoples, which is in line with the European colonial law of Hugo Grotius, since the Dutch had never lawfully acquired jurisdiction or sovereignty, but only land as property for the areas occupied by the Dutch.

230 Commander Essequibo, “Letter to WIC”, 2 December 1748, p. 58. 231 Commander Essequibo, “Letter to WIC”, 20 July 1746, p. 45; 23 March 1747, in: BRC, serial No. 235, p. 48.

Chapter 12 Dutch Posts on the “Wild Coast” and the Limits of Alliance (1678–1814) In analogy to the previous study of the Dutch inland posts in Upper Essequibo and Lower Cuyuni, this chapter maps the various Dutch outposts on the “Wild Coast” between Essequibo and the Orinoco in the period 1678–1775/1796. Moreover, the relation between Indigenous Peoples and the Dutch in terms of military and political alliances with regard to both the violent removal practices of the Catalonian Capuchins and the Berbice Rebellion (1763) and Seacost Revolt (1772) is explored. Finally, the chapter researches the lawfulness of the Dutch transfer of Essequibo, Demerara, and Berbice to the English by the Convention of London of 1814.

Dutch Posts from Pomeroon to Barima (1678–1796) Predated by the colony of Nova Zeelandia, which was established by the surviving Zeeland colonists of the Brazilian Caron colony, who arrived in Pomeroon (via Tobago; 1642) in 1650,1 based on the WIC grant of 24 December 1657 to the Walcheren cities as hereditary fief with jurisdiction2 and destroyed in the English attack of 1665/66,3 the river Pomeroon (“Bauwmerona”) re-emerged in the WIC Charter of 20 September 1674 as exclusive trading area of the WIC along with Essequibo (Isekepe),4 after the Pomeroon colony was retaken by the Dutch

1 Scott, “Description of Guayana”, after 30 April 1668, p. 169; Boomert, Indigenous Peoples of Trinidad and Tobago, p. 118. 2 HaNA, WIC, “Register of WIC resolutions: Grant to Abraham van Pere”, 14 September 1678; WIC (Zeeland) and commander Aert Groenewegen, “Minutes”, 2 January 1659, in: BRC, serial No. 67, p. 248. 3 Governor Byam, “Journal”, c. 1669, p. 167. Priorly, Arawak settlements are recorded for the area between Corentyne and Waini in the 1660s, predated by joint Arawak and Iao (Yao) settlements between Waini (Wayemi) and Arowary and the Essequibo mouth in 1599 (De Bry, “Sketchmap of Guiana”, 1599, p. 59). In 1665/66, Arawak were also recorded for the “Bawrooma”, who had withdrawn all trade, after the English had stormed “two warehouses”, killed 30 Arawak and took 70 as captives during the English attack (Governor Byam, “Journal”, c. 1669, p. 167). 4 Dutch States General, “Charter of the New West India Company”, 20 September 1674, pp. 174–175. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110690149-012

Dutch Posts from Pomeroon to Barima (1678–1796)

271

in 1667, along with those in Essequibo and Tobago.5 Hence, the commander in Essequibo in August 1678 had sent a soldier to Pomeroon “to barter for annatto dye”,6 but recalled the same again in October 16797 due to “the approach of a strong fleet of Caribs from the Corentyn” with the intention to be sent back “within four or five weeks” and “to build a hut for two or three men, so that they may dwell permanently among [sic!] the Indians” and occupy that river, as “the place is too far off for them to bring it here to the fort”.8 Thereupon, the Essequibo commander sent Daniel Galle as postholder to Pomeroon, who was replaced by Abraham Candardt in August 1684 to “encourage the Caribs to trade in annatto and letter-wood, which the French even from the islands in the river frequently come with their vessels to fetch”.9 At the same time, a Company’s servant was ordered in December 1683 “to reside in Barima” and “take up his abode, since there is much annatto and letter-wood there and it is close by Pomeroon”.10 Moreover, he was instructed to “check” Suriname interloper Gabriel Bishop,11 who was, however, in August 1684 surprised and overtaken by the Caribs from Coppename.12 Expelled by Suriname governor Cornelis van Sommelsdijck,13 those Caribs, thereupon, took refuge in May 1685 in Waini,14 Amacura, and Barima, “often alarm [ed] this coast, sometimes slaying some unlucky Arawaks (Arrowacken) or Christians”,15 and took in union with the French possession of Spanish Santo Tome 5 Scott, “Description of Guayana”, after 30 April 1668, p. 169; Governor Byam, “Journal”, c.1669, p. 167. 6 Commander A. Beekman, “Letter to WIC”, 20 October 1679, in: BC, No. 45, pp. 144–145, at 145. 7 WIC (Zeeland), “Letter to commander Beekman”, 30 December 1678, in: BC, No. 44, p. 144. 8 Commander Beekman, “Letter to WIC”, 20 October 1679, p. 145; WIC (Zeeland), “Letter to commander Beekman”, 30 December 1678, p. 144. 9 Commander Essequibo, “Letter to WIC”, 27 February 1683, in: BB3, serial No. 11, p. 59. On 18 August 1684, Abraham Baudaart was postholder in Pomeroon and is most likely the same as Abraham Candhardt. 10 Commander Beekman, “Letter to WIC”, 25 December 1683, in: BC, No. 58, pp. 158–159, at 158. 11 Commander Beekman, “Letter to WIC”, 27 February 1683, p. 59. Furthermore, it was indicated that Bishop (Biscop) had “two or three times” navigated the Barima and traded “with great success, and was well treated” (commander Essequibo, “Letter to WIC”, 25 December 1683, in: BB3, serial No. 10, p. 59). 12 Commander Essequibo A. Beekman, “Report to WIC”, 1 May 1685, in: BC, No. 64, pp. 173–174, at 173. 13 In August 1684, the Coppename Caribs had also “threat[end] to some other Indians friendly to us that they, conjointly with the French, will probably come to destroy all the plantations outside the fort at Essequebo” (commander Essequibo, “Letter to WIC”, 18 August 1684, in: BB3, serial No. 12, pp. 59–60). 14 Alternative spellings are Weini and Weyne. 15 Commander Essequibo, “Letter to WIC”, 1 May 1685, in: BB3, serial No. 14, p. 60; commander Beekman, “Report to WIC”, 1 May 1685, p. 173.

272

Chapter 12 Dutch Posts on the “Wild Coast” and the Limits of Alliance

and San Joseph between July 1682 and May 1686, before proceeding against the Dutch in Pomeroon, where WIC Zeeland had until 1688 replaced the previous hut by a post.16 Previously, the Nova Zeelandia colony in Pomeroon was formally transferred from Middelburg, Flushing (Vlissingen), and Vere to WIC Zeeland17 in April 1686 and Jacob de Jonge was appointed provisional governor in December 1685.18 Hence, on 30 April 1689, about 300 Caribs of Coppename in union with 33 French19 attacked and destroyed the newly established Dutch outpost of WIC Zeeland in Pomeroon in a sudden attack, before the French in October 1689 had built “a strong-house” in the Barima river,20 which was occupied by the Caribs of Barima at least since 1593. In response to the French-Carib attack, the Dutch in Pomeroon from 1689 until 1691 continued with a reduced cast, since the WIC Board of the Ten in November 1689 had resolved to bring from Pomeroon “both the employees and the slaves and other commodities” and to leave at the Pomeroon post “three men with a flag for the maintenance of the Company’s possession at the aforesaid place”.21 Thereupon, Adriaen van Gastel was sent to Pomeroon in September 1691 as “master; with one soldier” at the “outlier’s house”22 before the post was abandoned in 1710/16 when it disappeared completely from the Companys muster rolls kept between 1691 and 1785.23

16 In April 1688, the post was “completely finished” (commander, Pomeroon, “Letter to WIC”, Rio Bourona, 6 April 1688, in: BRC, serial No. 115, pp. 207–208). 17 WIC (Zeeland) and Walcheren Cities, “Provisional Contract”, 16/24 December 1657, p. 125; Committee governing the Colony of Nova Zeelandia, “Proceedings”, 1657–1659, p. 126; WIC (Amsterdam), “Resolution about the Population and Cultivation of Pomeroon”, 5 April 1586, in: BRC, serial No. 106, p. 193. 18 WIC (Amsterdam), “Report”, 5 August 1686, in: BB3, serial No. 15, p. 60. 19 Commander Pomeroon J. de Jonge, “Letter to WIC”, 6 July 1689, in: BB3, serial No. 22, p. 66. 20 Commander A. Beekman, “Letter to WIC”, 12 October 1689, in: BC, No. 71, p. 190. 21 WIC (The Ten), “Proceedings”, 15 November 1689, in: BC, No. 72, pp. 190–191, at 191. 22 WIC, “Muster Rolls”, p. 150; WIC (Zeeland), “Letter to commander Beekman”, 18 May 1690, in: BC, No. 73, pp. 191–192, at 192. 23 WIC, “Muster Rolls”, pp. 149–187; Storm van’s Gravesande, “Rios Essequebe et Demerary”, 22 June 1750, p. 139; Storm van’s Gravesande, “Plantations of Essequibo”, 1748/1749, p. 137. In June 1757, Pomeroon was also reported “uninhabited” (Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 27 June 1757, Rio Essequibo, in: BRC, serial No. 323, pp. 135–136) and the Dutchjust in 1794 (again) considered to establish a “military post” there (Council of the Colonies of the State in the West Indies, “Proceedings”, 1–10 December 1794, in: BC, No. 344, pp. 637–639, at 638).

Dutch Posts from Pomeroon to Barima (1678–1796)

273

Figure 16: The Location of the Moruca Post in 1748/49.

Instead, the Dutch post in Wacupo emerged in 1700,24 situated “25 miles”25 or “9 days’ sail by sea” from Fort Kijkoveral.26 Maintained by postholder Pieter de Blaake, Wacupo became the sole Dutch post on the sea-coast, after the post in Pomeroon was abandoned in 1710/1716 and before it was accompanied by a post in Moruca in 1732 (see Figure 16),27 for which Wacupo was abandoned in October 1754.28 Meanwhile, Wacupo was two times attacked during the war “between England, Spain, and France” and the United Provinces,29 namely on 24 August 1709, when the postholder in Warwereijkowrij was “busy with the enemy, killed various of them, and by guess wounded some forty”30 and again on 30 December 1712, when Pieter de Blaake and a Dutch force “three times delightfully repelled” about “25 French and Spaniards”, half-breeds and “red

24 WIC, “Muster Roll”, 17 July 1701, in: BC, No. 83, p. 199. The first postholder of Wacupo was Frans Cantenaar (builegger, outlyer) (ibid.) and was replaced by Jan Debbaut in July 1701, whereupon he assumed the position of “master planter on the Plantation New Middelburg” for late Jan Govertse (ibid., p. 152). Alternative spellings are Wacapo, Waccupo, Wackepo, Waecupo, Wakapau, Wakapou. 25 WIC, “Muster Rolls”, p. 152. 26 Commander Essequibo, “Extract from Muster-Roll”, 19 June 1703, in: BB3, No. 29, p. 70. 27 WIC, “Muster Rolls”, p. 157. In 1745, Pieter de Laet had replaced Jan Baptist as postholder of both Wacupo and Moruca (ibid., p. 160). 28 WIC, “Muster Rolls”, p. 162. 29 Commander Essequibo, “General Report”, 28 September 1702, in: BB3, No. 27, p. 68. The commander received the news about the declaration of war of 4 May 1701 only in September 1702, whereupon he fitted out an expedition to Waini “to inquire what the enemy’s designs might be” (Court of Policy, “Proceedings”, Essequibo, 19 November 1701, in: BRC, serial No. 130, pp. 224–225, at 224), and brought Kijkoveral “into state of defense” (commander Essequibo, “General Report”, 28 September 1702, p. 68). 30 Commander Essequibo, “Letter to WIC”, 6 September 1709, in: BB3, No. 37, p. 73. Thereupon, “a Prince’s flag [Royal ensign] is seen flying on Simieij” in September 1709 (ibid.).

274

Chapter 12 Dutch Posts on the “Wild Coast” and the Limits of Alliance

nation”,31 who “all have taken to flight and otherwise done no damage except carried off three corials[,] set fire to a house and the galley of our fort”,32 and in the Pomeroon mouth also “burn[t] some Indian houses and destroying or taking with them some canoes”.33 Thereupon, Wacupo became a flourishing trading place for annatto dye, corials, canoes, salt fish, but also for red slaves,34 which reached its peak in annatto dye in 1729, when “7,127 lbs. orange dye” were exchanged by Indigenous Peoples for goods, but significantly declined between 173535 and 1746 (285 lbs.), since the slave trade with the Dutch from Suriname became more profitable.36 Previously, the Indigenous Peoples of Pomeroon had refused to trade annatto dye with the Dutch in the early 1680s, a situation that only changed with the arrival of the new Pomeroon commander Jacob de Jonge in 1686, who asked the WIC in Zeeland in April 1686 to send “five or six red coats and breeches, with some sham gold and silver lace, to keep on friendly terms with the upper Chiefs of the Indians”.37 This practice was repeated until the decline of the annatto trade in Pomeroon in 1735, such as in March 1700, when an Indigenous Chief (Owl) was “for past, and as an encouragement for further services [. . .] in the name of the Honourable Company presented by the commander with a new dress of honour”,38 in February 1721, when Fort Kijkoveral received “materials for a coat to be presented to the Indian Owl who delivers most dye to the Company” and again in January 1735, when “(g)oods were assigned as a present to 2 Indian Captains, 1 being of the Carib nation and 1 of the Warouw nation, to maintain the good

31 Postholder Wacupo P. de Blaake, “Letter to commander Essequibo”, Wacquepo, 2 January 1713, in: BC, No. 101, pp. 236–238. By contrast, this Dutch force “consisted in four men without more, to wit Pieter de Blacker, Jan van Stralen, Jan Vervis, and Aerens of Surinam” in comparison to 25 attackers (ibid.). 32 Ibid., p. 237. See also commander, “Letter to WIC”, 19 April 1713, in: BB3, No. 40, p. 74. 33 Commander Essequibo, “Letter to WIC”, 19 April 1713, in: BB3, serial No. 40, p. 74. In consequence, the postholder received a reward “of 30 florins as an encouragement” for having successful defended the post (WIC [Zeeland], “Letter to commander Essequibo P. van der Heyden Resen”, 11 May 1714, in: BC, No. 104, pp. 240–241, at 241), while the continuation of the post after the two attacks was confirmed by the Company’s muster roll (WIC, “Muster Rolls”, p. 155). 34 WIC, “Muster Rolls”, p. 178. 35 During this time a total of 1,677 lbs. were exchanged in 1733 and 5,279 lbs. in 1734, compared to 4,409 lbs. In May 1724 and a total of 10,341 lbs. orange dye in the period 1720–1722, while only 270 lbs. were traded in April 1745 (ibid.). 36 Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit, pp. 167–168. 37 Commander, Pomeroon, “Letter to WIC”, Bourona, 6 April 1688, p. 207. See also Court of Policy, “Minutes”, 12 May 1728, in: BB3, No. 59, p. 81. 38 Commander Essequibo, “Journal”, Kijkoveral, 1699–1701, in: BRC, serial No. 127, pp. 214–221, at 220.

Dutch Posts from Pomeroon to Barima (1678–1796)

275

harmony with both nations; 2 hats, 4 ells gold lace, 6 coarse Osnaburg”, before in October 1735 a “tailor [was] paid for making coats for Indians”.39In contrast, still in January 1683 the Indigenous Peoples in Pomeroon had “listen[ed] to no argument” or “inducements of every kind”. At the same time, wares had “no effect upon them”, as “they meet you with the tart answer that they can get plenty of these by trade in Barima and other places, which partly squares with the truth, on account of the trade which the French from the islands carry on there”,40 although the WIC in Zeeland had in August 1681 ordered “not [to] approach the [. . .] Indians too eagerly, but somewhat indifferently”.41 Hence, the post in Wacupo (abandoned in 1754) was in 1732 accompanied by a post in Moruca,42 after the transfer of the post from Wacupo to Moruca was planned since October 1725, as Wacupo was identified as lying “far out of the ordinary course of boats which come hither through the inland waters”, whereas the Moruca site, “where the horse-dealers from Orinocque generally moor their boats”, is passed by “all vessels which come through the inland waters” and provided the opportunity “to build a house there so close to the river side that a hand grenade can be thrown into the boats”, as “the river being at its narrowest there”.43 In January 1756, the outpost in Moruca (established in 1732) was transferred44 to prevent the “desertion and flights from the slaves towards Orinoco”,45 before the director general in August 1764 had determined its new purpose of “(k)eeping possession of that district” and “(s)topping and catching the slaves who try to run away from this Colony to Orinoque”, as they “mostly pass this way” and the importance of the trade in both annatto dye and boats “manufactured by the 39 WIC, “Muster Rolls”, pp. 179–180. See also Court of Policy, “Minutes”, 3 September 1724, in: BRC, serial No. 172, pp. 2–3; Court of Policy, “Minutes”, 3 September 1724, in: BB3, serial No. 52, p. 78. Throughout the period, Indigenous Peoples were also paid for the capture of African and so-called red slaves, which requires further investigations. 40 Commander Beekman, “Letter to WIC”, 8 January 1683, in: BC, No. 56, pp. 155–157, at 155. This was predated by the WIC order of June 1682 to “impress them [Indigenous Peoples], though they are by nature dull and stupid” (ibid.). 41 WIC (Zeeland Chamber), “Letter to commander Beekman”, 21 August 1681, in: BC, No. 61, p. 82. 42 WIC, “Muster Rolls”, pp. 157–162. 43 Court of Policy, “Minutes”, 2 December 1726, in: BB3, serial No. 56, p. 80. The reason was the “unfortunate state of affairs in Europe” (ibid.). 44 Court of Justice, “Minutes”, Rio Essequibo, 5 January 1756, in: BRC, serial No. 313, p. 124. 45 Court of Justice, “Minutes”, Fort Zeelandia, 7 January 1754, in: BRC, serial No. 290, p. 90. Already in January 1754, a Commission tried to find a suitable spot (ibid.), but came to no conclusion (Court of Justice, “Minutes of Proceedings”, 1 April 1754, Fort Zeelandia, in: BRC, serial No. 293, p. 92.

276

Chapter 12 Dutch Posts on the “Wild Coast” and the Limits of Alliance

Warouws” of the Orinoco mouth islands46 had ceased.47 Finally, the post was to provide “the necessary boats” for “the Indians, who are required both by the Honourable Company’s plantations as well as by private colonists to go salting”,48 but also for the capture of runaway slaves, whereas the post was in September 1763 reported to be “full of Indians (Caribs, Arawaks, Warows)”.49 In May 1769, the post was “contrary to the law of nations” attacked by the Spaniards,50 whose location was in March 1769 described as being “situated near a small river or creek out of the Weyne River, between it and the Pomaroon River”.51 In consequence, the WIC in August 1769 had sold the “plantation at post Marocco with all belonging”,52 while Moruca remained the sole Dutch post on the “Wild Coast” between the Essequibo and Orinoco until July 1775 with Paulus Vermeere as postholder.53 In January 1776, the post was renamed “Wacquepo in Marocco” and rebuilt after the interludes of the English and French between March 178154 and September 1783.55

46 Shareholders of WIC (Zeeland), “Letter to their High Mightinesses the States General”, 23 October 1764, in: BRC, serial No. 398, pp. 115–116; Storm van’s Gravesande, “Trading Places”, August 1764, p. 129. 47 Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 27 September 1763, in: BRC, serial No. 387, p. 226. 48 Shareholders of WIC (Zeeland), “Letter to States General”, 23 October 1764, pp. 115–116. 49 Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 27 September 1763, p. 226; Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 27 September 1763, in: BB3, serial No. 164, p. 126. 50 Court of Policy, “Letter to WIC”, May 1769, in: BRC, serial No. 458, p. 12. However, the attack was not without warning, since the “Warouws of Trinidad” had informed the Essequibo colony in May 1762 “on three different occasions” (Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 28 August 1762, in: BRC, serial No. 372, pp. 216–217) and further warnings were expressed in November 1768 (Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 9 November 1768, in: BRC, serial No. 449, pp. 184–185). 51 The States General, “Remonstrance”, 2 August 1769, in: BB3, serial No. 224, pp. 169–172, at 169. Furthermore, it was claimed that the post “incontestably belonged to the territory of the Republic”, while the WIC would have had “from time immemorial the Company had had a trading depót and a station” (ibid.), although it was only established in 1732. 52 Court of Policy, “Digest of Land Grants”, 1720–1771, p. 205. 53 Ibid., pp. 187–205. 54 On that dates, the colonies of Essequibo, Demerara (14 March 1781) and Berbice (13 March 1781) had “surrendered at the discretion to the arms of His Britannic Majesty” (G. B. Rodney and J. Vaughan, “Articles of Capitulation Essequibo and Demerara”, St. Eustatius, 14 March 1781, in: BRC, serial No. 587, enclosure 1, pp. 1–2, at 1; E. Thompson and J. Berthon, “Articles of Capitulation Berbice”, 16 April 1781, in: BRC, serial No. 587, enclosure 2, pp. 2–3, at 2. See also Captain E. Thompson, “Letter to Lord Sackville”, Ship “Hyana”, River Demerara, 22 April 1781, in: BRC, serial No. 587, p. 1). 55 Court of Policy, “Digest of Land Grants”, 1720–1771, pp. 168–174.

Moruca and Capuchin Violent Removal (c. 1752–1794)

277

Hence, Moruca served as military post until the second Dutch surrender to the English in 1796.56 In sum, the Dutch had established several temporary outposts along the “Wild Coast” between Essequibo and Orinoco, namely in Barima (1683–c. 1689); Pomeroon (1678–1710/6), Wacupo (1700–1754), and the most stable post in Moruca (1732–1775/96), although the commander in Essequibo between 1746 and 1767 claimed the Barima (and sometimes the Waini) as boundary of the Essequibo colony.57

Moruca and Capuchin Violent Removal (c. 1752–1794) Meanwhile, the Moruca post between 1752 and 1794 became the attestor of an unbridled violent removal of Warouws, Caribs, Arawaks, and Chiamas by escorted Capuchin missionaries from the junction of the Caroni and Lower Orinoco, such as in August 1752, when “Caribs below Orinoco” had been “driven away” and “all retreated to our [Dutch] side”58 and October 1754, when the

56 Court of Policy, “Minutes about the Capitulation to commanders of the military posts in Essequibo, Moruca, Courabana, Mahaica, and Mahaycony”, 22 April 1796, in: BRC, serial No. 659, p. 162). 57 Accordingly, the director general tabled Barima as claimed boundary in December 1748, as old Indigenous Peoples had indicated that “this jurisdiction should begin on the east of the Creek Abary and extend westwards as far as the River Barima, where in old times a post existed” (commander Essequibo, “Letter to WIC”, 2 December 1748, pp. 57–59); and in August 1761, when “this side of Barima” was declared as being “upon the Honourable Company’s territory”, since this “has always been so considered by the oldest settlers”, “all the free Indians” and foreigners, while “some very old Caribs” also mentioned an old Dutch post in Barima (Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 12 August 1761, in: BRC, serial No. 357, p. 200). The Barima was also claimed in April 1764, as the “whole jurisdiction of the Company” would extend “from Abary to Barima” (Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 9 April 1764, in: BRC, serial No. 394, pp. 105–107, at 107), in October 1764 (Shareholders of the Dutch WIC [Zeeland], “Letter to their High Mightinesses the States General”, 23 October 1764, in: BRC, serial No. 398, p. 116), in April 1766 (Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 6 April 1766, in: BB3, serial No. 182, p. 139), May 1766 (Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 30 May 1766, p. 139), September 1766 (WIC [Zeeland], “Letter to Director General”, 25 September 1766, in: BRC, serial No. 416, pp. 137–139, at 139), December 1766 and March 1767, when Waini was determined as the boundary “of the two jurisdictions, the east bank [of Barima] being the Company’s territory and the west bank [West wal] Spanish” (Director–General, “Letter to WIC”, 20 March 1767, p. 141). 58 Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 4 August 1752, in: BRC, serial No. 269, pp. 75–76; Director General Essesquibo, “Letter to WIC”, 4 August 1752, in: BB3, serial No. 102, p. 96.

278

Chapter 12 Dutch Posts on the “Wild Coast” and the Limits of Alliance

Caribs of Barima retreated to Waini,59 whereas the violent removal in Cuyuni took place since the 1730s. In general, the Dutch remained idle in practice, although written requests were declined, namely the request of French Bishop Nicolas Gervaise Labrid in May 173060 and the demand of the Capuchin Fathers in July 1755 to deliver “some Indians of the Chiama nation, by us called Shiamacotte”, who were dwelling in the vicinity of the Moruca post since “over ten years”, whereupon the Capuchins threatened to fetch “with sufficient force” in case of “reluctance” and “take them away in chains”.61 In response, the Dutch postholder in Moruca rejected the delivery of the Chiamas in September 1755, as the Chiamas are “have been living here already some years, and being free men I cannot compel them to depart from here, still less can I use any force with them”. At the same time, the postholder emphasized that he was “expressly ordered to protect the free Indians as much as lies in my power, to be of service to them and to ward off from them all violence and injustice”.62 Also rejected was the request of December 1767,63 after in July 1767 “hundreds” of Warouws had fled from the islands of the Orinoco mouth to Barima “on account of the bad treatment received at the hands of the present governor of Orinoque”,64 while

59 Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 27 October 1751, p. 100; Director- General Essequibo, “Letter to WIC”, 12 October 1754, p. 98. 60 Commander Essequibo H. Gelserke, “Letter to WIC”, 30 May 1730, in: BC, No. 116, pp. 250–251, at 251. In May 1730, the request of the Bishop of Orran to make “a stay in or about this colony and seeing whether there might not be some means of converting the Indians to these lands to Christianity” was refused by the Dutch commander, since “it was not in my power to grant him such permission [. . .]” (ibid.). 61 Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 9 September 1755, in: BRC, serial No. 310, p. 121; Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 9 September 1755, in: BB3, serial No. 121, p. 105. 62 Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 9 September 1755, p. 105. Furthermore, the Director General (who drafted the postholder’s response to the Capuchins) emphasized, that “[c]oncerning what you write that if they [the Indigenous Peoples] will not come of their own free will, you would come and fetch them with violent measures, I do not think that you meant this seriously, but that you only said so to frighten the Indians. Because I cannot believe that you would undertake to violate in such a manner the jurisdiction of their High Mightiness my Sovereigns, the allies of His Catholic Majesty, and take a step of such immense consequences” (ibid.). 63 Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 6 September 1767, in: BB3, serial No. 195, p. 148. Again, in December 1767 a “missionary priest” from “Orinocque” had requested the delivery of the Chiamas, which was commented by the Director General as followed: “Is it not astonishing, my lords that such a man [. . .] still dares to ask that the Indians who have run away from his mission should be sent back to him, the same being free people? Your lordships can see from this how free they hold the Indians who live under them, and who are treated much worse than their slaves” (ibid.). 64 Director General, “Letter to WIC”, Demerary, 24 July 1767, in: BRC, serial No. 427, p. 144. Furthermore, it is in July 1767 indicated that “thousands” of Warouws live in the Orinoco

Moruca and Capuchin Violent Removal (c. 1752–1794)

279

the Caribs of Barima in September 1768 due to violent removal raids requested the director general in Essequibo for powder and shot, who responded by asking “whether they [the Caribs of Barima] were not men and had no hands to defend themselves”.65 Again, the Carib Chief of Barima (“Owl”) in May 1769 requested “rifles, powder, and shot”, as they have “only bows and arrows” to defend themselves against the armed attacks and violent removals, which was again declined by the director general, as he had “no further supply of these than just sufficient for the garrison”.66 Thereupon, the reinforced Spaniards “continued to make raids all around and along the sea-coast” and also “attacked the Caraibans themselves, captured several of the same, carried them off, burnt their houses and ruined their plantations”.67 Previously, in February 1769, Capuchin missionaries had again requested the postholder in Moruca to search for those Indigenous Peoples “belonging to the Missions of the Capuchin Fathers of Catalonia” and carried a Certificate of 28 February 1769 that they were mandated by “our Superior” and would act upon “permission of the Honourable Commandant General of the River Orinoco, Don Manuel Centurion”.68 In line with the previous

mouth islands (ibid.), which was confirmed in September 1767 (Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 6 September 1767, p. 148; Director General, “Reply to Runaway Slaves Petition”, 1767, p. 158). Moreover, Warouws were recorded in 1763 around the Moruca post, including “the Rivers of Pomeroon and Weyni”, as the area is “full of Indians of the Carib, Arawak, and Warouw nations” (Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 27 September 1763, in: BRC, serial No. 387, p. 226), the “district” of Mahayka and Maykouny in June 1764 (Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 15 June 1764, in: BB3, No. 170, p. 128) and Trinidad in August 1762 (Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 28 August 1762, in: BRC, serial No. 372, pp. 216–217, at 216). 65 Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 15 September 1768, in: BRC, serial No. 448, pp. 181–182. 66 Director General, “Letter to WIC”, Demerary, 12 May 1769, p. 165. Similary, to prevent Spanish boat captures in August 1762, “[t]he Indians round the post [in Moruca] are continually asking for guns and cutlasses”, which “will be urgently required, especially if the piracies continue, in which case we shall be obliged to employ the Carib nation, who cannot or will not fight without guns” (WIC [Zeeland], “Letter to commander Essequibo”, 8 July 1746, in: BC, No. 154, pp. 304–305). However, the only de facto change from Dutch non-interference to support was the provision of three muskets and 50 cartridges from the Moruka postholder to the son of the Carib Chief Paripa from Upper Pomeroon in September 1794 to release his father from the Capuchin mission Tupuquen (Court of Policy, “Minutes”, 22 September 1794, in: BC, No. 343, pp. 632–635, at 633–634). 67 Director General, “Letter to WIC”, Demerary, 12 May 1769, p. 165; Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 15 September 1768, in: BRC, serial No. 448, pp. 181–182. In addition, Caribs were in 1769 recorded for Upper Waini (Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 21 February 1769, in: BB3, serial No. 212, pp. 158–159). 68 Friars F. de Carradar and J. A. de Cerrera, “Certificate of the Capuchin Fathers”, 28 February 1769, in: BRC, serial No. 456, Sub-enclosure, p. 9. Afterwards, the signed certificate caused problems for the Capuchins with the Spanish king, as the Capuchin Prefect justified in July

280

Chapter 12 Dutch Posts on the “Wild Coast” and the Limits of Alliance

Dutch practice, the postholder in Moruca also dismissed this request of the Capuchin missionaries, since “such acts were not permitted on Dutch ground and territory”, who responded with “a detachment of soldiers” and “a large party of armed Waykiers”, who “overpowered” the post69 and captured “all the free Indians” between Pomeroon and Barima.70 Whereas the Dutch postholder determines then as “Arowaks and Warouws” and “a whole party in Wayne and Maroco”, while “the whole of Wacquepo and Corey” had “entirely fled”,71 respectively 170 Aruacas and Chiamas of the Moruca,72 the Prefect of Capuchin missions Fray Benito de La Garriga in July 1769 reported to the King of Spain that “140 Indians” were captured “between the Rivers Wayne and Moruca”, after “some Aruaca and Guarauno Indians” had “fled from our Missions of Piacoa and San Joaquin”.73 After the attack, the Moruca post was “entirely ruined” and “all the Indians who still remained having fled”, which had in May 1769 spread to the Pomeroon, as “these in Pomeroon have also departed and abandoned their dwellings, with the exceptions of the Caraibans, who hold their ground, and whom up to the present they have not dared to insult”,74 after in March 1769 the Moruca postholder Diederick Neelis had already raised his “fear that all the Indians of the Marocco coast will depart”, despite that “(t)he Indians here entreat a helping hand of your Excellency to save their freedom that they may again have their captured friends, seeing that they do not dwell on Spanish soil” [sic!].75

1769 that admittedly “the Fathers did not act well in mistakenly giving to the Dutchman of the post a paper, in which they stated that they were sent by order of the above-named commander, when it was by my order. I am sure that I should not have complied with my obligations and the duty of my office, if I had not sent the said Fathers on that mission, and as to what they have done in bringing the Indians to the Mission, I consider it is quite lawful” (De la Garriga, “Report to King of Spain”, Alta Gracia [Guayana], 6 July 1769, pp. 19–20). 69 Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 15 March 1769, p. 7. At the Moruca post, the Capuchins signed the Certificate and took “two female slaves with their children, two free maids – one boy of mine is still missing” (postholder Neelis, “Letter to Director General”, 7 March 1769, p. 9), whereas the Prefect of Capuchin missions claims, they were “enslaved and taken from the mouths of the Orinoco, as they explained to us, and from the River Massaruni” (De la Garriga, “Report to King of Spain”, Alta Gracia, 6 July 1769, p. 20). 70 Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 15 March 1769, p. 7. 71 Postholder Neelis, “Letter to Director General”, 7 March 1769, pp. 8–9. 72 Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 15 March 1769, pp. 6–7. 73 De la Garriga, “Report to King of Spain”, Alta Gracia, 6 July 1769, p. 19. The missionaries had entered via the Barima until they “reached the savannah”, which was perceived as “territory under the jurisdiction of this [Spanish] province” (ibid.). 74 Court of Policy, “Letter to WIC”, May 1769, in: BB3, No. 219, p. 164. At the same time, the Dutch fisheries in Orinoco were “entirely knocked on the head and lost” (ibid.). 75 Postholder Neelis, “Letter to Director General”, 7 March 1769, p. 9.

Moruca and Capuchin Violent Removal (c. 1752–1794)

281

Likewise, the Caribs of Essequibo had faced an attack by Cerekon Chief Maripurma of the Orinoco, who according to the “Headman-General or Great Owl of the Caribs up in Essequebo” had in March 1769 also “slain” Arinda postholder Jansen and “all the Caribs which were with him” in the “Rupunnuny”.76 Still in November 1769, Caribs were fleeing from the raids of the Capuchin missionaries on the “Wild Coast” between the Orinoco and Essequibo, when “a very large number” had then arrived in Mahaicony to “live in that river” and thereupon “commenced to make their houses” and “laid out some plantations”.77 Furthermore, still in September 1774, the director general Georg Trotz reported about “the intolerable outrages of the Spaniards, particularly those committed at the post of Moruca, in whose neighbourhood they have forcibly carried off or killed all the Indians”,78 after 40 “Spaniards” had “carr[ied] off with violence or killing all the free Indians in those parts” and “at once driven out of our land”, as “they [are] fleeing in whole troops to the river Corentyn”.79 Again, the Capuchin missionaries in October 1774 had “kidnapped Indians as far as Pomeroon”,80 which was in October 1775 repeated by the “Spanish” Captain Matteo. Thereon, the postholder indicated that “there is no longer an Indian to be found in these parts”,81 whereas Matteo at least until November 1785 “continue[d] with brutal and rest-destroying threats against the Indians”.82 Finally, in September 1794 the Carib Chief Paripa from Upper Pomeroon, occupying the area “from the creek Aripiaba, a distance of about 8 hours [from the Moruca post]”, was violently captured and brought to Tupuquen, whereupon his son, supported by 3 muskets and 50 cartridges from the Moruka postholder, released his father soon afterwards from the Capuchin mission.83

76 Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 15 March 1769, pp. 161–162; 12 May 1769, p. 165. 77 Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 30 November 1769, in: BB3, serial No. 229, pp. 174–175. According to the Director General, those Caribs “were merely all dressed, and even had priestly garments and ornaments”, which made him believe that “they had been ill-treated by the Spaniards to such an extent that they had at last adopted measures of reprisal and had raided some of the missions” (ibid.). 78 WIC, “Letter to Director General G. Trotz”, 16 March 1775, in: BC, No. 290, p. 503. 79 Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 30 September 1774, in: BB3, serial No. 262, p. 186. 80 In 1772, the number of Indigenous Peoples “around the post” in Moruca was estimated as “700” (Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 6 January 1772, in: BRC, serial No. 244, p. 179). 81 Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 22 October 1775, in: BB3, serial No. 270, p. 190; postholder P. Vermeere, “Letter to Director General”, Maroekka, 11 October 1775, in: BB3, serial No. 270, enclosure, p. 190. 82 Commander, “Journal”, Essequibo, 10 November 1785, in: BRC, serial No. 618, pp.41–44, at 42. 83 Court of Policy, “Minutes”, 22 September 1794, in: BC, No. 343, pp. 632–637; Court of Policy, “Minutes”, 22 September 1794, in: BRC, serial No. 654, p. 156.

282

Chapter 12 Dutch Posts on the “Wild Coast” and the Limits of Alliance

Meanwhile, the Dutch States General since February 1768 had issued several remonstrances at the Court in Madrid,84 which also had contained complaints about the violent removal of Caribs in Cuyuni, and in March 1769 had demanded redress for the violent removal of Indigenous Peoples on the sea-coast.85 However, the remonstrances of the States General between 1786 and 179086 changed their focus from demands of “prompt reparation of the acts of hostility committed” to gaining redress for all African slaves, who had deserted out of the Dutch colony, in particular for the escaped slaves from St. Eustatius/Porto Rico; Curaçao/Coro and Essequibo-Demerara/Oronoque.87 Finally, the Dutch and Spanish signed the Convention of Aranjuez of 23 June 1791, concluded for “reciprocal restitution and exchange of deserted slaves” between “the Colonies of the State and those of His Majesty the King of Spain in the West Indies”, which excluded redress demands for violently removed Indigenous Peoples.88

From Collars to Knobs: The Limits of Alliance (1763–1814) In 1763, the Dutch colony of Berbice was facing a massive uprising of African slaves (Berbice Rebellion), which was most likely encouraged by the Spanish Secret Boundary Expedition89 and triggered by the murder of two plantation owners in Canje by Coffy in February 1763.90 The suppression of the rebellion was supported by the neighbouring Essequibo colony with a hired military force of Caribs and Acowaio, who had in March 1763 “take[n] up arms” in exchange for “the promise of recompense”.91 Hence, the Caribs of Upper Essequibo92

84 Previously, the States General claimed redress for the Cuyuni raid in 1758 and Spanish attacks upon the post in Moruca (WIC [Zeeland], “Letter to Director General”, 26 July 1769, in: BB3, No. 223, p. 168; States General, “Remonstrance”, 2 August 1769, in: BB3, No. 224, pp. 169–172, at 170). 85 States General, “Remonstrance”, 2 August 1769, in: BB3, No. 224, pp. 169–172, at 169. 86 Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 1 May 1786, in: BRC, serial No. 617, pp. 41–44; Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 12 May 1790, in: BB3, No. 279, p. 193. 87 Dutch States General, “Resolution”, 16 November 1790, in: BRC, serial No. 639, p. 120. 88 Court of Policy, “Minutes”, Capital Stabroek, 27 February 1792, in: BRC, serial No. 648, p. 132. 89 Court of Policy, “Minutes”, 4 June 1741, in: BRC, serial No. 217, p. 35. 90 Director General, “Letter to WIC Zeeland”, 9 March 1763, in: BRC, serial No. 378, p. 223. 91 Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 9 March 1763, in: BB3, serial No. 159, p. 124; Director General, “Letter to WIC Zeeland”, 9 March 1763, p. 223; Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 2 May 1763, in: BB3, serial No. 160, p. 124; Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 2 May 1763, in: BRC, serial No. 380, p. 224. 92 Director General, “Letter to WIC Zeeland”, 9 March 1763, in: BRC, serial No. 378, p. 223.

From Collars to Knobs: The Limits of Alliance (1763–1814)

283

had in May 1763 blocked the passage in Upper Berbice,93 while both the Carib Chief of Barima and the Acowaio Chief Condo of Upper Demerara were in August and September 1763 involved at the plantation De Savonette and the Caribs of Waini had passed Essequibo in September 1763 “on their way to Corentine”.94 In November 1763, the Carib Owl Jourawarie from Demerara and Arawaks had attacked the African slaves of Hendrik van Dalen’s plantation in Berbice, where they had “killed an innumerable number of slaves” and immediately received payment from the commander in Demerara, after they had brought “with them a large quantity of right hands from the rebels whom they killed” according to “the custom in the Colonies to pay as much for a runaway’s head or hand as for a slave”. At the same time, five African children and five runaway-slaves were delivered to the WIC plantation New Duynenburgh on Flag Island in the Lower Essequibo. Thereupon, “fully 100” Caribs had, after “two successful expeditions to Berbices”, appeared at the house of director general Laurens van’s Gravesande with “a quantity of guns, powder, shot and flints” and again “set out for Berbice” in order “to keep a look-out for the fugitives in the forests and other places there”.95 They returned to Essequibo in February 1764, when the Caribs of Barima again departed for Upper Demerara to capture African slaves who “far up in Demerara have swum across the river and taken their way direct to Orinoco”.96 Hence, the Caribs of Mazaruni in April 1764 went “overland to Demerara”, where “about 300 rebels” had been already attacked at a place, “not quite ten hours” away from the Demerara towards Berbice, where “affairs [. . .] are beginning once more to take a tolerably satisfactory turn”.97 However, again in December 1767 another attack took place in the palisade village of African slaves between Upper Demerara and Essequibo, situated “some distance inland behind the plantation of the Widow Hook”98 and discovered by two slaves of

93 Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 2 May 1763, in: BB3, No. 160, p. 124; Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 2 May 1763, in: BRC, serial No. 380, p. 224; commander Demerary, “Journal”, 20 June 1763, in: BB3, serial No. 161, enclosure, p. 125. 94 Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 27 September 1763, in: BB3, serial No. 164, p. 126. 95 Commander L. van Bercheyck, “Journal”, Demerara, 2–27 November 1763, in: BB3, serial No. 168, enclosure, p. 127. 96 Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 13 December 1765, in: BB3, serial No. 179, p. 137. 97 Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 9 April 1764, in: BRC, serial No. 394, pp. 105–106. In this context, the Director General was on 9 April 1764 astonished about the number of the Mazaruni Caribs, as “at the beginning of the last war [. . .] I once had their number taken grosso modo, and it then amounted to 1,100 men capable of bearing arms; but this was the whole jurisdiction of the Company, from Abary to Barima. But now, I find that I did not have the fourth part, or else they must have increased extraordinarily” (Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 9 April 1764, p. 105). 98 Director General, “Letter to commander”, 13 December 1767, in: BB3, No. 197, pp. 149–150.

284

Chapter 12 Dutch Posts on the “Wild Coast” and the Limits of Alliance

Essequibo plantation Osterbeek (St. Jan),99 whereupon both the Caribs from Mazaruni with the Company’s creole Tampoko and the Acowaio Chief Condo of Upper Demerara were requested to “attack it from two sides”100 in exchange for canoes, powder and shot.101 In result, the attack was in March 1768 carried out “very successfully”, since “the nest” was found, nine African slaves killed and “three men and four women escaped”, who are pursued by Acowaio,102 after the Mazaruni Caribs had “assembled above Fort Kijkoveral” in February 1768.103 Meanwhile, in December 1765 six silver-collars had arrived in Essequibo from the West India Company in Zeeland, but considered by the director general as “too pretty, in fact, and too heavy for Indians”, as “(t)hose which they use are on an average about as thick as a shilling and set in a piece of wood to make them stronger”.104 Hence, the silver-collars were arguably never distributed to the Chiefs of the Caribs, Arawak or Acowaio, involved in the suppression of the Berbice Rebellion, as resulting from an incident of 15 and 16 March 1769, when one silver ringcollar was promised to the “chief of the Caraibans, who is now here [at the Dutch fort], [and] goes up the river [Essequibo] to-day” in order “to attack the [alleged] murderers of the postholder, and to hold all his people in readiness in case we might have need of them”,105 after the “Headman-General or Great Owl of the Caribs up in Essequebo” had reported to the director general that the Cerekon Chief Maripurma of Orinoco had attacked several Caribs accompanying Arinda postholder Janse on the return way from a second expedition to the Crystelberg in

99 WIC (Zeeland), “Letter to Director General”, 18 July 1768, in: BRC, serial No. 446, pp. 179–181, at 181. Furthermore, it was indicated that the village’s “cassava is already fairly high, and up to the present they have obtained their bread from the Acuways [Acowaio] up in Demerary, and have already had a skirmish with some Caraibans and carried off an Aruwak woman, who has again escaped” (Director General, “Letter to commander Demerary”, 13 December 1767, pp. 149–150). 100 Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 9 December 1767, p. 148. 101 Director General, “Letter to commander Demerary”, 13 December 1767, p. 149; commander Demerara, “Letter to WIC”, 18 February 1768, in: BB3, serial No. 202, p. 152. 102 Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 9 and 10 February 1768, p. 151; 8 March 1768, p. 152; WIC (Zeeland), “Letter to Director General”, 18 July 1768, in: BRC, serial No. 446, pp. 179–181, at 179–180. Nevertheless, a rumour emerged that the Tampoko expedition had killed Indigenous Peoples instead of African slaves (Director General, “Letter to WIC”, Demerary, 12 May 1769, p. 155; Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 21 February 1769, in: BB3, serial No. 212, pp. 158–159, at 158), which was, however, never confirmed, since neither the concerned Arawak nor the Acowaio “appeared to make any complaint” (Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 21 February 1769, p. 158). 103 Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 9 and 10 February 1768, p. 151; 8 March 1768, p. 152. 104 Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 13 December 1765, in: BB3, serial No. 179, p. 137. 105 Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 4 April 1769, in: BB3, serial No. 217, pp. 163–164.

From Collars to Knobs: The Limits of Alliance (1763–1814)

285

Rupununi and, thereupon, would have had requested “permission to attack this Maripurma to avenge this”, which the Carib Chief had assertively not yet “dared to do this because he is below the [Arinda] post near the Acuwayas, whom he also much molested and plagued”.106 Thereupon, the Carib Chief had, in contrast, rejected commander Backer’s request “whether he [the Carib] would [. . .] let him [Backer] be master” by responding: “No, I am master of the Caraibans. You can be master of the whites and of the other nations, and then we can together become masters of everything”, which clearly indicates the Carib’s perception as being independent. Hence, Backer attempted to win him over with the silver-collars, since the commander had “let him [the Carib] see one of the silver ring-collars which I still have [sic!], and promised to give it to him, and to give him some clothes (of which they are very fond)”.107 Again, Georg Trotz, in February 1774 requested WIC Zeeland “what is to be done with [. . .] the six silver ring-collars sent for the Owls (but not given them)”, which “are still in my possession”,108 after WIC Zeeland had in 1773 even sent more silver ring-collars to be distributed after the Seacoast Revolt of August 1772, in April 1773 had given “positive orders” to “distribute the silver ring-collars, salempouris, combs, beads, mouth-drums, and mirrors”, and by resolution of 22 September 1774 demanded to either return the ring-collars to Zeeland (both those of the 1760s and those sent in 1773) or distribute them among the indigenous Chiefs and in 1775 again requested “an explanation” for the “non-distribution to the Caraibans according to the directions of the Chamber of Ten”,109 whereupon the director general in May 1775 declared to “obey by the first opportunity that presents itself”. Prior, the Court of Policy had ignored “respected commands” until the Court’s resolution of 31 January 1774 that the silver ring-collars were “intended as

106 Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 15 March 1769, pp. 161–162. Initially, it was reported that Janse and several Caribs were slain in this attack (ibid., p. 162), which was corrected, since Janse was captured, brought to the Orinoco and “fortunately escaped” (Director General, “Letter to WIC”, Demerary, 12 May 1769, p. 165). Moreover, the Director General in response to a murder case had made the “express” order “to do the least harm to the Acuwayas” (Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 15 March 1769, pp. 161–162). Similarly, he asserted on 30 November 1769, that the Caribs, who arrived at the post in Mahaicony in “a very large number” had asked the postholder “for permission to come and live in that river”, which was “immediately accorded” (Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 30 November 1769, in: BB3, serial No. 229, 174–175, at 174), which was notable practiced, after the Director General had in February 1769 declared the Essequibo colony as “finished” (Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 3 March 1769, p. 159). 107 Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 4 April 1769, p. 164. 108 Director General G. Trotz, “Letter to WIC Zeeland”, 1 February 1774, in: BB3, serial No. 258, p. 184. 109 Director General G. Trotz, “Letter to WIC Zeeland”, 27 May 1775, in: BB3, serial No. 268, p. 189.

286

Chapter 12 Dutch Posts on the “Wild Coast” and the Limits of Alliance

a present for the Indian chiefs (commonly called (Owls) [. . .] are not well suited for that purpose, since it would not be very fitting if one of those chiefs should come to the Fort here and wore an ornament similar to that worn by the officers of the militia”.110 Meanwhile, the Caribs from Essequibo, Mazaruni, Demerara and Pomeroon and Acowaio from Demerara were involved in the suppression of the Seacoast Revolt in August 1772, where in the night from 12 to 13 August the African slaves of the plantation of P. C. Hoofd had “kill[ed] their master and his wife and another planter” and burnt the houses of several plantations. Thereupon, the “majority of planters” had fled to Bourasirie, except Clinton and William Williams, who defended themselves “for thirty-six hours against the rebels”. Hence, the “slaves of the plantation of Mr. Backer” murdered two plantation directors and “retire[d] to the bush”, whereupon the Caribs “on all sides” conducted two attacks on 24 and 26 August, after “more than two hundred” Caribs would be “assembled under van der Heyde[n]”, whose plantations were located at the Essequibo and Mazaruni junction and one Carib Owl was “engaged in trying to discover the place where the rebels were concealed”. The Essequibo colony perceived as being “on the brink of total ruin”, on 27 August 1772 “five Acuways” had also offered to “come down the Demerary” in order to assist the Dutch “with arms”, who were until mid-September joined by Caribs from Pomeroon, Demerara and Upper Essequibo “to put an end to the matter”.111 Instead, the colonist James George Williams was in December 1774 rewarded for his involvement in the suppression of the Seacoast Revolt with a grant for “2,000 acres of land in the river Bouweron, on the east side”, after he had already received a “silver sword bearing the mark of the Honourable West India Company”,112 whereas Councillor van der Heijden was already rewarded in March 1774.113 By contrast, in September 1772 just “eight Caraibans, who killed four rebels” had been paid, when it was likewise indicated that “it is their custom that those who have killed a man go away and do not fight for some time”.114 Hence, the Court of Policy on 10 July 1775 was of opinion to cancel 110 Court of Policy and Justice, “Letter to WIC Zeeland”, 10 July 1775, p. 137. 111 Director General Laurens Storm van’s Gravesande, “Letter to WIC”, 27 August 1772, in: BB3, serial No. 248, pp. 180–181, at 181; Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 29 August 1772, in: BB3, serial No. 249, p. 181; Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 24 September 1772, in: BB3, serial No. 250, p. 181. 112 Essequibo colonist J. G. Williams, “Letter to WIC”, 1 December 1774, in: BB3, serial No. 263, p. 186. 113 Commander Demerary J. de Winter, “Letter to WIC”, 19 March 1884, in: BB3, serial No. 260, p. 185. 114 Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 24 September 1772, in: BB3, serial No. 250, p. 181.

From Collars to Knobs: The Limits of Alliance (1763–1814)

287

the reward for the “common Caraibans”, since the Caraibans “having already been sufficiently rewarded at the time of the revolt”.115 Moreover, no reward was until March 1778 distributed to the Chiefs of the Caribs of Essequibo, Mazaruni, Demerara and Pomeroon and Acowaio of Demerara, since the Court of Policy on 31 January 1774 had ignored the order of the WIC Ten and instead requested “to send us at the first opportunity Twelve ordinary canes with knobs covered with thin silver and twelve common hats with broad sham silver brims or points d’Espagne, it being our opinion and that of Mr. Van der Heyden that this would be a particularly acceptable present to these Indian Owls”116 and still in July had “await[ed] the twelve canes with silver knobs and the twelve hats with false silver trimmings or point d’Espagne, and when we receive the same we shall distribute them [among the Caribs]”,117 after the director general Georg Trotz on 27 May 1775 had voiced the opinion that “the Caraibans had already been satisfied long ago” and, therefore, considered it “best to divide the trinkets, & c., among the slaves belonging to the Honourable Company, who had distinguished themselves in the revolt instead of among the Caraibans”,118 which was repeated by the Court of Policy on 10 July 1775,119 and “done as your lordships will see from the lists of goods and provisions kept in the factory”,120 although the WIC had in September 1774 insisted to distribute the “gifts of ring-collars and salempouris & c.” among the Caribs and Acowaio.121 Instead, in November 1777 the Court of Policy resolved to distribute “the canes [sic!] and other presents conferred (on them)”and “for this purpose” to summon the Indigenous Chiefs “as early as was feasible” at Fort Zeelandia,122 which was carried out on three occasions in March 1778 and again in July 1779. Accordingly, on 6 March 1778 “sticks with large silver knobs, bearing the impression of the seal of the West India Company, hats with large silver pointed plumes, blue drill coloured clothes, axes, ribbons, looking-glasses, and other articles” were bestowed to the Chiefs of the Caribs from Mazaruni (Awamca, Mecura), Essequibo (Argy Manare, Maniwara, Oerakaja and Awamuroe) and Cuyuni (Caerewan and Cajaromare), 115 Court of Policy and Justice, “Letter to WIC Zeeland”, 10 July 1775, p. 137. 116 Court of Policy, “Letter to WIC Zeeland”, 31 January 1774, in: BRC, serial No. 522, p. 122. 117 Court of Policy and Justice in Essequibo, “Letter to WIC Zeeland”, 10 July 1775, p. 137. 118 Director General Trotz, “Letter to WIC Zeeland”, 27 May 1775, p. 189. 119 Court of Policy and Justice, “Letter to WIC Zeeland”, 10 July 1775, p. 137. 120 Director General Trotz, “Letter to WIC Zeeland”, 27 May 1775, p. 189. 121 Court of Policy and Justice, “Letter to WIC Zeeland”, 10 July 1775, p. 137. In addition, the WIC ordered the Director General “to return to the Chamber of Zeeland the ring-collars sent there both in the year 1773 and in former times, which order the Director General will obey by the first opportunity that presents itself” (ibid.). 122 Court of Policy, “Minutes”, 11 November 1777, in: BRC, serial No. 562, p. 184.

288

Chapter 12 Dutch Posts on the “Wild Coast” and the Limits of Alliance

along with the Chiefs of the Arawaks (Koeyonwa, Woera Jaroe and Semetie), Acowaio (Jam Jamba and Ankouw) and the Warouw Chief Kaikwan.123 The same was repeated with the Chiefs Marawari/Warawari, Jurmare/Jarimare, Maraywirany, Massuckury, Mawara/Maaru, and Massieeeuw on 9 March 1778 “as a proof [. . .] to cultivate that [“old”] friendship”124 and completed by “a joeling (revel)” at the plantation Duynenburg on 16 March 1778, when “(s)ome” Owls attended, “were provided [. . .] with what was necessary for their customs”125 and an attending Chief had requested “the protection of the Government in order that he may establish himself here, having expressly come away from the Oronoque”.126 Finally, items were in July 1779 distributed to the Carib Owls Perivuris, Arroywaynyma, Maycoannaree, Moraru, and Morawary, the Arawak Chief Carrouwe and Warouws Abraham and Cloos.127 In contrast to the 1760s and 1770s, when the (not-distributed) silver ringcollars were meant as rewards for the involvement of the indigenous Chiefs in suppressing “revolting” African slaves, in 1778 and 1779 the items were mainly distributed as “token of friendship”, that is an assurance about “the continuance of the existing friendly relations”, whereas only “the hats and sticks were given to the Chiefs as a token that they are recognized as such by the Government”, which was connected with the request “to visit the fort from time to time and keep up existing friendly relations”. Furthermore, the Dutch expressed the expectation that the indigenous Chiefs “will always be true and faithful to the Government and the inhabitants of this Colony, and, when called upon to give all help and assistance”,128 such as “to check the slaves hoarding together, to decrease desertion, and make the Colony formidable”.129 In response, the

123 Court of Policy, “Minutes”, Fort Zeelandia Essequibo, 6 March 1778, in: BRC, serial No. 566, p. 187. 124 Court of Policy, “Proeedings”, 10 March 1778, in: BC, No. 305, pp. 544–545. The Dutch original reads: “hoofden der Indianen” (ibid.). 125 Administrator of the Company’s Plantation C. Boter, “Letter to WIC (the Ten)”, 16 March 1778, in: BC, No. 306, pp. 545–546, at 546; Manager of Duynenberg Estate, “Letter”, Essequibo, 16 March 1778, in: BRC, serial No. 567, p. 188. 126 Administrator of the Company’s Plantation C. Boter, “Letter to WIC (the Ten)”, 16 March 1778, in: BC, No. 306, pp. 545–546, at 546; Manager of Duynenberg Estate, “Letter”, Essequibo, 16 March 1778, in: BRC, serial No. 567, p. 188. 127 Governor Demerary, “Journal of Government”, 9 July 1779, in: BB3, serial No. 273, p. 191. 128 Court of Policy, “Minutes”, Fort Zeelandia Essequibo, 6 March 1778, in: BRC, serial No. 566, p. 187. 129 Administrator of the Company’s Plantation C. Boter, “Letter to WIC (the Ten)”, 16 March 1778, in: BC, No. 306, pp. 545–546, at 546; Manager of Duynenberg Estate, “Letter”, Essequibo, 16 March 1778, in: BRC, serial No. 567, p. 188.

From Collars to Knobs: The Limits of Alliance (1763–1814)

289

present Carib, Arawak, Acowaio, and Warouw Chiefs on 6 March 1778, nevertheless, had just agreed to offer assistance, as they would have been well pleased with their gifts [and would have had] promised to be always ready and willing in rendering every assistance whenever required and called upon by the Government, and further to keep their present abode where they shall be found, whereupon they were dismissed.130

Hence, another significant change happened, after the Dutch had regained possession after the English and French interludes between 13/14 March 1781131 and April 1783,132 which demarcated the starting point of the Dutch violation of the European colonial law, which had just granted them land as property by occupation, but not sovereignty or jurisdiction, which remained with the respective Indigenous Peoples. Despite, the WIC Assembly of the Ten on 30 September 1781 ordered the director general to “try to make those people understand that the Dutch, now being again in possession of the colony” and “would desire to live with them in a greater and more familiar friendship; that we had observed that they were withdrawing more and more, which we ascribed to the uncertainty in which they hitherto had been with respect to their possessions [sic!]”. Hence, items as “presents” were distributed to “all the chiefs or Owls of that [Carib] nation and all others”, that is the “cane with a silver knob bearing the arms or the monogram of the Company or something of that sort, and a dozen ring-collars of silver with the Company’s arms or monogram, and by rum”. Most notably, those “presents” came with the (unlawful) Dutch attempt to distribute “certain pieces

130 Court of Policy, “Minutes”, Fort Zeelandia Essequibo, 6 March 1778, in: BRC, serial No. 566, p. 187. 131 Accordingly, Essequibo, Demerara (14 March 1781) and Berbice (13 March 1781) had surrendered “to the arms of His Britannic Majesty” (G. B. Rodney and J. Vaughan, “Articles of Capitulation”, St. Eustatius, 14 March 1781, p. 1), whereas Demerara and Essequibo had signed the “Articles of Capitulation” on 14 March 1781 at St. Eustatius (G. B. Rodney and J. Vaughan, “Articles of Capitulation”, St. Eustatius, 14 March 1781, p. 2), while the “covenant and terms” for Berbice (13 March 1781) were declared “expunged and void” and instead the “terms of Capitulation” on 9 April 1781 “unanimously approved” (E. Thompson and J. E. F. Berthon, “Articles of Capitulation Berbice”, 16 April 1781, p. 2). Thereupon, Admiral Edward Thompson, who anchored with his ship Hyana on 22 April 1781 in Demerara gave “a vague idea” about the colonies, namely “100 plantations” in Berbice (“inhabited 100 [English] miles up”) and Demerara (“divided into plantations on both sides the river 160 [English] miles inland”) and Essequibo with “seventy plantations”, extending “from Demerara to Fort Zelandia”, including the store-houses of the government and residences of officers, as well as “from that parallel on the west coast as low as the River Pomeroon, besides the Islands Liguana, Wackingham, & c” (E. Thompson, “Letter to Lord Sackville”, Ship Hyana Demerara, 22 April 1781, in: BRC, serial No. 587, p. 1). 132 Court of Justice, “Minutes”, 8 April 1783, in: BRC, serial No. 589, p. 10.

290

Chapter 12 Dutch Posts on the “Wild Coast” and the Limits of Alliance

of land in full and free ownership [to indigenous Chiefs], there to dwell and do whatever they might choose, without being by anyone driven from this their possession; that, in order to make them understand this the more vividly, he, the governor, ought to give them a deed of grant of such piece of land in such creek as he [sic!] should select, but that they on the other hand should be obliged to pledge themselves to come to the fort once every year, in order to hand to the governor a list or enumeration of their men in each village, and that in case of revolt they should be under obligation to aid us at the first summons”, as well as “to renew this compact and their deed of grant, for which trouble, some presents could also be made to them every year”.133 Thereupon, in March 1786 upmarket products were distributed, since “each [of the Chiefs] obtained a silver metal collar [sic!], a half piece of salampore (cloth), two flasks gunpowder, and the others each 5 ells of salampore, besides salt fish, soopye, and bananas, wherewith they all departed very satisfied”, after “108 free Indian Caribs with three of their commanders” from Essequibo “came to the seat of Government” in order to “present their service and fidelity, seeking presents as tokens of friendship”, whereas the deeds of land of 1781 are not mentioned again. Instead, the director general indicated that “there are three more of these chain of metal collars, besides the remaining metal collars,” which he requested to “now keep for our officer”, whereas “(t)he canes for the Indian captain must be a genuine cane, otherwise they will despise them, and they know quite well how to distinguish them”.134 In contrast, indigenous “Owls” on 26 October 1795 received monetary payment for African slaves (same as Dutch colonists), when “2,893 guilders” were distributed among “De Scharde, Allert, Macaraba, Carrowe, Hendrik, Jan Bergeyck, Arcoeri, Jansen, Starrenberg, Joram, Henrik, Peggy, Pieter”, whereof the “Owls” Carrowe (Arawak), Henrik and Allert received 44 guilders (2 johannesses), Captains 22 guilders and another 231 Indigenous Peoples 11 guilders each.135 Thereupon, the Owl Henrik also emerged on the list of granted “gratifications” In January 1803, as well as Captain Piramus, 5 other Captains and 68 Indigenous Peoples.136 Meanwhile, the violation pattern of both European colonial law and the intertemporal law rule continued after the final Dutch surrender to the English on

133 WIC (The Ten), “Proceedings”, 30 September 1781, pp. 577–578. The Dutch original reads “dit contract en hun acte van concessie zoude moeten kjomen vernieuwen”. The instruction also stated that those lands should be “such pieces of land as can be spared without prejudice to anyone” (ibid., p. 579). 134 Director General, “Letter to WIC”, 27 March 1786, in: BRC, serial No. 616, pp. 40–41, at 40. 135 Court of Policy, “Report”, 26 October 175, in: BRC, serial No. 657, pp. 159–160). 136 Court of Policy, “Minutes”, 1 January 1803, in: BRC, serial No. 678, pp. 179–180.

From Collars to Knobs: The Limits of Alliance (1763–1814)

291

22 April 1796,137 notably by the transfer of the Supplementary Convention of 30 May 1814 and Convention of London (Anglo-Dutch Treaty) of 13 August 1814, when the Dutch handed over “the Settlements of Demerara, Essequibo, and Berbice” (similar to the Treaty of Amiens for Trinidad and Tobago) in “full sovereignty to His Britannic Majesty”, provided that “the subjects of the said Sovereign Prince [of the Netherlands]” remain “at liberty (under such regulations as may hereafter be agreed upon in a Supplementary Convention) to carry on trade between the said settlements and the territories in Europe of the said Sovereign Prince”, whereas “the subjects of the said Sovereign Prince [of Orange]” where then indicated as “proprietors in the said Colonies or settlements [sic!]”.138 Instead, the Dutch had just acquired land as property by occupation, wherefore the bilateral agreement between the English and Dutch violates both the European colonial law of acquisition and the intertemporal law rule. Thereupon, the historical boundary dispute between the Dutch and Spanish (ongoing since 1746) continued between the English unified settlements of Essequibo, Demerara and Berbice (British Guiana) and then independent Venezuela in 1841, when Venezuela proposed the conclusion of a Treaty of Limits and establishment of a Joint Boundary Commission,139 after the English had notified Venezuela in November 1840 about Robert Schomburgk’s intention to carry out 137 Court of Policy, “Minutes about the Capitulation to commanders of the military posts”, 22 April 1796, p. 162. The “Articles of Capitulation” were made known by the commanders of the military posts in Essequibo, Moruca, Courabana, Majaica, and Mahaycony, while the annexed Articles are not transmitted. By contrast, the Spaniards in Orinoco were still in June 1796 uncertain about “the conquest or occupation of the Dutch Colonies of Demerara and Essequibo by the English troops” (Spanish Ambassador London, “Draft Letter to Spanish Secretary of State, Prince de la Paz”, 10 June 1796, in: BRC, serial No. 660, pp. 163), while the Court of Madrid “declared war against England” in October 1796, since England had “showed openly her views against my dominions by the great expeditions and armaments sent to the West Indies” and had “by the conquest she has just made on the continent of South America of the Colony and River of Demerari belonging to the Dutch, which advantageous situation puts her in the way to occupy other important points” (King of Spain, “Declaration of War against Great Britain”, 5 October 1796, in: BRC, serial No. 662, p. 164). 138 Prince of Orange and King of Great Britain, “Convention”, 13 August 1814, in: BRC, serial No. 723, p. 228, Additional Article 1. This is to be distinguished from the Anglo–Dutch–Slave Treaty of 1818. However, the Treaty of Amiens of 25 March 1802, which restored the French, Spain and the Batavian Republic “all the possessions and colonies which respectively belonged to them, and which have been either occupied or conquered by the British forces, during the course of the present war”, excluded Trinidad (and Ceylon) and had not considered Essequibo, Demerara and Berbice (Kings of France and Great Britain, “Treaty of Amiens”, 25 March 1802, Articles 2–4, http://www.napoleon-empire.com/official-texts/treaty-of-amiens. php. (accessed 10 October 2018). 139 G. Smith, “Letter to Mr. O’Leary”, 28 January 1841, in: BRC, No. 3, enclosure 1, pp. 71–72.

292

Chapter 12 Dutch Posts on the “Wild Coast” and the Limits of Alliance

a boundary survey, in particular “the territories near the frontier which have been hitherto occupied by independent Indian tribes.”140 In result, the conclusion of an agreement failed on 30 March 1844, when Venezuela complained about Robert Schomburgk’s practices in setting up “marks [. . .] upon the territory of the Republic [of Venezuela]” and instead claimed the Essequibo as “the natural boundary”, while Great Britain had suggested the Moruca river as “compromising boundaryline” and declared their willingness “to waive their [insubstantial] claim to the Amacura as the western boundary of the British territory”.141 Hence, negotiations were resumed in November 1876 about “the pending question concerning the boundaries between Venezuelan Guiana and English Guiana”,142 whereupon Venezuela in February 1881 repeated their boundary claim of the Essequibo mouth upwards until “it’s confluence with the Rivers Rupununi and Rewa”, after Great Britain in January 1880 had suggested “the mouths of the Orinoco to the west of Barima point” as “point of departure”,143 while Venezuela in April 1879 suggested the Moruca as a compromise,144 as the English did in March 1844. Nevertheless, Great Britain repeated their claim to “the right bank of the River Barima” in September 1881,145 after a vital communication took place throughout the year 1883.146 Finally, Venezuela in November 1883 suggested “arbitration” as “the only solution”, due to the “inability, within the 140 Viscount Palmerston, “Letter to Sir Porter”, Foreign Office, 28 November 1840, in: BRC, No. 1, p. 71. 141 Earl of Aberdeen, “Letter to Senor Fortique”, Foreign Office, 30 March 1844, in: BRC, No. 26, pp. 88–90. The English proposed “the mouth of the Moroco River” as “the limit of her majesty’s possessions on the sea-coast” (ibid.). 142 Senor E. Calcano, “Letter to Earl of Derby”, Carácas, 14 November 1876, in: BRC, No. 27, pp. 90–94, at 90. Meanwhile, gold was discovered in both “French Guiana and Venezuela” in June 1857 and Essequibo/Demerara in August 1857 (Lieutenant-Governor Walker, “Letter to Secretary of State”, 24 August 1857, in: BRC, No. 889, pp. 202). 143 Senor J. de Rojas, “Letter to Earl Granville”, Paris, 21 February 1881, in: BRC, No. 34, p. 98. 144 Senor J. de Rojas, “Letter to Earl Granville”, Paris, 23 September 1880, in: BRC, No. 32, p. 97. 145 Earl Granville, “Memorandum on the Question of Boundaries between British Guiana and Venezuela to Senor J. de Rojas”, London, 15 September 1881, in: BRC, No. 35, enclosure 1, pp. 100–101, at 100. 146 Earl Granville, “Letter to Colonel Mansfield”, London, 1 February 1883, in: BRC, serial No. 42, p. 102; Earl Granville, “Letter to Senor J. de Rojas”, London, 1 February 1883, p. 102; Senor J. M. Rojas, “Letter to Earl Granville”, Paris, 7 February 1883, in: BRC, No. 44, p. 102; Colonel Mansfield, “Letter to Earl Granville”, Carácas, 7 March 1883, in: BRC, No. 45, p. 103; Senor J. M. de Rojas, “Letter to Earl Granville”, Paris, 28 March 1883, in: BRC, No. 46, p. 103; Colonel Mansfield, “Letter to Earl Granville”, Carácas, 9 April 1883, in: BRC, No. 47, p. 103; Earl Granville, “Letter to Colonel Mansfield”, London, 25 May 1883, in: BRC, No. 48, p. 103; Colonel Mansfield, “Letter to Earl Granville”, Carácas, 2 July 1883, in: BRC, No. 49, p. 104; Earl Granville, “Letter to Colonel Mansfield”, London, 7 September 1883, No. 50, p. 104.

From Collars to Knobs: The Limits of Alliance (1763–1814)

293

limits of their Constitution, of any power, whether executive or legislative, to alienate by Act or Treaty territory which has been assumed to constitute an integral part of the dominions of the Republic”.147 In result, the Washington Treaty of Arbitration was concluded on 2 February 1897 to ascertain the extent of the territories belonging to or that might lawfully be claimed by the United Netherlands or by the kingdom of Spain respectively at the time of the appropriation by Great Britain of the Colony of British Guiana – and shall determine the boundary line between the United States of Venezuela and the Colony of British Guiana,148

resulting in the Boundary Award of Paris of 3 October 1899. As argued in concluding chapter 13, both are repeating the pattern of violating both the European colonial law of the time of initial colonial acquisition, that is Indigenous Peoples’ jurisdiction and sovereignty, and the intertemporal law rule.

147 Colonel Mansfield, “Letter to Granville”, Carácas, 22 November 1883, in: BRC, serial No. 51, p. 104. 148 “Washington Treaty of Arbitration”, available from peacemaker.un.org/sites/peacemaker.un. org/files/GB-VE_970202_Treaty%20of%20Arbitration.pdf (accessed 7 October 2018), Articles 2–4.

Chapter 13 Conclusion Inspired by the Caribbean reparation debate and the novelty of the UNDRIP right to past territories, this book has taken the long-standing arguments of Indigenous Peoples serious by providing a substantial re-examination of the lawfulness of European colonization in northeastern South America, Trinidad and Tobago between the sighting of Paria by Columbus in 1498 and the capture of Angostura by Simón Bolívar in 1817. Based on extensive archival research on both sides of the Atlantic and built upon a two-tier comparative research design to examine both Spanish and Dutch colonial law (chapters 3 and 8) and the colonial appropriation practices of the Spaniards (chapters 4–7) and Dutch (chapters 9–12), the book has advanced the spatio-historical legal argument for northeastern South America that both the Spaniards and the Dutch had in the period 1498–1817 just lawfully appropriated land as property (and not sovereignty and jurisdiction) by the colonial practice of occupation, but in violation with the intertemporal law rule had claimed (Venezuelan Declaration of 1811) or ceded (Treaty of Amiens of 1802, London Convention of 1814) a significantly wider area as territory, that is land, jurisdiction and sovereignty to the succeeding English, which constitutes a violation of both the European colonial law of acquisition and the intertemporal law rule and substantiates a profound reparation claim for Indigenous Peoples.1

1 In general, international law scholars tend to treat the concepts of “land” and “territory” as interchangeable (J. Gilbert, “The Treatment of Territory of Indigenous Peoples in International Law”, in: J. Castellino and S. Allen [eds.], Title to Territory in International Law, Farnham: Ashgate, 2003, pp. 199–228; J. Gilbert and C. Doyle, “A New Dawn over the Land”, ibid., pp. 289– 328; C. Charters, “Land Rights”, in: International Law Association, The Hague Conference. Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 2010, pp. 20–24, at 21), whereas political philosophers and political geographers clearly distinguish between “property in land” and “the right to territory”, since “the right to territory is not reducible to a property right, although territories contain property regimes in which individuals and groups have property rights” (A. Buchanan, “The Making and Unmaking of Boundaries: What Liberalism Has to Say”, in: A. Buchanan and M. Moore [eds.], States, Nations, and Borders. The Ethics of Making Boundaries, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003, pp. 231–261, at 232). See Terror and Territory: The Spatial Extent of Sovereignty, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 2009, pp. 821–845; A. Murphy, “Territory’s Continuing Allures”, Annals of the Association of American Geographers 103 [2013] 5, pp. 1212–1226; A. Murhpy, “The Sovereign State as Political-Territorial Ideal: Historical and Contemporary Considerations”, in: T. Biersteker and C. Weber [eds.], State Sovereignty as Social Construct, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996, pp. 81–120; J. Agnew, “The Territorial Trap: The Geographical Assumptions of International Relations Theory”, Review of International https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110690149-013

Chapter 13 Conclusion

295

Again, the violation pattern was reproduced in the Boundary Arbitration between Venezuela and (British) Guiana at the end of the nineteenth century, which aimed to solve the historical boundary dispute between the Dutch and Spanish (ongoing since 1746), as occupation was then determined as proof to claim an area as territory, although the European colonial law of the time had by occupation just had granted land as property. Accordingly, the Arbitration Treaty of Washington of 2 February 1897 to “ascertain the extent of the territories belonging to or that might lawfully be claimed” by Great Britain (United Netherlands) or Venezuela (Spain) had determined a five-member Arbitral Tribunal, was setting up the time frame for submitting cases, counter-cases and arguments and has, most notably, defined the rule that the exercise of “exclusive political control of a district, as well as actual settlement thereof” for at least “a period of 50 [sic!] years shall make a good title”.2 In result, the Boundary Award of Paris was granted on 3 October 1899 and has, in unusual manner without any substantiation,3 defined the boundary line as running from the coast at Point Playa, the line of boundary shall run in a straight line to the River Barima at its junction with the River Mururuma, and thence along the mid-stream of the

Political Economy 1 [1994] 1, pp. 53–80, J. Agnew, “Still trapped in Territory?”, Geopolitics 15 [2010], pp. 779–784; J. Agnew, “Revisiting the Territorial Trap”, Nordia Geographical Publications 44 [2015] 4, pp. 43–48; D. Newman, “Territory, Compartments and Borders: Avoiding the Trap of the Territorial Trap”, Geopolitics 15 [2010], pp. 773–778; D. Newman and A. Paasi, “Fences and Neighbours in the Postmodern World: Boundary Narratives in Political Geography”, Progress in Human Geography 22 [1998] 2, 186–207; J. Agnew and U. Oslender, “Overlapping Territorialities, Sovereignty in Dispute: Empirical Lessons from Latin America”, in: B. Miller, J. Beaumont, and W. Nicholls [eds.], Spaces of Contention. Spatialities and Social Movements, London: Routledge, 2013, pp. 121–140; D. Newman, “Revisiting Good Fences and Neighbours in a Postmodern World after Twenty Years: Theoretical Reflections on the State of Contemporary Border Studies”, Nordia Geographical Publications 44 [2015] 4, pp. 13–19; S. Elden, The Birth of Territory, Chicago: Chicago University Press, 2013; S. Elden, “How Should We Do the History of Territory”, Territory, Politics, Governance 1 [2013] 1, pp. 5–20; A. Murphy, “Historical Justifications for Territorial Claims”, Annals of the Association of American Geographers 80 [1990] 4, pp. 531–548; A. Stilz, “Nations, States, and Territory”, Ethics 121 [2011] 3, pp. 572–601; C. Nine, “A Lockean Theory of Territory”, Political Studies 56 [2008], pp. 148–165). 2 UN, “Washington Treaty of Arbitration”, 2 February 1897, peacemaker.un.org/sites/peacemaker.un.org/files/GB–VE_970202_Treaty%20of%20Arbitration.pdf (accessed 7 October, 2018), Articles 2–4. 3 In contrast, other Boundary Awards of the time had included a precise explanation for the decision, such as the well-known Island of Palmas (Miangas) case between the Netherlands and USA of April 1928 (UN, “Island of Palmas [Miangas] case”, April 1928, http://legal.un.org/riaa/ cases/vol_II/829–871.pdf, pp. 829–871 [accessed 7 October 2018]).

296

Chapter 13 Conclusion

latter river to its source, and from that point to the junction of the River Haiowa with the Amakuru, and thence along the mid-stream of the Amakuru to its source in the Imataka Ridge, and thence in a south-westerly direction along the highest ridge of the spur of the Imataka Mountains to the highest point of the main range of such Imataka Mountains opposite to the source of the Barima, and thence along the summit of the main ridge in a south-easterly direction of the Imataka Mountains to the source of the Acarabisi, and thence along the mid-stream of the Acarabisi to the Cuyuni, and thence along the northern bank of the River Cuyuni westward to its junction with the Wenamu, and thence following the mid-stream of the Wenamu to its westernmost source, and thence in a direct line to the summit of Mount Roraima [. . .].4

Hence, the proposed boundary of the Paris Award presented an unsustainable solution, since Venezuela had, just two years after the Decolonization Declaration of 1960, declared the Award as “null and void” (1962),5 whereupon the dispute remained unresolved until the present (December 2020).6 As this book has demonstrated, the reasons for the unresolved dispute are deeply rooted in the history of the European colonization practices, since both Dutch and Spanish had between 1498 and1817 never occupied the major part of the disputed area between the Essequibo/Cuyuni and Orinoco/Caroni junctions for a period of at least 50 years, but the Paris Award of 1899 had distributed the area as territory either to Venezuela or Great Britain, most notably the Barima, Cuyuni, and Sierra Imataca. Hence, the only Dutch settlement on the “Wild Coast” between the Orinoco and Essequibo, which fulfils the criteria of the 50 years rule of the Washington Treaty, were the Dutch posts in Wacupo (1700–1754) and Moruca (1732–1775/1796), although the Dutch were also temporarily present with a post in Barima (1683–c. 1689), short-term settlements in the mouth of the Orinoco, Amacuro and Aniavero (Amavero) between 1636–1638, a salt pit between the mouth of the Guayapiche and Curiaco, a cattle farm in Oquetay and a post in Pomeroon (1678–1710/1716, along with Nova Zeelandia 1650–1665/66, while plantations in Pomeroon were at least prohibited until 1777), although the Dutch director general since 1746 insubstantially claimed either the Waini (1746; 1759; 1759; 1762, 1767) or the Barima (1748; 1761; 1764; 1766; 1767) as boundary of the 4 UN, “Boundary Award of Paris”, 3 October 1899, http://legal.un.org/riaa/cases/vol_XXVIII/ 331–340.pdf, pp. 331; 338 (accessed 7 September 2018). From Mount Roraima, the boundary afterwards follows “to the source of the Cotinga, and along the mid-stream of that river to its junction with the Takutu, and thence along the mid-stream of the Takutu to its source, thence in a straight line to the westernmost point of the Akarai Mountains, and thence along the ridge of the Akarai Mountains to the source of the Corentin called the Cutari River”. 5 International Court of Justice (ICJ), Guyana files an application against Venezuela, Press Release No. 2018(4 April 2018) 17. 6 ICJ, “Summary of the Judgement”,18 December 2020, https://www.icj–cij.org/public/files/ case–related/171/171–20201218–SUM–01–00–EN.pdf (accessed 17 February 2021), Part B.

Chapter 13 Conclusion

297

Dutch Essequibo colony. In contrast, the Spanish were never settled along the coast between the mouth of the Orinoco and the Essequibo and had also failed to conquer the Barima and Orinoco Caribs (1618/1619; 1686; 1733), Guayanos (1599) and Aruacas (1619). Instead, the “Wild Coast” between the Orinoco and Essequibo was consistently occupied by Caribs, Warouws, Arawak, Iao, Sapoyos, and Guayanos. Hence, the historical record confirms Caribs in the Amacuro (1637–1684), Orinoco mouth (1636–1686), Waini (1660–1763), Moruca (1660–1772), Pomeroon (1684–1794, Upper), and Essequibo (1616/24–1785). Most notably, the Caribs were consistently present in the Barima during the whole period from 1591 to 1768. Furthermore, Warouws were present in the Barima (1660–1769), Waini (1660–1769), Moruca (1660–1769), Pomeroon (1769), and on the islands of the Orinoco (1660–1767), where they were accompanied by the Tivitives, Chaguanas (1595–1637) and Guayanos (1638) on the banks of the Orinoco mouth, whereas Arawak are recorded for the Amacuro (1637), Lower Orinoco (1531–1638), Waini (1769), Moruca (1763–1769), Pomeroon (1596/99–1685), Essequibo, Demerara (1520/1596/99–1750), Berbice (1596/1599–1750), the Iao in the Orinoco (1595–1637) and Essequibo (1596/99), the Chiama (Shiamacotte) in the Moruca (1745–1769) and Guarapiche (1684). Despite, during the period 1752–1794, escorted Capuchin missionaries encroached the area between the Barima and Moruca to violently carry off Indigenous Peoples to fill their missions in particular in 1769, 1774/75, and 1785, whereas the encroachment into the Cuyuni had commenced in the 1730s and peaked in 1769/70. Ordered by the Capuchin Prefect (instead of the King of Spain), those missionary practices were not considered as “conquest” by the Council of the Indies. Moreover, Caribs, Acowaio, Cerekon, Magnauts, Wapishana, Makushi, Pariacotten, and Perhavians were well-documented for the inland area between the Orinoco and Essequibo/Demerara, since Caribs were recorded in the Lower Orinoco (1681–1753), same as the Cerekon (1769) and Carib-speaking Nepoio (1581–1595), in the Caroni/ Paragua (1754–1760), Caura (1595–1769), Guarapiche (1638–1722), Cuyuni (1686–1770/ 1779, along with Pariacotten (1686)), Mazaruni (1686–1778) and Essequibo (1616/1624–1785), whereas the Acowaio had occupied the Cuyuni (1681/1686–1765), Mazaruni (1660/80–1765), Essequibo (1660/ 1750–1769), and Demerara (1686–1772). Finally, the Perhavians (1750) were settled in the Upper Essequibo, while the Wapishana (1660–1769) and Makushi (1753–1669) were recorded for the Rupununi and the Magnauts for Upper Essequibo and the Maho (1724–1763/1776), whereas the Arawak had occupied the inland area between Essequibo and Orinoco (1596/1599) and the Caribs the Blue Mountains (1750).

298

Chapter 13 Conclusion

In contrast, the Spaniards had just settled the Lower Orinoco by the establishment of Santo Thomé since 1595 (Santo Thomé de Moriquite, 1595–1637), which remained the sole Spanish settlement until 1764, after the settlement was transferred about 1637 (Santo Thomé de Usupamo) and several times attacked by Caribs, Guayanos, English, Dutch, and French (1618–1685; 1740; 1752). Thereupon, Santo Thomé was in Lower Orinoco accompanied by Angostura above the Caroni junction (1764, captured by Simón Bolívar in 1817) and both Fort Hipoqui (1769) and Barceloneta (1770) at the Paragua. Moreover, the independent Catalonian Capuchins had established several missions in the vicinity of the Caroni and Orinoco junction during the period 1724–1788, which were particularly attacked by Caribs during the 1730s and 1750s. Hereby, Suay was the first Capuchin mission (1724–1766), whereas Alta Gracia (1734–1817) and Cupapuy (1733–1817) in the vicinity of the Caroni junction were the most durable missions, while Guazipati (1757), Anjel Custodi at the Yuruari (1785) and Tumeremo/Cantuario at the Mamo and Yuruari junction (1788, temporarily abandoned in 1790/91 and 1794) presented the furthest missions towards the Cuyuni, which fulfilled the 50 years’ criteria of the Washington Treaty of 1897. Instead, the Dutch had settled in Essequibo from 1616/1624–1665 and again since 1670 with Fort Kikjoveral in Lower Mazaruni (established in 1628; named as such since 1644) and accompanied by plantations at the Essequibo junction since 1681, which remained spatially limited to the Cuyuni mouth (since 1681) and the first falls of both Upper Essequibo (1699–1771) and Lower Mazaruni (WIC plantation Poelwijk, 1700–1754) and were increasingly abandoned in 1773 in favour of plantations in the Essequibo mouth, such as in Itteribici (1730– 1769), Suppenaam (1727–1763), Oene (1744–1768), Capoeij (1745–1766; 1770/71) and upon the islands of Wacquenam (1741–1768) and Leguaan (1744–1762), where Fort Zeelandia was established (Bonnesique 1730; Flag island 1739). However, all plantations above Fort Zeelandia were virtually abandoned for plantations in Demerara in June 1777, where a first plantation was pioneered in 1725 and a post maintained from 1691–1745, before a governor was appointed in 1755. In contrast, the most stable (WIC) plantation in Lower Cuyuni presented (Old) Duynenburg in the Cuyuni mouth (1710–c. 1759), although a temporary WIC coffee and cocoa plantation was also in place in the years 1724–1760. Furthermore, the Dutch had established two inland posts, namely Arinda in Upper Essequibo (1737–1790, above Siparuni and Rupununi) and another post in Cuyuni, which was temporarily established in the periods 1755–1758 (Island of Curamueuru) and 1767–1771 on the Island Toenameto (Dutch source) or Cramacúra (Spanish source), whereas neither the coffee plantation nor any of the two Dutch posts in Lower Cuyuni had met the 50 years criteria of occupation of the Washington Treaty of Arbitration of

Chapter 13 Conclusion

299

1897. Furthermore, the Dutch had neither lawfully acquired jurisdiction or sovereignty by conquest or treaty. Consequently, the Boundary Award of Paris of 1899 had in breach with the Arbitration rules of the Treaty of Washington of 1897 and the European colonial law of the time of appropriation granted the whole area as territory either to Venezuela (Spain) or Great Britain (United Netherlands), most notably the Barima to both Venezuela and Great Britain, the (Lower) Cuyuni to Great Britain and the Imataca to Venezuela. Thus, the Boundary Award of Paris has reproduced the violation pattern of European colonial law and the intertemporal law rule, which was predated by the violating occupation rule of the Washington Treaty (1897), the London Convention (1814), the Venezuelan Declaration of Independence (1811) and the Treaty of Amiens (1802), whereas violations of Indigenous Peoples’ jurisdiction took already place by the grants of WIC Zeeland to Abraham van Pere (1678, Berbice) and the Walcheren cities (1657, Pomeroon), since both Dutch and Spanish had just lawfully acquired land as property by occupation, but not jurisdiction and sovereignty, which had remained with the Indigenous Peoples of northeastern South America, even for areas occupied by Europeans. In result, those findings are extending the arguments of Alvin Thompson, Caesar Gravesande and Ellen-Rose Kambel and Fergus MacKay that the Dutch had not exercised jurisdiction beyond their plantations. Strictly speaking, it was, therefore, not the European colonial law of the time of appropriation, but instead Indigenous Peoples’ laws, which were also valid for Europeans and confirms Lauren Benton’s global argument of “jurisdictional complexities” for the area of northeastern South America. Nevertheless, the voluminous European colonial record from both sides of the Atlantic provides just limited insights about the valid indigenous laws of appropriation during the initial stage of European colonization. Most notably, the marriage practice is standing out to establish trust and alliance, as the practice was applied across the Americas, such as in 1510 on the coast of São Vicente (shipwrecked Portuguese with the daughter of Goianá Tupinikin Chief Tibirića of the Piratininga plateau), in 1613 on the Island of the Virginian James river (English colonist of Jamestown and Algonquian daughter Pocahontas), in 1631 on the Essequibo (Zeeland trader Aert Groenewegen and Carib woman) and 1684/85 on the Suriname (Governor Cornelis van Sommelsdijck and daughter of an indigenous Chief) to save the Dutch from being expelled. Furthermore, the hostage practice was commonly applied to manifest and secure alliances, which was applied in 1595 in the Orinoco (Chief Moriquito’s son and two Englishmen of Walter Raleigh), in 1636 in Trinidad (women, children, and old men of Nepoio Chief Hierreima offered to the Dutch during a joint attack against the Spanish) and in 1640 in Dominica (Carib Chief Baron and French governor of Guadeloupe

300

Chapter 13 Conclusion

Jean Aubert to cement their alliance). Finally, the narrative of Walter Raleigh’s companion Lawrence Keymis at the Caw River (French Guiana) in 1596 about the Yao Cacique Warao indicates the burning of his settlement and fields, before the Chief and his people had left for the Amazon in response to two attacks by Arawak (among them Cazique Aramaia) in 1593, who had also kidnapped some Yao women and children. To close this research gap and gain deeper knowledge about the valid indigenous laws of appropriation during the initial stage of European colonization, a complementary research project on oral traditions appears to be appropriated and rewarding. Meanwhile, in March 2018, Guyana has submitted the still unresolved historical boundary dispute (ongoing since 1746) to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to decide about “the legal validity and binding effect” of the Paris Award of 1899,7 after Venezuela had nullified the Award in 19628 and the peaceful settlement practices of the Geneva Agreement of 26 May 1966,9 namely the Mixed Commission (1966–1970), the Protocol of Port of Spain (1970) and the good office process (1990–2014; 2017), had all failed10 and UN Secretary-General António Guterres had in January 2018 chosen the ICJ as means to solve the controversy.11 In result, the ICJ had on 18 December 2020 ruled so far that the ICJ has jurisdiction to decide the case,12 after Venezuela had in June 2018 refused to recognize the jurisdiction of the Court.13 Ironically, Indigenous Peoples are again excluded from the jurisdiction of the ICJ, although this book had demonstrated that both the Dutch and Spanish had just lawfully acquired land as property, but – in breach with both the intertemporal law rule and the European colonial law of the time of appropriation – transferred the area as territory, that is land as property, jurisdiction, and sovereignty, although they had never lawfully acquired either jurisdiction or sovereignty, which had lawfully remained with the Indigenous

7 ICJ, “Summary of the Judgement”,18 December 2020, https://www.icj–cij.org/public/files/ case–related/171/171-20201218-SUM-01-00-EN.pdf (accessed 17 February 2021). 8 ICJ, Guyana files an Application against Venezuela, Press Release No. 2018 (4 April 2018) 17. 9 UN, “Geneva Agreement to resolve the Controversy over the Frontier between Venezuela and British Guiana”, 17 February 1966. 10 ICJ, “Judgment: Arbitral Award of 3 October 1899 (Guyana v. Venezuela)”, 18 December 2020, https://www.icj–cij.org/public/files/case–related/171/171–20201218–JUD–01–00–EN.pdf (accessed 7 January 2021). 11 UN, “Secretary General Chooses International Court of Justice as Means for Peacefully Settling Long-Standing Guyana-Venezuela Border Controversy”, 18 January 2018, SG/SM/18879– ICJ/630, www.un.org/press/en/2018/sgsm18879.doc.htm (accessed 7 January 2021). 12 UN, “Geneva Agreement to Resolve the Controversy over the Frontier between Venezuela and British Guiana”, 17 February 1966. 13 A. Gordon, “Venezuela opts out of Border case at ICJ”, Guyana Chronicle, 18 June 2018.

Chapter 13 Conclusion

301

Peoples of northeastern South America. In consequence, the legal-historical argument of this book calls for the recognition of the unlawfulness of the acquisition of indigenous territories in the initial phase of European colonization and prompts the conceptually revision of the novel UNDRIP right to Indigenous Peoples’ past territories and the establishment of an effective reparation mechanism to return Indigenous Peoples’ unlawfully taken historical territories in the context of both the CARICOM reparation claims and the legal practices of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR); it remains to be seen whether the ICJ will continue to reproduce the pattern of violation of the intertemporal law rule and European colonial law from the initial stage of European colonization in northeastern South America.

List of Abbreviations AGI BB3

BC

BL BRC

CARICOM ECOSOC GA GLC HaNA IACHR ICJ ILA NATT OAS PGA SG TNA UNDRIP UNPFII VEN

WGIP WIC

Archivo General de Indias (Seville) Great Britain, Documents and Correspondence relating to the Question of Boundary between British Guiana and Venezuela (British Blue Book 3), British Foreign Office London: Harrison and Sons, 1896, vol. 3. Venezuelan Boundary Commission, “Report and Accompanying Papers”, Washington: Commission Appointed by the President of the United States to investigate and report upon the true divisional line between the Republic of Venezuela and British Guiana, February 1897. British Library (London) Great Britain, British Guiana Boundary: Arbitration with the United States of Venezuela. The Case [and Appendix] On Behalf of the Government of Her Britannic Majesty, London: Printed at the Foreign Office, by Harrison and Sons, 1898. Caribbean Community United Nations Economic and Social Council General Assembly of the United Nations Gilder Lehrman Collection, New York Nationaal Archief (The Hague) Inter-American Court of Human Rights International Court of Justice International Law Association National Archives of Trinidad and Tobago (Port-of-Spain) Organization of American States President of the UN General Assembly Secretary General of the United Nations The National Archives (Kew) United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues Republic of Venezuela, Venezuela-British Guiana Boundary Arbitration. The Case of the United States of Venezuela before the Tribunal of Arbitration to Convene at Paris under the Provisions of the Treaty, signed at Washington on 2 February 1897, New York: The Evening Post Joe Printing House, 1897–1898, vol. 2. Working Group of Indigenous Populations of the United Nations West-Indische Compagnie/Dutch West India Company

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110690149-014

List of Figures Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 9 Figure 10 Figure 11 Figure 12 Figure 13 Figure 14 Figure 15 Figure 16

Sketch-map of the Research Area in the Historical Caribbean (Johannes De Laet, 1630). In: United States Commission on Boundary Between Venezuela and British Guiana, Report and Accompanying Papers of the Commission appointed by the President of the United States “to investigate and report upon the True Divisional Line between Venezuela and British Guiana“, Washington: Government Printing Office, 1897, vol. 4: Atlas, No. 24 22 Rediscovered Oviedo Map of the Ordás and Herrera Expeditions (c. 1733)). In: R. Schuller (ed.), The Ordáz and Dortal Expeditions in Search of Eldorado, as described on Sixteenth Century Maps, Washington: Smithsonian, 1916, p. 2 85 Map of the Island of Trinidad and Paria by Walter Raleigh (c. 1595). In: United States Commission on Boundary Between Venezuela and British Guiana, Report and Accompanying Papers of the Commission appointed by the President of the United States “to investigate and report upon the True Divisional Line between Venezuela and British Guiana”, Washington: Government Printing Office, 1897, vol. 4: Atlas, No. 21 98 Indigenous Settlements along the Orinoco Mouth, as indicated by Walter Raleigh (1595). Ibid., No. 21 125 Sketch-map of Guiana by Theodor De Bry (1599), including the indication of the indigenous town Maburesa at the Essequibo mouth. Ibid., No. 23 129 The Spatial Division of Missions by Jesuit Gumilla in 1741. Ibid., No. 56 142 The First Capuchin Missions of Guayana (c. 1733). Ibid., No. 72 145 The Extent of the Capuchin Missions by Fray Carlos de Barcelona (1771). Ibid., No. 73 152 Fort Kijkoveral and WIC Plantations in Lower Mazaruni in 1706. Ibid., No. 59 214 Plantations in Upper Essequibo in 1706 by Abraham Maas. Ibid., No. 59 219 Plantations at the Essequibo junction in 1748/49 by Laurens Storm van’s Gravesande. Ibid., No. 60 224 Fort Zeelandia and “Weeg naar Duynenburgh” (Flag Island) in 1748/49. Ibid., No. 60 231 Plantations in the Essequibo mouth by Laurens Storm van’s Gravesande in 1748/49. Ibid., No. 60 232 Drawing of the Arinda post below Siparuni of 1748/49. Ibid., No. 60 240 The Courthial Road between Cuyuni and Orinoco in 1750. Ibid., No. 61 255 The Location of the Moruca Post in 1748/49. Ibid., No. 60 273

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110690149-015

Bibliography I Primary Sources Archival Sources (European Colonial Practices) [AGI] Archivo General de Indias, Seville (ESP) Patronato no. 8–29, 1492–1568, no. 55, 1577; no. 267–293, 1579–1592, Indifferente no. 416–418, 1511–1568; Contratacion no. 5787, 1547, UD no. 244728, 1530, Justicia no. 1102, 1553. [Avalon] Lilian Goldman Law Library, Yale Law School, New Haven (USA) Avalon Collection, 1584–1621. [BL] British Library, London (UK), Additional MS no. 36314, BM no. 18, 1552–1562. [BB3] British Foreign Office, London (UK) Great Britain, Documents and Correspondence relating to the Question of Boundary between British Guiana and Venezuela (British Blue Book 3), British Foreign Office London: Harrison and Sons, 1896, vol. 3, serial no. 6–279, 1647–1790, no. 29–46, 1771–c. 1813. [BC] United States Commission, Washington (USA) United States Commission on Boundary Between Venezuela and British Guiana, Report and Accompanying Papers of the Commission appointed by the President of the United States “to investigate and report upon the True Divisional Line between Venezuela and British Guiana”, Washington: Government Printing Office, 1897, vols. 2; 4, no. 1–344, 1581–1794, no. 21–74 (maps), c. 1595–c. 1779. [BRC] British Foreign Office, London (UK) British Guiana Boundary Arbitration with the United States of Venezuela. Appendix to the Case on Behalf of the Government of Her Britannic Majesty, British Foreign Office London: Harrison and Sons, 1898. vols. 1–7, serial no. 1–166, 1593–1723, serial no. 172–389, 1724–1763, serial No. 391–449, 1768, serial no. 451–567, 1769–1778, serial no. 587–723, 1781–1814, serial no. 741–891, 1820–1864, serial no. 741–891, 1820–1864, no. 1–51, 1840–1883. [HaNA] Nationaal Archief The Hague (NL) OWIC 1.05.06, no. 12–13a, 1642–1656, no. 48–219, 1678–1681. [NATT] National Archives of Trinidad and Tobago, Port-of-Spain (TT) Historical Society of Trinidad and Tobago Collection, publication no. 15–810, 1510–1885. [TNA] The National Archives, Kew (UK) Colonial Office no. 1031, 1961–1963. [UBL] Bibliotheca Albertina Leipzig (GER) J. J. Hartsinck, Beschryving van de Volksplanting van Berbice, met de aanhoorige Landen, 1770. [VEN] Boundary Arbitration Venezuela, New York (USA) Republic of Venezuela, VenezuelaBritish Guiana Boundary Arbitration. The Case of the United States of Venezuela before the Tribunal of Arbitration to Convene at Paris under the Provisions of the Treaty, signed at Washington on 2 February 1897, New York: The Evening Post Joe Printing House, 1897–1898, vol. 2, no. 352–424, 1743–1773.

Additional Primary Sources B. de las Casas. Los Tesoros del Peru (De Thesauris in Peru), Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, 1958 [1563].

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110690149-016

308

Bibliography

Cristóbal Cólon (Columbus), “On the Recently Discovered Islands of India beyond the Ganges”, Lisbon, 14 March 1493, GLC 01427, Gilder Lehrman Collection, New York. Cristóbal Cólon (Columbus), “Report on the First Voyage”, 29 April 1493, Epistola Christofori Colom, Gilder Lehrman Collection, New York, www.gilderlehrman.org/sites/default/files/ inline-pdfs/t-01427.pdf (accessed 20 September 2018). Friar A. Montesinos, “Sermon I am a Voice Crying in the Wilderness”, Hispaniola, 1511, in: L. Hanke (ed.), Spanish Struggle for Justice, Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1965, pp. 147–148. Queen Elizabeth I, “Patent to Sir Walter Raleigh to Settle Virginia”, House of Commons, 14 December 1584, in: Q. Beers, The Roanoke Voyages 1584–1590, London: The Hakluyt Society, 1955, No. 1, pp. 126–128, www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Sir_Walter_Raleigh_s_ Patent_to_Settle_Virginia_1584 (accessed 18 September 2018). Queen Isabella I and Ferdinand II, “Privileges and Prerogatives granted to Columbus”, Granada, 30 April 1492, American History Collection, University of Groningen, http://www. let.rug.nl/usa/documents/before-1600/privileges-and-prerogatives-granted-to-columbusapril-30-1492.php (accessed 20 September 2018). Queen Isabella I, “Instructions to Hispaniola Governor Nicolas de Ovando”, March 1503, in: P. Liss (ed.), Isabel the Queen: Life and Times, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004, p. 342. W. Raleigh, “The Discoverie of the Large, Rich, and Bewtiful Empyre of Guiana”, 1596, in: N. Whitehead (ed.), The Discovery of the Large, Rich, And Beautiful Empire of Guiana, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1997, pp. 19–22. B. F. Stevens (ed.), Christopher Columbus – His Own Book of Privileges (Facsimile of Manuscript, 1502), London: Chiswick Press, 1893. J. B. Thacher (ed.), Christopher Columbus. His Life, His Work, His Remains. Vol. II, New York: Putnam’s Sons, 1904. E. Williams (ed.), Documents of West Indian History Vol. 1, 1492–1655. From the Spanish Discovery to the British Conquest of Jamaica, Port-of-Spain: PNM, 1963.

Additional Historical Maps G. F. de Oviedo, “Huyapari Sketchmap”, assumed 1533, in: R. Schuller (ed.), The Ordáz and Dortal Expeditions in Search of Eldorado, as described on Sixteenth Century Maps, Washington: Smithsonian, 1916, p. 2. N.N. “Sketchmap Orinoco”, c. 1570, in: R. Schuller (ed.), The Ordáz and Dortal Expeditions in Search of Eldorado, as described on Sixteenth Century Maps, Washington: Smithsonian, 1916, p. 11.

Printed Primary Sources (European Colonial Law) H. Grotius, The Law of War and Peace [De Jure Belli ac Pacis] (1625), Book 1, Chapters 1–5, Book 2, Chapters 1–26, Book 3, Chapters 1–25 https://lonang.com/library/reference/gro tius-law-war-and-peace/gro-101/ (accessed 7 October 2018).

Printed Primary Sources (European Colonial Law)

309

H. Grotius, The Free Sea [Mare Liberum] (1609), ed. by David Armitage. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2004. Available from: https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/armitage/files/free_sea_ ebook.pdf (accessed 18 July 2018). King Charles II, Recopilacion de Leyes de los Reynos de las Indias, Libro Segundo: De las Leyes, Provisiones, Cédulas, y Ordenanzas Reales, Madrid, 18 May 1680. King Ferdinand II, “Royal Cedula”, 23 December 1511, in: C. Jesse, “The Spanísh Cedula of December 23, 1511, On the Subject of the Caríbs”, Caribbean Quarterly 9 (September 1963) 3, pp. 22–32. King Ferdinand II, “Laws of Burgos”, 27 December 1512, http://faculty.smu.edu/bakewell/BA KEWELL/texts/burgoslaws.html (accessed 27 September 2018). King John II of Portugal and Algarve, “Letter”, Lisbon, 8 March 1494, in: J. B. Thacher (ed.), Christopher Columbus. His Life, His Work, His Remains. Vol. II, New York: Putnam’s Sons. 1904, pp. 175–180. King John II, Prince John of Asturias, King Ferdinand II, Queen Isabella I, “Contract of Capitulación of the Division of the Ocean-sea (Treaty of Tordesillas)”, 5 September 1494, Setúbal, in J. B. Thacher (ed.), Christopher Columbus. His Life, His Work, His Remains: Vol. II, Part VI, Chapter LXXIII, New York: Putnam’s Sons, 1904, pp. 180–186. King Philipp II, “Royal Order: Ordenanzas de Descubrimientos, Nueva Población y Pacificación de las Indias” (1573)”, in: F. Morales Padrón (ed.), Teoría y Leyes de la Conquista, Madrid: Ediciones Cultura Hispánica del Centro Iberoamericano de Cooperación, 1979, pp. 489–518. J. Locke, Second Treatise of Government, 1650, https://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/ pdfs/locke1689a.pdf (accessed 18 September 2018), Chapter 16, pp. 58–65. Pope Alexander VI, Inter Caetera I, 3 May 1493 (Simanca version), in: S. E. Dawson (ed.), The Lines of Demarcation of Pope Alexander VI. and the Treaty of Tordesillas. Toronto: Transactions of The Royal Society of Canada. 1899, Appendix A, pp. 529–534. Pope Alexander VI, Inter Caetera I, 3 May 1493 (Vatican version), in: J. B. Thacher (ed.), Christopher Columbus. His Life, His Work, His Remains. Vol. II. New York/London: Putnam’s Sons, 1904, Part VI, Chapter LXXII, Bull 1, pp. 125–137. Pope Alexander VI, Inter Caetera II, 4 May 1403 (Vatican version), in: J. B. Thacher (ed.), Christopher Columbus. His Life, His Work, His Remains. Vol. II. New York/London: Putnam’s Sons. 1904. Part VI, Chapter LXXII, Bull 2, pp. 139–153. Pope Alexander VI, Inter Caetera II, 4 May 1403 (Barcelona version), in: B. F. Stevens (ed.), “Christopher Columbus. His Own Book of Privileges (Facsimile of Manuscript, 1502), London: Chiswick Press, 1893, pp. 189–193. Pope Alexander VI, Eximiae Devotionis, 4 May 1493 (Vatican register), in: J. B. Thacher (ed.), Christopher Columbus. His Life, His Work, His Remains. Vol. II. New York/London: Putnam’s Sons, 1904. Part VI, Chapter LXXII, Bull 3, pp. 155–161. Pope Alexander VI, Dudum Siquidem, 26 September 1493 (Vatican register), in: J. B. Thacher (ed.), Christopher Columbus. His Life, His Work, His Remains. Vol. II. New York/London: Putnam’s Sons, 1904. Part VI, Chapter LXXII, Bull 4, pp. 162–164. Pope Clement V, Intra Arcana. Formal date 8 May 1529, in: L. Hanke, “Pope Paul III and the American Indians”, Harvard Theological Review 30 (April 1937) 2, p. 80. Pope Paul III, Sublimis Deus, Formal date 2 June 1537, in L. Hanke, “Pope Paul III and the American Indians”, Harvard Theological Review 30 (April 1937) 2, pp. 71–72.

310

Bibliography

F. Vitoria, “On the Indians Lately Discovered (1537/1539)”, in: A. Pagden and J. Lawrance (eds.), The Political Writings of Francisco de Vitoria, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010, pp. 231–292. F. Vitoria, “On the Law of War (1539)”, in: A. Pagden and J. Lawrance (eds.), The Political Writings of Francisco de Vitoria, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010, pp. 293–328.

United Nations United Nations General Assembly (GA), Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (13 September 2007), GA Resolution A/RES/61/295, www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/docu ments/DRIPS_en.pdf (accessed 17 July 2018). United Nations General Assembly (GA), Working Group of the Commission on Human Rights to Elaborate a Draft Declaration (20 December 2006), GA Resolution A/RES 61/178, http:// www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/61/178 (accessed 17 July 2017). United Nations General Assembly (GA), Working Group of the Commission on Human Rights to Elaborate a Draft Declaration in Accordance with Paragraph 5 of General Assembly Resolution 49/214 of 23 December 1994 (20 December 2006), GA Resolution A/RES/61/ 178, http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/61/178 (accessed 17 November 2017). United Nations General Assembly (GA), Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (14 December 1960), GA Resolution A/RES/1514 (XV), www. un.org/en/decolonization/declaration.shtml (accessed 23 June 2017). United Nations General Assembly (GA), Principles which should guide Members in Determining whether or not an Obligation exists to transmit the Information called for under Article 73e of the Charter (15 December 1960), GA Resolution A/RES/ 1541 (XV), www.un.org/en/ga/ search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/1541(XV) (accessed 18 September 2018). United Nations General Assembly (GA), The Right of Peoples and Nations to Self-Determination (20 December 1952), GA Resolution A/RES/637 (VII), https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/ doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/079/80/IMG/NR007980.pdf?OpenElement (accessed 18 September 2018). United Nations General Assembly (GA), Cobo Report. Part 3, Chapters XXI-XXII: Conclusions, Proposals and Recommendations (30 September 1983), E/Cn.4/Sub.2/1983/21/Add.8, para 381, https://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/MCS_xxi_xxii_e.pdf (accessed 18 September 2018). United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII), A Study on the Impacts of the Doctrine of Discovery on Indigenous Peoples, including Mechanisms, Processes and Instruments of Redress, with Reference to the Declaration, and particularly to Articles 26–28, 32 and 40 (12–13 May 2014), E/C.19/2014/3, http://caid.ca/UNESRPFII.C19.2014. pdf (accessed 18 September 2018). United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII), Report on the Eleventh Session (7–18 May 2012), https://undocs.org/E/C.19/2012/13 and UNPFII, A Study on the Impacts of the Doctrine of Discovery on Indigenous Peoples, para 4; 32–38, http://caid. ca/UNESRPFII.C19.2014.pdf, 325–8 (accessed 18 September 2018).

United Nations

311

United Nations President of the General Assembly (PGA), Letter of President of the General Assembly Her Excellency Rashed Al Khalida to all Permanent Representatives and Permanent Observers to the United Nations (6 June 2007), www.ohchr.org/Documents/Is sues/Ipeoples/LetterPresidentGA_06062077.pdf (accessed 18 September 2018). United Nations President of the General Assembly (PGA), Letter to the President of the General Assembly Her Excellency Sheikha Haya Rashed Al Khalifa (13 July 2007, indicating stamp: “received 16 July 2017”), http://www.un.org/ga/president/61/letters/23July07/LetterDavide-13July07.pdf (accessed 18 September 2018). United Nations President of the General Assembly (PGA), Report to the President of the General Assembly on the Consultations on the Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (13 July 2007), submitted by Facilitator His Excellency Hilario G. Davide, Jr., the Permanent Representative of the Philippines to the United Nations, www.un.org/ga/presi dent/61/letters/23July07/Report-13July07.pdf (accessed 18 September 2018). United Nations President of the General Assembly (PGA), Supplement Report (20 July 2007), submitted by Facilitator His Excellency Hilario G. Davide, Jr., UN Permanent Representative of the Philippines, www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Ipeoples/ReportSupplement20 July07.pdf (accessed 8 July 2017). United Nations President of the General Assembly (PGA), Letter to the President of the General Assembly Her Excellency Sheikha Haya Rashed Al Khalifa (20 July 2007), submitted by Facilitator His Excellency Hilario G. Davide, Jr., the Permanent Representative of the Philippines to the United Nations, www.un.org/ga/president/61/letters/23July07/LetterDavide-20July07.pdf (accessed 18 September 2018). United Nations President of the General Assembly (PGA), Letter of President of the General Assembly Her Excellency Rashed Al Khalida to all Permanent Representatives and Permanent Observers to the United Nations (23 July 2007), http://www.un.org/ga/presi dent/61/letters/PGA-Letter-23July07.pdf (accessed 7 July 2017). United Nations Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, Study of the Problem of Discrimination Against Indigenous Populations” (30 July 1981), First part of Final Report by Special Rapporteur José R. Martínez Cobo), E/CN.4/Sub.2/ 476, www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/MCS_intro_1981_en.pdf [pp. 1–14] (accessed 18 September 2018). United Nations Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, Study of the Problem of Discrimination Against Indigenous Populations (5 August 1983), Last part of Final Report by Special Rapporteur José R. Martínez Cobo), E/CN.4/Sub.2/ 1983/21, www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/MCS_intro_1983_en.pdf, [pp. 1–6] (accessed 18 September 2018). United Nations Working Group on Indigenous Populations (WGIP), Reports of the Working Group on Indigenous Population, E/CN.4/Sub.2/1982/33 – E/CN.4/Sub.2/1993/29, 1982–1993, http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=E/CN.4/Sub.2/1982/33 (accessed 18 September 2018). United Nations Working Group Established in Accordance with ECOSOC Commission on Human Rights Resolution 1995/32, Reports of the Working Group, E/CN.4/1996/84 -E/CN.4/ 2006/79, 1996–2006, http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=E/CN.4/ 1996/84 (accessed 18 September 2018). United Nations Working Group on Indigenous Populations (WGIP), Draft Declaration (based on the Agreement by the Members of the Working Group at its Eleventh Session), E/CN.4/

312

Bibliography

Sub.2/1993/29 (23 August 1993), Annex I, pp. 50–60, www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc. asp?symbol=E/CN.4/Sub.2/1993/29 (accessed 7 July 2017). United Nations Working Group on Indigenous Populations (WGIP), Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Revised Working paper submitted by ChairpersonRapporteur Erica-Irene Daes, E/CN.4/Sub.2/1993/26 (8 June 1993), pp. 1–11, https://docu ments-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G93/140/37/PDF/G9314037.pdf?OpenElement (accessed 18 September 2018). United Nations ECOSOC Commission on Human Rights, Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Revised Summary and Proposal by Chairperson-Rapporteur LuisEnrique Chávez, E/CN.4/2006/79 (22 March 2006), Annex I, pp. 8–77, http://www.un. org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=E/CN.4/2006/79 (accessed 10 July 10 2017). United Nations ECOSOC Commission on Human Rights Resolution 1982/ 34, Study of the Problem of Discrimination against Indigenous Populations (7 May 1982), www.un.org/ga/ search/view_doc.asp?symbol=E/RES/1982/34. (accessed 4 April 2017). United Nations, Award in the Arbitration Regarding the Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary between Guyana and Suriname (Award of 17 September 2007), (= UN Reports of International Arbitral Awards), http://legal.un.org/riaa/cases/vol_XXX/1-144.pdf (accessed 18 September 2018). United Nations, Award in the Island of Palmas case (Netherlands, USA) (4 April 1928) (= UN Reports of International Arbitral Awards), http://legal.un.org/riaa/cases/vol_II/829-871. pdf (accessed 18 September 2018). United Nations, Geneva Agreement to resolve the Controversy over the Frontier between Venezuela and British Guiana (17 February 1966), No. 8192, https://treaties.un.org/doc/publication/ unts/volume%20561/volume-561-i-8192-english.pdf (accessed 18 September 2018). United Nations Secretary General (SG), Secretary-General Chooses International Court of Justice as Means for Peacefully Settling Long-Standing Guyana-Venezuela Border Controversy, SG Press Release No. SG/SM/18879-ICJ/630 (30 January 2018), https:// www.un.org/press/en/2018/sgsm18879.doc.htm (accessed 18 September 2018). United Nations, Boundary Award of Paris, http://legal.un.org/riaa/cases/vol_XXVIII/331-340. pdf, p. 338 (accessed 7 October 2018). United Nations, Washington Treaty of Arbitration, https://peacemaker.un.org/sites/peace maker.un.org/files/GB-VE_970202_Treaty%20of%20Arbitration.pdf (accessed 7 October 2018). Indian Law Resource Center, Four Directions Council, National Aboriginal and Islander Legal Service, Inuit Circumpolar Conference and International Indian Treaty Council, “Draft Declaration, as submitted to the 1985 Session of the United Nations Working Group on Indigenous Populations (WGIP), E/CN.4/Sub.2/1985/22 (August 27, 1985), Annex IV. pp. 1–2, http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=E/CN.4/Sub.2/1985/22 (accessed 14 April 2017). Inter-American Court of Human Rights, IACHR, Case of the Xámok Kásek Indigenous Community v. Paraguay: Judgment of 24 August 2010 (Merits, Reparations, and Costs), http://www.hrdp.org/files/2013/10/22/seriec_214_ing.Xakmok_v_Paraguay_.pdf (accessed 19 September 2018). Inter-American Court of Human Rights, IACHR, Case of Kaliña and Lokono Peoples v. Suriname: Judgement of 25 November 2015 (Merits, Reparations, and Costs), http://www.corteidh.or. cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_309_ing.pdf (accessed 19 September 2018).

Secondary Sources

313

Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report on the Merits Xucuru Indigenous Peoples v. Brazil: Decision of 28 July 2015, http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/decisions/court/2016/ 12728fondoen.pdf (accessed 19 September 2018). International Court of Justice (ICJ), Guyana Files an Application against Venezuela, Press Release No. 2018/17 (4 April 2018), www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/171/171-20180404PRE-01-00-EN.pdf (accessed 18 September 2018). International Court of Justice (ICJ), The Indo-Pakistan Western Boundary (Rann of Kutch) between India and Pakistan (19 February 1968), http://legal.un.org/riaa/cases/vol_XVII/ 1-576.pdf (accessed 18 September 2018). International Court of Justice (ICJ), Guyana v. Venezuela, Arbitral Award of 3 October 1899, Case Order No. 171 (19 June 2018), https://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/171/17120180619-ORD-01-00-EN.pdf (accessed 18 September 2018). International Court of Justice (ICJ), Summary of the Judgement, 18 December 2020, https:// www.icj-cij.org/public/files/case-related/171/171-20201218-SUM-01-00-EN.pdf (accessed 17 February 2021). Leigh Day, Mutua & Others v Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mau Mau) (5 October 2012), www.leighday.co.uk/Blog/October-2017/Kenyan-colonial-abuses-apology-five-years-on (accessed 18 September 2018). Organization of American States (OAS), Native Genocide and African Slave Trade (6 November 2015). Press Release No. E-334/15, www.oas.org/en/media_center/press_re lease.asp?sCodigo=E-334/15(accessed 18 September 2018). Worldbank, Indigenous Peoples, www.worldbank.org/en/topic/indigenouspeoples (accessed 18 September 2018).II

Secondary Sources J. Agnew, “Revisiting the Territorial Trap”. Nordia Geographical Publications 44 (2015) 4, pp. 43–48. J. Agnew, “Still Trapped in Territory?”, Geopolitics 15 (2010), pp. 779–784. J. Agnew, “The Territorial Trap: The Geographical Assumptions of International Relations Theory”, Review of International Political Economy, 1 (1994) 1, pp. 53–80. J. Agnew, “Sovereignty Regimes, Territoriality and State Authority in Contemporary World Politics”, Annals of the Association of American Geographers 95 (2005) 2, pp. 437–461. J. Agnew, “No Borders, No Nations: Making Greece in Macedonia”, Annals of the Association of American Geographers 97 (2007) 2, pp. 398–422. J. Agnew, and U. Oslender, “Overlapping Territorialities, Sovereignty in Dispute: Empirical Lessons from Latin America”, in: B. Miller, J. Beaumont, W. Nicholls (eds.), Spaces of Contention. Spatialities and Social Movements, London: Routledge, 2013, pp. 121–140. M. Åhrén, Indigenous Peoples’ Status in the International Legal System, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. M. Åhrén, “The Provisions on Lands, Territories and Natural Resources”, in: C. Charters and R. Stavenhagen (eds.), Making the Declaration Work. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Copenhagen: IWGIA Transaction, 2009, pp. 200–216. D. Alden, “Late Colonial Brazil, 1750–1808”, in: L. Bethell (ed.), Colonial Brazil, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987, pp. 284–343.

314

Bibliography

R. Aldrich, Greater France. A History of French Overseas Expansion. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 1996. G. Alfred, “Sovereignty: An Inappropriate Concept”, in: R. Maaka and C. Andersen (eds.), In Indigenous Experience: Global Perspectives, Toronto: Canadian Scholar’ s Press, 2006, pp. 322–3337. S. Allen, “The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the Limits of the International Legal Project”, in: S. Allen and A. Xanthaki (eds.), Reflections on the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Oxford: Hart, 2009, pp. 225–256. J. Anaya, “The Right of Indigenous Peoples to Self-Determination in the Post-Declaration Era”, in: Making the Declaration Work. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, ed. by Claire Charters and Rodolfo Stavenhagen, Copenhagen: IWGIA Transaction, 2009, pp. 184–200. J. Anaya, “Divergent Discourses About International Law, Indigenous Peoples, and Rights over Lands and Natural Resources: Toward a Realist Trend” Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law and Policy 16 (2005) 2, pp. 237–258. J. Anaya, Indigenous Peoples in International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. J. Anaya, “Indigenous Peoples and International Law Issues”, Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law 92 (April 1998), pp. 96–98. J. Anaya, and S. Wiessner, “The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: Towards Re-empowerment”, Jurist Forum, 3 October 2007, http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2007/ 10/un-declaration-on-rightsof-indigenous.php (accessed 30 May 2017). J. Anaya, and R. Williams, “The Protection of Indigenous Peoples’ Rights over Lands and Natural Resources Under the Inter-American Human Rights System”, Harvard Human Rights Journal 14 (2001), pp. 33–87. K. Anderson-Córdova, Surviving Spanish Conquest, Indian Fight, Flight, and Cultural Transformation in Hispaniola and Puerto Rico, Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 2017. C. Anderson, Old Panama and Castilla del Oro. A Narrative History of the Discovery, Conquest, and Settlement by the Spaniards of Panama, Darien, Veragua, Santo Domingo, Santa Marta, Cartagena, Nicaragua, and Peru, Cambridge: Harvard University, 1911. A. Anghie, Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. A. Anghie, “The Evolution of International Law: Colonial and Postcolonial Realities”, Third World Quarterly 27 (2006) 5, pp. 739–753. A. Anghie, “Finding the Peripheries: Sovereignty and Colonialism in Nineteenth-Century International Law”, Harvard International Law Journal 40 (1999) 1, pp. 3–71. D. Armitage, The Ideological Origins of the British Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. D. Armitage, “Introduction (to Mare Liberum)”, in D. Armitage (ed.), Hugo Grotius. The Free Sea, Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2004, pp. xi–xxi. D. Armitage, “John Locke, Carolina, and the Two Treatises of Government.” Political Theory 32 (2004) 5, pp. 602–627. B. Arneil, John Locke and America. The Defense of English Colonialism, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996. W. Arens, The Man-eating Myth, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979. H. Avalos, “Pope Alexander VI, Slavery and Voluntary Subjection: ‘Ineffabilis et Summi Patris’ in Context”, The Journal of Ecclesiastical History 65 (October 2014) 4, pp. 738–760.

Secondary Sources

315

A. Banai, M. Moore, D. Miller, C. Nine, F. Dietrich, “Symposium: Theories of Territory Beyond Westphalia”, International Theory 6 (2014) 1, pp. 98–104. S. Banner, How the Indians Lost Their Land: Law and Power at the Frontier, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007. S. Banner, “Why Terra Nullius? Anthropology and Property Law in Early Australia”, Law and History Review 23 (2005) 1, pp. 95–131. K. Barreto, “Kuna of Madungandí and the Emberá of Bayano Indigenous Peoples and Their Members v. Panama”, Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review 41 (2018), pp. 1009–1038. Q. D. Beers, The Roanoke Voyages 1584–1590, London: The Hakluyt Society, 1955. A. Benjamin, “A Preliminary Look at the Free Amerindians and the Dutch Plantation System in Guyana during the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries”, Guyana Historical Journal 4–5 (1992–1993), pp. 1–22. L. Benton, A Search for Sovereignty. Law and Geography in European Empires. 1400–1900, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. L. Benton, Law and Colonial Cultures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. L. Benton, “Made in Empire: Finding the History of International Law in Imperial Locations”, Leiden Journal of International Law 31 (2018), pp. 473–478. L. Benton, “Law and Empire in Global Perspective: An Introduction”, American Historical Review 117 (October 2012) 4, pp. 1092–1100. L. Benton, “Historical Perspectives on Legal Pluralism”, Hague Journal on the Rule of Law 3 (2011) 10, pp. 57–69. L. Benton, and B. Straumann, “Acquiring Empire by Law: From Roman Doctrine to Early Modern European Practice”, Law and History Review 28 (February 2010) 1, pp. 1–38. L. Benton, and L. Ford, “Island Despotism: Trinidad, the British Imperial Constitution and Global Legal Order”, Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History 46 (2018) 1, pp. 21–46. L. Benton, and L. Ford, Rage for Order. The British Empire and the Origins of International Law, 1800–1850, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2016. G. Boccara, “Rethinking the Margins/Thinking from the Margins. Culture, Power, and Place on the Frontiers of the New World”, Identities. Global Studies in Culture and Power 10 (2003) 1, pp. 59–81. A. Boomert, The Indigenous Peoples of Trinidad and Tobago from the First Settlers until Today, Leiden: Sidestone Press, 2016. J. Borrows, Canada’s Indigenous Constitution, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2010. B. Brereton, A History of Modern Trinidad, 1783–1962, Portsmouth: Heinemann, 1981. D. Brunstetter, Tensions of Modernity: Las Casas and His Legacy in the French Enlightenment, New York: Routledge, 2012. A. Buchanan, Justice, Legitimacy, and Self-Determination. Moral Foundations for International Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. A. Buchanan, “The Making and Unmaking of Boundaries: What Liberalism Has to Say”, in: A. Buchanan and M. Moore (eds.), States, Nations, and Borders. The Ethics of Making Boundaries, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003, pp. 231–261. J. Buchholz, “De ‘Entre Ríos’ a un Reino Desmesurado: La capitulación Genésica de la Provincia de Guayana”, Tiempo y Espacio 21 (June 2011) 55, pp. 1–7. G. Burnett, Masters of All They Surveyed. Exploration, Geography, and a British El Dorado, Chicago: Chicago University Press, 2000.

316

Bibliography

G. Burnett, “It is impossible to make a step without the Indians: Nineteenth-Century Geographical Exploration and the Amerindians of British Guiana”, Ethnohistory 49 (Winter 2002) 3, pp. 3–40. G. L. Burr, “Territorial Rights of the Dutch West India Company”, Washington, April 1896, in: United States Commission on Boundary Between Venezuela and British Guiana (ed.), Report and Accompanying Papers of the Commission appointed by the President of the United States ‘to investigate and report upon the true divisional line between Venezuela and British Guiana, Vol. 1, Washington: Government Printing Office, 1897, pp. 97–119. A. Butt Colson, Land. The Case of the Akawaio and Arekuna of the Upper Mazaruni District, Guyana, Somerset: Last Refuge, 2009. A. Butt Colson, “Itoto (Kanaima) as Death and Anti-Structure”, in: L. Rival and N. Whitehead (eds.), Beyond the Visible and the Material. The Amerindianization of Society in the Work of Peter Rivière, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001, pp. 221–234. A. Butt Colson, “Naming, Identity and Structure: The Pemon”, Antropológica LIII (2009) 111–112, pp. 35–114. A. Butt Colson, “The Spatial Component in the Political Structure of the Carib Speakers of the Guiana Highlands. Kapon and Pemon”, Themes in Political Organization: Caribs and Their Neighbors. Special Issue of Antropológica (1984), pp. 73–124. J. Bulkan, “The Struggle for Recognition of the Indigenous Voice. Amerindians in Guyanese Politics”, The Round Table 102 (2013) 4, pp. 367–380. J. Bulkan, “‘Original Lords of the Soil’? The Erosion of Amerindian Territorial Rights in Guyana”, Environment and History 22 (2016) 3, pp. 351–391. L. Brilmayer, “Consent. Contract and Territory”, Minnesota Law Review 74 (1989) 1, pp. 1–35. J. Capizzi, “The Children of God Natural Slavery in the Thought of Aquinas and Vitoria”, Theological Studies 63 (2002), pp. 31–52. A. Carmen, “International Indian Treaty Council Report form the Battle Field – the Struggle for the Declaration”, in: C. Charters and R. Stavenhagen (eds.), Making the Declaration Work. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Copenhagen: IWGIA Transaction, 2009, pp. 86–96. J. Castellino and J. Gilbert, “Self-Determination, Indigenous Peoples and Minorities”, Macquarie Law Journal 3 (2003), pp. 155–178. N. Castrees, “Differential Geographies: Place, Indigenous Rights and ‘local’ Resources”, Political Geography 23 (2004), pp. 133–167. C. Charters, “Land Rights”, in: International Law Association, ILA (ed.), The Hague Conference on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 2010. pp. 20–24, file:///C:/Users/x/ AppData/Local/Temp/Conference%20Report%20The%20Hague%202010.pdf (accessed 19 September 2018). L. E. Chávez, “The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: Breaking the Impasse: The Middle Ground”, in: C. Charters and R. Stavenhagen (eds.), Making the Declaration Work. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Copenhagen: IWGIA Transaction, 2009, pp. 96–108. B. Clavero, Freedoms Law and Indigenous Rights: From Europe’s Oeconomy to the Constitutionalism of the Americas, Berkeley: University of California School of Law, 2005. I. Clendinnen, Ambivalent Conquests. Maya and Spaniards in Yucatan. 1517–1570, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987.

Secondary Sources

317

I. Clendinnen, True Stories. History, Politics, Aboriginality. Melbourne: Text Publishing, 2008 [1999]. K. Coats, A Global History of Indigenous Peoples. Struggle and Survival, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004. M. Colchester, Guyana. Fragile Frontier, London: Latin American Bureau, 1997. S. Collier, From Cortes to Castro. An Introduction to the History of Latin America, 1492–1973, New York: MacMillan, 1974. G. Collomb and F. Dupuy, “Imagining Group, Living Territory: A Kali’na and Wayana View of History”, in: N. Whitehead and S. Alemán (eds.), Anthropologies of Guayana. Cultural Spaces in Northern Amazonia, Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 2009, pp. 113–123. M. Connor, The Invention of Terra Nullius: Historical and Legal Fictions on the Foundation of Australia, Sydney: Macleay Press, 2005. F. Cooper, Colonialism in Question. Theory, Knowledge, Power, Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005. P. Corcoran, John Locke on the Possession of Land: Native Title vs. the ‘Principle’ of Vacuum Domicilium, Adelaide: University of Adelaide Press, 2007. J. Corntassel and T. H. Primeau, “Indigenous ‘Sovereignty’ and International Law: Revised Strategies for Pursuing ‘Self-Determination’”, Hawaiian Journal of Law & Politics 2 (Summer 2006), pp. 52–72. Cultural Survival, “The Issues”, www.culturalsurvival.org/who-are-indigenous-peoples (accessed 18 September 2018). E. I. Daes, “Indigenous Peoples and their Relationship to Land”, 11 June 2001, Commission on Human Rights, United Nations ECOSOC, E/CN.4/Sub.2/2001/21, pp. 1–77, http://www.ref world.org/docid/3d5a2cd00.html (accessed 18 September 2018). E. I. Daes, “An Overview of the History of Indigenous Peoples”, Cambridge Review of International Affairs 21 March (2008) 1, pp. 7–26. E. I. Daes, “The Concepts of Self-Determination and Autonomy of Indigenous Peoples in the Draft United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples”, St. Thomas Law Review 259 (2001), pp. 259–269. E. I. Daes, “The Contribution of the Working Group on Indigenous Populations to the Genesis and Evolution of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples”, C. Charters and R. Stavenhagen (eds.), Making the Declaration Work. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Copenhagen: IWGIA Transaction, 2009, pp. 48–77. E. I. Daes, “The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: Background and Appraisal”, in: S. Allen and A. Xanthaki (eds.), Reflections on the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Oxford: Hart, 2009, pp. 11–41. S. E. Dawson, The Lines of Demarcation of Pope Alexander VI. and the Treaty of Tordesillas, Toronto: Transactions of The Royal Society of Canada, 1899. Deloria. Vine. Behind the Trail of Broken Treaties. An Indian Declaration of Independence. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1985. H. den Heijer, “The Dutch West India Company, 1621–1791”, in: J. Postma and V. Enthoven (eds.), Riches from Atlantic Commerce. Dutch Transatlantic Trade and Shipping 1585–1817, Leiden: Brill, 2003, pp. 77–114. H. den Heijer, Geschiedenis van de WIC. Opkomst, Bloei en Ondergang, Zutphen: Walburg Pers, 2011. L. A. de Alba, “The Human Rights Council’s Adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples”, in: C. Charters and R. Stavenhagen (eds.), Making the

318

Bibliography

Declaration Work. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Copenhagen: IWGIA Transaction, 2009, pp. 108–138. A. d’Amato, “International Law, Intertemporal Problems”, Encyclopedia of Public International Law 2 (1992), pp.1234–1236. P. d’Errico, “American Indian Sovereignty”, in A. de Oliveira (ed.), Decolonising Indigenous Rights, London: Routledge, 2009, pp. 105–122. M. A. Donis Rios, Guayana: Historia De Su Territorialidad, Caracas: Instituto de Investigaciones Hístoricas, Universidad Católica Andrés Bello, 1997. T. Donovan, “Challenges to the Territorial Integrity of Guyana: A Legal Analysis”, Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law 32 (2004), pp. 661–730. T. Donovan, “Suriname-Guyana Maritime and Territorial Disputes: A Legal and Historical Analysis”, Journal of Transnational Law & Policy 13 (Fall 2003), pp. 41–99. D. S. Dorough, “The Significance of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and its Future Implementation”, in: C. Charters and R. Stavenhagen (eds.), Making the Declaration Work. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Copenhagen: IWGIA Transaction, 2009, pp. 264–279. D. S. Dorough, “Reflections on the UN Declaration on the Rights of indigenous Peoples: An Arctic Perspective”, in: S. Allen and A. Xanthaki (eds.), Reflections on the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Oxford: Hart, 2009, pp. 507–535. C. Doyle, Indigenous Peoples, Title to Territory, Rights and Resources: The Transformative Role of Free Prior Informed Consent, London: Routledge, 2015. A. Eide, “The Indigenous Peoples, the Working Group on Indigenous Populations and the Adoption of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples”, in: C. Charters and R. Stavenhagen (eds.), Making the Declaration Work. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Copenhagen: IWGIA Transaction, 2009, pp. 32–48. C. Ebert, “Dutch Trade with Brazil before the Dutch West India Company (1587–1621)”, in: J. Postma and V. Enthoven (eds.), Riches from Atlantic Commerce: Dutch Transatlantic Trade and Shipping, 1585–1817, Leiden: Brill, 2003, pp. 49–76. G. Edmundson, “The Dutch in Western Guiana”, Ithaca: Cornell University Library, 2009, Reprint from The English Historical Review 16 (1901), pp. 1–36. S. Elden, The Birth of Territory, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2013. S. Elden, “The Significance of Territory”, Geographica Helvetica 68 (2013), pp. 65–68. S. Elden, “How Should We Do the History of Territory?”, Territory, Politics, Governance 1 (2013) 1, pp. 5–20. S. Elden, “Thinking Territory Historically”, Geopolitics 15 (2010), pp. 757–761. S. Elden, Terror and Territory: The Spatial Extent of Sovereignty, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 2009. S. Elden, “Missing the Point: Globalization, Deterritorialization and the Space of the World”, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 30 (March 2005) 1, pp. 8–19. S. Elden, Understanding Henri Lefebvre. Theory and the Possible, London: Continuum, 2004. J. H. Elliott, Empires of the Atlantic World. Britain and Spain in America, 1492–1830, New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006. K. Engle, “On Fragile Architecture. UNDRIPS in the Context of Human Rights”, European Journal of International Law 22 (2011) 1, pp. 141–163. V. Enthoven, “Early Dutch Expansion in the Atlantic Region, 1585–1621”, in: J. Postma and V. Enthoven (eds.), Riches from Atlantic Commerce. Dutch Transatlantic Trade and Shipping 1585–1817, Leiden: Brill, 2003, pp. 17–49.

Secondary Sources

319

V. Enthoven, “An Assessment of Dutch Transatlantic Commerce, 1585–1817”, in: J. Postma and V. Enthoven (eds.), Riches from Atlantic Commerce. Dutch Transatlantic Trade and Shipping 1585–1817, Leiden: Brill, 2003, pp. 385–447. A. Fitzmaurice, “The Dutch Empire in Intellectual History”, BMGN Low Countries Historical Review 132 (2017) 2, pp. 97–109. A. Fitzmaurice, Sovereignty. Property and Empire. 1500–2000, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014. A. Fitzmaurice, Humanism and America. An Intellectual History of English Colonisation, 1500–1625, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. A. Fitzmaurice, “Moral Uncertainty in the Dispossession of Native Americans”, in: P. Mancall (ed.), The Atlantic World and Virginia, 1550–1624, Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 2008, pp. 383–409. A. Fitzmaurice, “The Genealogy of Terra Nullius”, Australian Historical Studies 38 (2007) 129, pp. 1–15. J. Forte [Bulkan] and I. Melville, Amerindian Testimonies, Boise: Boise State University Press, 1989. S. Frost, “Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua”, Loyola of Los Angeles International & Comparative Law Review 36 (2014), pp. 1113–1141. C. Garcia-Salas, “Kaliña and Lokono Peoples v. Suriname”, Loyola of Los Angeles International & Comparative Law Review 40 (2017), pp. 1213–1229. J. Gilbert, “Land Rights as Human Rights: The Case for a Specific Right to Land”, SUR International Journal on Human Rights 10 (June 2013) 18, pp. 115–135. J. Gilbert, “Indigenous Rights in the Making: The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples”, International Journal on Minority and Group Rights 14 (2007), pp. 207–230. J. Gilbert, “Historical Indigenous Peoples’ Land Claims: A Comparative and International Approach to the Common Law Doctrine on Indigenous Title”, International and Comparative Law Quarterly 56 (July 2007), pp. 583–612. J. Gilbert, Indigenous Peoples’ Land Rights under International Law. From Victims to Actors, Ardsley: Transnational, 2006. J. Gilbert, “The Treatment of Territory of Indigenous Peoples in International Law”, in: J. Castellino and S. Allen (eds.), Title to Territory in International Law, Farnham: Ashgate, 2003, pp. 199–228. J. Gilbert and C. Doyle, “A New Dawn Over the Land. Shedding Light on Collective Ownership and Consent”, in S. Allen and A. Xanthaki (eds.), Reflections on the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2009, pp. 289–328. C. Gigoux and C. Samson, “Globalization and Indigenous Peoples. New Old Patterns”, in: B. Turner and R. Holton (eds.), The Routledge International Handbook of Globalization Studies, London: Routledge, 2016, pp. 287–311. J. Gimlette, Wild Coast. Travels on South America’s Untamed Edge, London: Profile Books, 2011. P. Glenn, “The Three Ironies of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples”, in: S. Allen and A. Xanthaki (eds.), Reflections on the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Oxford: Hart, 2009, pp. 171–182. N. W. Gómez, Tropics of Empire. Why Columbus Sailed South to the Indies, Cambridge: MIT, 2008. C. Goslinga, The Dutch in the Caribbean and in the Guianas 1680–1791, Assen: Van Gorcum, 1985.

320

Bibliography

C. Goslinga, A Short History of the Netherlands Antilles and Surinam, The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1979. C. Goslinga, The Dutch in the Caribbean and the Wild Coast, 1580–1680. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1971. C. Gravesande, “Amerindian Jurisdiction in the Guiana Territory in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries”, History Gazette 44 (1992), pp. 2–14. A. Gray, “Indigenous Peoples and their Territories”, in: A. de Oliveira (ed.), Decolonising Indigenous Rights, London: Routledge, 2009, pp. 17–45. L. Hanke, All Mankind is One; A Study of the Disputation between Bartolomé de Las Casas and Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda in 1550 on the Intellectual and Religious Capacity of the American Indians, DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 1974. L Hanke, “Pope Paul III and the American Indians”, Harvard Theological Review 30 (April 1937) 2, pp. 65–102. J. Harricharan, Church and Society in Trinidad, Bloomington: AuthorHouse, 2005. H. Harrisse, The Diplomatic History of America. Its First Chapter. 1452–1493/94, London: B. F. Stevens, 1897. J. Hemming, “Roraima, Brazil’s Northernmost Frontier”, UCL Institute of Latin American Studies Research Papers 20 (1991), pp. 1–56. J. Hemming, “How Brazil Acquired Roraima”, Hispanic American Historical Review 70 (May 1990) 2, pp. 295–325. J. Hemming, Amazon Frontier, London: Macmillan, 1987. J. Hemming, “Indian Frontier”, in: L. Bethell (ed.), Colonial Brazil, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987, pp. 145–189. J. Hemming, Red Gold. The Conquest of the Brazilian Indians, London: Macmillan, 1978. J. Hemming, The Search for El Dorado, London: Michael Joseph, 1978. L. Hennesy, “Re-Placing Indigenous Territory” Annals of the Association of American Geographers. 103 (2013) 5, pp. 1242–1265. J. Henriksen, “The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Some Key Issues and Events in the Process”, in: C. Charters and R. Stavenhagen (eds.), Making the Declaration Work. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Copenhagen: IWGIA Transaction, 2009. pp. 78–86. J. Hill and F. Santos-Granero, Comparative Arawakan Histories. Rethinking Language Family and Culture Area in Amazonia, Urbana/Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2002. J. D. Hill, History, Power, and Identity: Ethnogenesis in the Americas, 1492–1992, Iowa: University of Iowa Press, 1996. P. Hulme, Colonial Encounters. Europe and the Native Caribbean, 1492–1797, London: Methuen, 1986. A. Humboldt, Personal Narrative of a Journey to the Equinoctial Regions of the New Continent during the years 1799–1804, London: Longman, 1814. C. Iorns Magallane, “Understanding the Term ‘Indigenous Peoples”, in: International Law Association (ed.), The Hague Conference on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 2010, pp. 7–8 (pdf online, accessed 19 September 2018). J. Israel, The Dutch Republic. Its Rise, Greatness, and Fall, 1477–1806, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995, pp. 518–519. F. Jennings, The Invasion of America. Indians, Colonialism and the Cant of Conquest, Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1975.

Secondary Sources

321

R. Jennings, The Acquisition of Territory in International Law, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1963. H. B. Johnson, “Portuguese Settlement, 1500–1580”, in: L. Bethell (ed.), Colonial Brazil, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987, pp. 1–39. W. Jones, “Porto Rico”, The Catholic Encyclopedia 12 (1911), http://www.newadvent.org/ cathen/12291b.htm (accessed 30 September 2018). H. Jordaan, “The Curaçao Slave Market: From Asiento Trade to Free Trade, 1700–1730”, in: J. Postma and V. Enthoven (eds.), Riches from Atlantic Commerce. Dutch Transatlantic Trade and Shipping 1585–1817, Leiden: Brill, 2003, p. 219–258. E. R. Kambel and F. MacKay, The Rights of Indigenous Peoples and Maroons in Suriname, Copenhagen: IWGIA Transaction, 1999. P. Keal, “Indigenous Sovereignty”, in: T. Jacobsen, C. Sampford, and R. Thakur (eds.), ReEnvisioning Sovereignty. The End of Westphalia?, Hampshire: Ashgate, 2008, pp. 315–330. P. Keal, European Conquest and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. B. Kingsbury, ‘The Applicability of the International Legal Concept of ‘Indigenous Peoples’ in Asia”, in: J. Bauer and D. Bell (eds.), The East Asia Challenge for Human Rights, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999, pp. 336–379. B. Kingsbury, “Reconciling Five Conceptual Approaches to Indigenous Peoples’ Claims in International and Comparative Law”, NYU Journal of International Law and Politics 34 (2001) 1, pp 189–250. B. Kingsbury, and B. Straumann, The Roman Foundation of the Law of Nations: Alberico Gentili and the Justice of Empire, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. W. Klooster, “An Overview of Dutch Trade with the Americas, 1600–1800”, in: J. Postma and V. Enthoven (eds.), Riches from Atlantic Commerce. Dutch Transatlantic Trade and Shipping 1585–1817, Leiden: Brill, 2003, pp. 365–385. W. Klooster, “Curaçao and the Caribbean Transit Trade”, in: J. Postma and V. Enthoven (eds.), Riches from Atlantic Commerce. Dutch Transatlantic Trade and Shipping 1585–1817, Leiden: Brill, 2003, pp. 203–219. W. Klooster, The Dutch in the Americas. 1600–1800. A Narrative History with the Catalog of an Exhibition of rare Prints, Maps and illustrated Books from the John Carter Brown Library, Providence: The John Carter Brown Library, 1997. S. Korman, The Right of Conquest. The Acquisition of Territory by Force in International Law and Practice, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996. F. Lenzerini, Reparations for Indigenous Peoples. International and Comparative Perspectives, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. F. Lenzerini, “Sovereignty Revisited: International Law and Parallel Sovereignty of Indigenous Peoples”, Texas International Law Journal 42 (2006), pp. 155–189. F. Lenzerini, “Reparations, Redress and Remedies”, in: International Law Association, ILA (ed.), The Hague Conference on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 2010, pp. 39–43 (pdf online, accessed 19 September 2018). H. Lefèbvre, The Production of Space, Oxford: Blackwell, 1991. D. L. Level, Historia Militar y Civil de Venezuela, Madrid: Sociedad Española De Libreria, 1917. G. Lewis, Main Currents in Caribbean Thought. The Historical Evolution of Caribbean Society in its Ideological Aspects. 1492–1900, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1983. S. Lightfoot, Global Indigenous Politics. A Subtle Revolution, New York: Routledge, 2016.

322

Bibliography

S. Lightfoot, “Indigenous Mobilization and Activism in the UN System”, in: D. Short and C. Lennox (eds.), Handbook of Indigenous Peoples’ Rights, New York: Routledge, 2016, pp. 253–268. M. F. Lindley, The Acquisition and Government of Backward Territory in International Law, London: Longmans, Green and Company, 1926. S. Lindquist, Terra Nullius. A Journey Through No One’s Land, London: Granta, 2007. P. Liss, Isabel the Queen: Life and Times, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004. J. Lüdert, Conditions apply: Non-state Actors challenging State Sovereignty through Intergovernmental Organizations, Ph.D. thesis, University of British Columbia, 2016, https://open.library.ubc.ca/cIRcle/collections/ubctheses/24/items/1.0314170 (accessed 27 September 2018). P. Macklem, “Indigenous Recognition in International Law: Theoretical Observations”, Michigan Journal of International Law 30 (2008) 1, pp. 177–210. P. Macklem, “Distributing Sovereignty: Indian Nations and Equality of Peoples”, Stanford Law Review 45 (May 1993), pp. 1311–1367. T. MacCarthy, In Divided Unity. Haudenosaunee Reclamation at Grand River, Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 2016. K. MacMillan, Sovereignty and Possession in the English New World. The Legal Foundations of Empire, 1576–1640, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. W. Mader, Indians in the Americas. The Untold Story, San Diego: The Book Tree, 2005. W. Marshall and B. Brereton, “Historiography of Barbados the Windward Islands, Trinidad and Tobago and Guyana”, in: B. W. Higman (ed.), General History of the Caribbean, Vol. VI: Methodology and Historiography of the Caribbean, London/Oxford: UNESCO Publishing/ MacMillan, 1999, pp. 544–603. D. Maybury-Lewis, “Indigenous Peoples”, in: R. Maaka and C. Andersen (eds.), The Indigenous Experience. Global Perspectives, Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press, 2006, pp. 17–30. G. McCall, “Trade, Slavery, and Colonialism”, in: R. Maaka and C. Andersen (eds.), The Indigenous Experience. Global Perspectives, Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press, 2006, pp. 30–45. T. McCarthy, In Divided Unity, Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 2016. M. N. Menezes, British Policy towards Amerindians in British Guiana, 1803–1873, Georgetown: Caribbean Press, 2011 [1977]. M. N. Menezes, “The Dutch and British Policy of Indian Subsidy: A System of Annual and Triennial Presents”, Caribbean Studies 13 (October 1973) 3, pp. 64–88. D. Merwick, The Shame and the Sorrow. Dutch-Amerindian Encounters in New Netherland, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2006. D. Miller, “Debatable Lands”, International Theory 6 (March 2014) 1, pp 104–121. D. Miller, “Territorial Rights: Concept and Justification”, Political Studies 60 (2012) 2, pp. 252–268. D. Miller, “Property and Territory: Locke, Kant, and Steiner”, Journal of Political Philosophy 10 (2011) 1, pp. 90–109. R. Miller, “The International Law of Colonialism: A Comparative Analysis. Symposium ‘The Future of International Law in Indigenous Affairs: The Doctrine of Discovery, the United Nations, and the Organization of American States’”, Lewis Clark Law Review 15 (2012) 4, pp. 847–922. R. Miller, Native America, Discovered and Conquered: Thomas Jefferson, Lewis & Clark, and Manifest Destiny, Westport: Praeger, 2006.

Secondary Sources

323

M. Moore, A Political Theory of Territory, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015. M. Moore, “Which People and what Land? Territorial Right-holders and Attachment to Territory”, International Theory 6 (March 2014) 1, pp. 121–140. F. Morales-Padrón, Spanish Trinidad, Kingston: Ian Randle, 2014. J. Muldoon, “Colonial Charters: Possessory or Regulatory?”, Law and History Review 36 (May 2018) 2, pp. 355–381. A. Murphy, “Historical Justifications for Territorial Claims”, Annals of the Association of American Geographers 80 (1990) 4, pp. 531–548. A. Murphy, “The Sovereign State as Political-Territorial Ideal: Historical and Contemporary Considerations”, in: T. Biersteker and C. Weber (eds.), State Sovereignty as Social Construct, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996, pp. 81–120. A. Murphy, “Territory’s Continuing Allure”, Annals of the Association of American Geographers 103 (2013) 5, pp. 1212–1226. T. Moore, “Indivisible Sovereignty: A Reply to Pitty and Smith”, Australian Journal of Political Science 46 (September 2011) 3, pp. 551–553. R. Myers, “Island Carib Cannibalism”, Nieuwe West-Indische Gids 58 (1984) 3/4, pp. 147–184. D. Newman, “Territory, Compartments and Borders: Avoiding the Trap of the Territorial Trap”, Geopolitics 15 (2010), pp. 773–778. D. Newman, “Revisiting Good Fences and Neighbours in a Postmodern World after Twenty Years: Theoretical Reflections on the State of Contemporary Border Studies”, Nordia Geographical Publications 44 (2015) 4, pp. 13–19. D. Newman, and A. Paasi, “Fences and Neighbours in the Postmodern World: Boundary Narratives in Political Geography”, Progress in Human Geography 22 (1998) 2, pp. 186–207. R. Niezen, The Origins of Indigenism, Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008. R. Niezen, “The New Politics of Resistance”, in: R. Maaka and C. Andersen (eds.), Indigenous Experience: Global Perspectives, Toronto: Canadian Scholar’s Press, 2006, pp. 286–307. C. Nine, Global Justice and Territory, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. C. Nine, “A Lockean Theory of Territory”, Political Studies 56 (2008), pp. 148–165. L. Nuzzo, “Law, Religion and Power: Texts and Discourse of Conquest”, in: I. de la Rasilla del Moral and A. Shahid (eds.), International Law and Islam. Historical Explorations, Leiden: Brill, 2018, pp. 199–227. L. Nuzzo, and M. Vec, Constructing International Law: The Birth of a Discipline, Frankfurt: Klostermann, 2012. E. Nys, De Indis of Francisco Vitoria, New York: Oceana, 1964, pp. 9–53. G. Oostindie, Paradise Overseas. The Dutch Caribbean. Colonialism and Transatlantic Legacies, Oxford: MacMillan-Caribbean, 2005. G. Oostindie, and I. Klinkers, Decolonising the Caribbean. Dutch Policies in a Comparative Perspective, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2003. G. Oostindie, and R. Hoefte, “Historiography of Suriname and the Netherlands Antilles”, in: B. W. Higman (ed.), General History of the Caribbean Vol. VI; Methodology and Historiography of the Caribbean, London: UNESCO Publishing/MacMillan, 1999, pp. 604–630. M. Ott, “Pope Julius II”, The Catholic Encyclopedia 8 (1910), http://www.newadvent.org/ cathen/08562a.htm (accessed 30 September 2018). D. Otto, “A Question of Law or Politics? Indigenous Claims to Sovereignty in Australia”, Syracuse Journal of International Law and Commerce 21 (1995), pp. 701–739.

324

Bibliography

P. Otto, “Real Estate or Political Sovereignty? The Dutch, Munsees, and the Purchase of Manhattan Island”, in: Albert and Julia Rosenblatt (eds.), Law, Jurisprudence, and the Legacy of Dutch New York, Albany: State University of New York Press, 2013, pp. 67–82. A. Pagden, The Burdens of Empire. 1539 to Present, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015. A. Pagden, “Law, Colonization, Legitimation, and the European Background”, in: M. Grossberg and C. Tomlins (eds.), The Cambridge History of Law in America, Vol. I, Early America (1580–1815), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008, pp. 1–31. A. Pagden, Spanish Imperialism and the Political Imagination: Studies in European and Spanish-American Social and Political Theory 1513–1830, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998. A. Pagden, “The Struggle for Legitimacy and the Image of Empire in the Atlantic to c. 1700”, in: N. Canny (ed.), The Origins of Empire, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998, pp. 34–54. A. Pagden, Lords of All the World: Ideologies of Empire in Spain, Britain and France c. 1500–1800, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995. A. Pagden, European Encounters with the New World, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993. A. Pagden, “Dispossessing the Barbarian: The Language of Spanish Thomism and the Debate over the Property Rights of the American Indians”, in: A. Pagden (ed.), The Languages of Political Theory in Early-Modern Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987, pp. 79–98. J. Pasqualucci, “International Indigenous Land Rights. A Critique of the Jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in Light of UNDRIPS”, Wisconsin International Law Journal 27 (2009), pp. 51–98. M. Pearcey, The Exclusions of Civilization: Indigenous Peoples in the Story of International Society, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016. A. Pérotin-Dumon, and S. Mam-Lam-Fouch, “Historiography of the French Antilles and French Guyana”, in: B. W. Higman (ed.), General History of the Caribbean Vol. VI; Methodology and Historiography of the Caribbean, London: UNESCO Publishing/MacMillan, 1999, pp. 631–664. M. Perrera, La Provincia Fantasma: Guayana siglo XVII: Ecología Cultural y Antropología Histórica de una Rapiña 1598–1704, Caracas: Universidad Central de Venezuela, 2003. M. Perri, “‘Ruined and Lost’: Spanish Destruction of the Pearl Coast in the Early Sixteenth Century”, Environment and History 15 (May 2009) 2, pp. 129–161. R. Pitty and S. Smith, “The Indigenous Challenge to Westphalian Sovereignty”, Australian Journal of Political Science 46 (March 2011) 1, pp.121–139. J. Postma, “Suriname and Its Atlantic Connections, 1667–1795”, in: J. Postma and V. Enthoven (eds.), Riches from Atlantic Commerce. Dutch Transatlantic Trade and Shipping 1585–1817, Leiden: Brill, 2003, pp. 287–323. J. Postma, “A Reassessment of the Dutch Atlantic Slave Trade”, in: J. Postma and V. Enthoven (eds.), Riches from Atlantic Commerce. Dutch Transatlantic Trade and Shipping 1585–1817, Leiden: Brill, 2003, pp. 115–139. J. Postma, The Dutch in the Atlantic Slave Trade 1600–1815, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. E. Pulitano, Indigenous Rights in the Age of the UN Declaration, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. D. Ramos Perez, El Tratado de Límites de 1750 y la Expedición de Iturriaga al Orinoco, Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, Instituto Juan Sebastián Elcano, 1946.

Secondary Sources

325

D. Ramos Pérez, Genocidio y Conquista: Viejos Mitos Que Siguen En Pie. Madrid: Real Academia de la Historia, 1998. J. Read, J. Fragoso, K. Silvius, and J. Luzar, “Space, Place, and Hunting Patterns among Indigenous Peoples of the Guyanese Rupununi Region”, Journal of Latin American Geography 9 (2010) 3, pp. 213–243. C. Reus-Smit, “Human Rights and the Social Construction of Sovereignty”, Review of International Studies 27 (2001), pp. 519–538. P. Rivière, Absent-minded Imperialism. Britain and the Expansion of Empire in Nineteenthcentury Brazil, London: Tauris, 1995. P. Rivière, The Guyana Travels of Robert Schomburgk (1835–1844). Vol. I. Explorations on Behalf of the Royal Geographical Society (1835–1839), Vol. II. The Boundary Survey (1840–1844), London: Ashgate, 2006. P. Rivière, The Forgotten Frontier. Ranchers of Northern Brazil, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1972. L. Robertson, Conquest by Law. How the Discovery of America Dispossessed Indigenous Peoples of Their Lands, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. D. Robinson, “The Syndicate System of the Catalan Capuchins in Colonial Southeast Venezuela”, Revista de Historia de América 79 (1975), pp. 63–76. W. Rodney, A History of the Guyanese Working People, 1881–1905, London: Heinemann, 1981. K. Sale, The Conquest of Paradise: Christopher Columbus and the Columbian Legacy, New York: Plume, 1991. C. Samson, “Canada’s Strategy of Dispossession. Aboriginal Land and Rights Cessions in Comprehensive Land Claims”, Canadian Journal of Law and Society 31 (2016) 1, pp. 87–110. C. Samson, “The Rule of Terra Nullius and the Impotence of International Human Rights for Indigenous Peoples”, Essex Human Rights Review 5 (2008) 1, pp. 69–82. C. Samson and C. Gigoux, Indigenous Peoples and Colonialism. Global Perspectives, Cambridge: Polity, 2017. D. Sanders, “Developing a Modern Law on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples”, December 1994, http://www.anthrobase.com/Browse/home/hst/cache/Developing.doc.htm (accessed 18 September 2018). D. Sanders, The Formation of the World Council of Indigenous Peoples, Copenhagen: IWGIA, 1977. C. Sauer, The Early Spanish Main, Berkeley: University of California, 1966. J. Sarkin, Germany’s Genocide of the Herero, Cape Town: UCT Press, 2011. J. Schiltkamp, “On Common Ground. Legislation, Government, Jurisprudence, and Law in the Dutch West Indian Colonies: The Order of Government of 1629”, De Halve Maen LXX (Winter 1997) 4, pp. 73–80. R. Schuller, The Ordáz and Dortal Expeditions in Search of Eldorado, as described on Sixteenth Century Maps, Washington: Smithsonian, 1916. A. Schulenburg, “Abolition of Slavery”, in: D. Head (ed.), Encyclopedia of the Atlantic World, 1400–1900: Europe, Africa, and the Americas in an Age of Exploration, Trade, and Empires, Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, 2018, pp. 5–9. S. Schwartz, “Plantations and Peripheries. c. 1580–c. 1750”, in: L. Bethell (ed.), Colonial Brazil, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987, pp. 67–144. S. Schwartz, and J. Postma “The Dutch Republic and Brazil as Commercial Partners on the West African Coast during the Eighteenth Century”, in: J. Postma and V. Enthoven (eds.),

326

Bibliography

Riches from Atlantic Commerce. Dutch Transatlantic Trade and Shipping 1585–1817, Leiden: Brill, 2003, pp. 171–202. M. Shaw, International Law, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008. P. Seed, “How Globalization Invented Indians in the Caribbean”, in: E. Sansavior and R. Scholar (eds.), Caribbean Globalizations, 1492 to the Present Day, Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2015, pp. 58–82. P. Seed, American Pentimento: The Invention of Indians and the Pursuit of Riches, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2001. P. Seed, Ceremonies of Possession in Europe’s Conquest of the New World 1492–1640, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995. P. Seed, “Taking Possession and Reading Texts. Establishing Authority of Overseas Empires”, The William and Mary Quarterly 49 (April 1992) 2, pp. 183–209. P. Seed, “On Caribbean Shores. Problems of Writing History of the First Contact”, Radical History Review 53 (1992), pp. 5–11. B. Slattery, “Paper Empires: The Legal Dimensions of French and English Ventures in North America”, in: J. McLaren, A. R. Buck, and N. Wright (eds.), Despotic Dominion: Property Rights in British Settler Societies, Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 2005, pp. 50–78. A. Simpson, Mohawk Interruptus. Political Life Across the Border of Settler States, Durham: Duke University Press, 2014. A. Simpson, “Paths Toward a Mohawk Nation: Narratives of Citizenship and Nationhood in Kahnawake”, in: R. Maaka and C. Andersen (eds.), The Indigenous Experience: Global Perspectives, Toronto: Canadian Scholar’s Press, 2006, pp. 174–189. A. J. Simmons, On the Edge of Anarchy: Locke, Consent, and the Limits of Society, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993. B. Schmidt, “Mapping an Empire: Cartographic and Colonial Rivalry in Seventeenth-Century Dutch and English North America”, William and Mary Quarterly 54 (1997) 3, pp. 549–578. R. Smith, British Guiana, London: Oxford University Press, 1962. J. W. Singer, “Original Acquisition of Property: From Conquest & Possession to Democracy and Equal Opportunity”, Indiana Law Journal 86 (2011) 3, pp. 763–778. D. Singh, “Comment on the Guyana-Suriname-Boundary Dispute”, Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law 32 (2004), pp. 657–660. J. Smolinski and T. Humphrey, New World Orders. Violence, Sanction, and Authority in the Colonial Americas, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2005. R. Stavenhagen, The Emergence of Indigenous Peoples, Berlin: Springer, 2013. R. Stavenhagen, “Making the Declaration work”, in: C. Charters and R. Stavenhagen (eds.), Making the Declaration Work. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Copenhagen: IWGIA, 2009, pp. 352–371. R. Stavenhagen, “Making the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Work: The Challenge Ahead”, in: S. Allen and A. Xanthaki (eds.), Reflections on the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Oxford: Hart, 2009, pp. 147–171. A. Stilz, “Nations, States, and Territory”, Ethics 121 (2011) 3, pp. 572–601. A. Surrallés and P. Hierro, The Land Within: Indigenous Territory and the Perception of the Environment, Copenhagen: IWGIA, 2005, pp. 1–279. E. Sutton, “Possessing Brazil in Print, 1630–1654”, Journal of Historians of Netherlandish Art 5 (Winter 2013) 1, pp. 1–28.

Secondary Sources

327

J. B. Thacher, Christopher Columbus. His Life, His Work, His Remains. Vol. II, New York: Putnam’s Sons, 1904. A. O. Thompson, “Amerindian-European Relations in Dutch Guyana”, in: V. Sheperd and H. Beckeles (eds.), Caribbean Slavery in the Atlantic World, Kingston: Ian Randle, 1999, pp. 13–27. D. W. Thompson, “Pre-British Place-Names in Trinidad”, De West-Indische Gids 39 (December 1959) 2/4, pp. 137–165. P. Thompson, The Voice of the Past, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000 [1978]. P. Thornberry, “Self-Determination, Minorities, Human Rights: A Review of International Instruments”, International & Comparative Law Quarterly 38 (October 1989) 4, pp. 867–889. P. Thornberry, Indigenous Peoples and Human Rights, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2002. D. Turner, This is Not a Peace Pipe, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2006. D. Turner, “Vision: Toward an Understanding of Aboriginal Sovereignty”, in: R. Beiner and W. Norman (eds.), Canadian Political Philosophy Contemporary Reflections, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. H. Vander Linden, “Alexander VI and the Demarcation of the Maritime and Colonial Domains of Spain and Portugal 1493–1494”, The American Historical Review 22 (October 1916) 1, pp. 1–20. E. W. van der Oest, “The Forgotten Colonies of Essequibo and Demerara”, in: J. Postma and V. Enthoven (eds.), Riches from Atlantic Commerce. Dutch Transatlantic Trade and Shipping 1585–1817, Leiden: Brill, 2003, pp. 323–365. M. J. van Ittersum, “The Long Goodbye: Hugo Grotius’ Justification of Dutch Expansion Overseas, 1615–1645”, History of European Ideas 36 (2010) 4, pp. 386–411. R. J. van Lier, Frontier Society. A Social Analysis of the History of Surinam, Den Haag: Nijhoff, 1971. M. Venanzi, “Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay”, Loyola of Los Angeles International & Comparative Law Review 38 (2016), pp. 1519–1542. U. Vyas, “Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay”, Loyola of Los Angeles International & Comparative Law Review 38 (2016), pp. 1601–1626. J. Waldron, “Redressing Historic Injustice”, The University of Toronto Law Journal 52 (Winter 2002) 1, pp. 135–160. I. Wallerstein, “The Caribbean and the World-System”, Caribbean Dialogue 8 (2002) 3, pp. 15–30. M. Walters, “Mohegan Indians v. Connecticut (1705–1773) and the Legal Status of Aboriginal Customary Laws and Government in British North America”, Osgoode Hall Law Journal 33 (Winter 1995) 4, pp. 785–829. W. Washburn, Red Man’s Land/White Man’s Law. The Past and Present Status of the American Indian, Norman: The University of Oklahoma Press, 1995 [1971]. W. Washburn, “The Moral and Legal Justifications for Dispossessing the Indians”, in: J. M. Smith (ed.), Seventeenth-Century America: Essays in Colonial History, Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1959, pp. 15–32. M. Watters, “The Colonial Missions in Venezuela”, The Catholic Historical Review 23 (July 1937) 2, pp. 129–152. S. Wheatley, “Conceptualizing the Authority of the Sovereign State over Indigenous Peoples”, Leiden Journal of International Law 27 (June 2014) 27, pp. 371–396.

328

Bibliography

N. Whitehead, Of Cannibals and Kings. Primal Anthropology in the Americas, Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2011. N. Whitehead, “Kanaimá: Shamanism and Ritual Death in the Pakaraima Mountains, Guyana”, in: L. Rival and N. Whitehead (eds.), Beyond the Visible and the Material. The Amerindianization of Society in the Work of Peter Rivière, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001, pp. 235–246. N. Whitehead, “The Crisis and Transformations of Invaded Societies: The Caribbean (1492–1580)”, in F. Salomon and S. Schwartz (eds.), Cambridge History of the Native Peoples of the Americas. Vol. III. South America, Part 1, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999, pp. 864–903. N. Whitehead, “Native Peoples Confront Colonial Regimes in Northeastern South America (c. 1500–1900)”, in: S. Salomon and S. Schwartz (eds.), The Cambridge History of the Native Peoples of the Americas, Vol. III. South America, Part 2, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999, pp. 382–442. N. Whitehead, “Native American Cultures along the Atlantic Littoral of South America, 1499–1650”, Proceedings of the British Academy 81 (1993), pp. 197–231. N. Whitehead, Lords of the Tiger Spirit. A History of the Caribs in Colonial Venezuela and Guyana, 1498–1820, Dordrecht: Foris, 1988. N. Whitehead, The Conquest of the Caribs of the Orinoco basin, Ph.D. thesis, Oxford University, Balliol College, 1984. N. Whitehead, “Carib Cannibalism. Historical Evidence”, Journal de La Societé des Americanistes 1 (1984) XX, pp. 69–88. S. Wiessner, “Indigenous Self-Determination, Culture, and Land: A Reassessment in Light of the 2007 UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples”, in: E. Pulitano (ed.), Indigenous Rights in the Age of the UN Declaration, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012, pp. 31–64. S. Wiessner, “The Cultural Rights of Indigenous Peoples: Achievements and Continuing Challenges”, The European Journal of International Law 22 (February 2011) 1, pp. 121–139. S. Wiessner, “United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples”, United Nations Audiovisual Library of International Law, 2009, https://legal.un.org/avl/ha/ga_ 61-295/ga_61-295.html (accessed 22 March 2021). S. Wiessner, “Indigenous Sovereignty: A Reassessment in Light of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples”, Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 41 (2008), pp. 1141–1176. S. Wiessner, “Rights and Status of Indigenous Peoples: A Global Comparative and International Legal Perspective”, Harvard Human Rights Journal 12 (1999), pp. 57–128. C. Williams, “Resistance and Rebellion on the Spanish Frontier. Native Responses to Colonization in the Columbian Chacó. 1670–1690”, The Hispanic American Historical Review 79 (1999) 3, pp. 397–424. C. Williams, Between Resistance and Adaptation: Indigenous Peoples and the Colonisation of the Chocó, 1510–1753, Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2004. E. Williams, “Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community v. Paraguay”, Loyola of Los Angeles International & Comparative Law Review 38 (2016), pp. 1670–1690. J. Williams, “The Name of Guiana”, Journal de la Société des Américanistes 14–15 (1922), pp. 19–34. R. A. Williams, The American Indian in Western Legal Thought: The Discourses of Conquest, New York: Oxford University Press, 1990.

Newspaper Articles

329

A. Willemsen-Diaz, “How Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Reached the UN”, in: C. Charters and R. Stavenhagen (eds.), Making the Declaration Work. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Copenhagen: IWGIA, 2009, pp. 16–32. A. Xanthaki, “Indigenous Rights in International Law Over the Last 10 Years and Future Developments”, Melbourne Journal of International Law 10 (2009) 1, pp. 27–37. A. Xanthaki, Indigenous Rights and United Nations Standards: Self-Determination, Culture and Land, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. M. W. Zacher, “The Territorial Integrity Norm: International Boundaries and the Use of Force”, International Organization 55 (Spring 2001) 2, pp. 215–250. J. Zollmann, “German Colonial Law and Comparative Law”, in: T. Duve (ed.), Entanglements in Legal History: Conceptual Approaches, Global Perspectives on Legal History, Frankfurt am Main: Max Planck Institute for European Legal History, Open Access Publication, 2014, pp. 253–294.

Newspaper Articles Agence France-Press (AFP), “Dutch Apology for Indonesian Colonial Atrocities Opens Old Wounds” (1 May 2014), The Straits Times, https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/ dutch-apology-for-indonesian-colonial-atrocities-opens-old-wounds (accessed 18 September 2018). Agence France-Press (AFP), “Venezuela says UN Chief 'went too far' in Guyana Border Dispute (1 February 2018)”, www.newvision.co.ug/new_vision/news/1470185/venezuela-chiefguyana-border-dispute (accessed 18 September 2018). Agence France-Press (AFP), "UN refers Guyana-Venezuela Border Dispute to ICJ (31 January 2018)”, Straits Times, www.straitstimes.com/world/americas/un-refersguyana-venezuela-border-dispute-to-icj (accessed 18 September 2018). J. Duncley, “Caribbean renew reparations call”, 26 June 2020, https://today.caricom.org/ 2020/06/25/caribbean-scholars-renew-reparations-call-to-compensate-for-nativegenocide-and-enslavement/ (accessed 09 March 2021). J. Feagin, “A Legal and Moral Basis for Reparations (28 May 2014)”, Time, http://time.com/ 132034/a-legal-and-moral-basis-for-reparations/ (accessed 18 September 2018). CMC, “Guyana Confident of Victory at ICJ in Border Dispute with Venezuela (20 August 2018)”, www.stlucianewsonline.com/guyana-confident-of-victory-at-icj-in-border-dispute-withvenezuela/ (accessed 7 October 2018). Demerara Waves, “Expert says Venezuela cannot ‘blow hot and cold’ on ICJ’s Jurisdiction on Border Controversy with Guyana (20 June 2018)”, https://www.stlucianewsonline.com/ex pert-says-venezuela-cannot-blow-hot-and-cold-on-icjs-jurisdiction-on-border-controversywith-guyana/(accessed 7 October 2018). Demerara Waves (Denis Chabrol), “Guyana can go to World Court alone on Border Controversy” (2 February 2018)”, http://demerarawaves.com/2018/02/02/guyana-can-go -to-world-court-alone-on-border-controversy-diplomats/ (accessed 7 October 2018). M. Garschagen, “In Rawagede was de Rivier Rood (26 March 2016)” (The River was Red in Rawagede), www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2016/03/26/in-rawagede-was-de-rivier-rood-1601456a1328666 (accessed 18 September 2018).

330

Bibliography

A. Gordon, “Venezuela opts out of Border Case at ICJ (18 June 2018)”, Guyana Chronicle, http://guyanachronicle.com/2018/06/18/venezuela-opts-out-of-border-case-at-icj (accessed 18 September 2018). J. Hickel, “Enough of Aid- Let’s talk Reparations (27 November 2015)”, The Guardian, https:// www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2015/nov/27/enoughof-aid-lets-talk-reparations (accessed 18 September 2018). Jamaica Observer (CMC), “Sweden Open to Possibilities Reparations Claim (18 December 2013)”, http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/Sweden-open-topossibilities-reparations-claim_15646718 (accessed 18 September 2018). W. Kaleck, “Worauf wartest Du, Deutschland? (28 August 2018)” (What are you waiting for, Germany?), Der Spiegel, http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/voelkermord-an-hereround-nama-worauf-wartest-du-deutschland-kommentar-a-1224212.html (accessed 18 September 2018). T. Leonard and S. Tomlinson, “14 Caribbean Nations sue Britain, Holland and France for Slavery Reparations that could cost hundreds of billions of pounds (10 October 2013)”, Daily Mail, www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2451891/14-Caribbean-nations-sue-BritainHolland-France-slavery-reparations.html (accessed 18 September 2018). J. MacKenzie, “Reparations for Britain’s Atlantic Slave Trade Would Be Impracticable (8 October 2015)”, New York Times, www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/10/08/aretransatlantic-slave-trade-reparations-due/reparations-for-britains-atlantic-slave-tradewould-be-impracticable (accessed 18 September 2018). R. Mason, “Jamaica should ‘move on from painful legacy of slavery’, says Cameron” (30 September 2015), The Guardian, www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/30/jamaicashould-move-on-from-painful-legacy-of-slavery-says-cameron (accessed 18 September 2018). Merco Press, “Venezuela rejects UN Decision to take Guyana Border Controversy to The Hague (3 February 2018)”. http://en.mercopress.com/2018/02/03/venezuela-rejects-undecision-to-take-guyana-border-controversy-to-the-hague (accessed 7 October 2018). R. Noack, “The German Government still refuses to recognize one of its ‘Genocides’” (9 June 2016), The Washington Post, www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/ 2016/06/09/the-german-parliament-still-refuses-to-recognize-one-of-its-own-genocides /?utm_term=.a0cb10e05a4c (accessed 7 October 2018). C. Pazzanese, “Case for Reparation gains International Force (25 February 2016)”, Harvard Gazette, https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2016/02/case-for-reparation-gainsinternational-force/ (accessed 18 September 2018). Reuters, “Venezuela pans U.N. Decision to refer Guyana Border Dispute to ICJ (31 January 2018)”, www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-guyana-dispute/venezuela-pans-u-n-decision-torefer-guyana-border-dispute-to-icj-idUSKBN1FK301(accessed 7 October 2018). Stabroek News, “Guyana files Venezuela Border Controversy Case with ICJ (29 March 2018)”, www.stabroeknews.com/2018/news/guyana/03/29/guyana-files-venezuela-bordercontroversy-case-with-icj/(accessed 7 October 2018). Stabroek News, “Guyana to ask World Court for Ruling in its Favour (19 June 2018)”, https:// www.stabroeknews.com/2018/news/guyana/06/19/guyana-to-ask-world-court-for-ruling -in-its-favour/(accessed 7 October 2018). Sveriges Radio, “Caribbean Colony may seek Reparations for Swedish Slavery (12 March 2014)”, https://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=2054&artikel=5807753 (accessed 7 October 2018).

Newspaper Articles

331

H. Taylor, “US Court hears Case against Germany over Namibia Genocide (31 July 2018)”, Al Jazeera, www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/07/court-hears-case-germany-namibia-genocide -180731201918543.html (accessed 7 October 2018). Telesur, “Venezuela To Not Participate in Guyana-led Process at ICJ (18 June 2018)”, https:// www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Venezuela-To-Not-Participate-in-Guyana-led-Process-atICJ-20180618-0007.html. (accessed 7 October 2018). S. Tharoor, “Britain Does Owe Reparations (28 May 2015)”, https://www.oxford-union.org/ node/789 (accessed 7 October 2018). The Guardian, “UK to compensate Kenya’s Mau Mau Torture Victims (6 June 2013)”, https:// www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/06/uk-compensate-kenya-mau-mau-torture (accessed 18 September 2018). B. Ziegs, “Die juristische Auseinandersetzung mit dem Kolonialismus” (The Legal Dispute about Colonialism) (27 August 2018)”, Deutschlandfunk, www.deutschlandfunkkultur.de/ verbrechen-an-den-herero-und-nama-die-juristische.976.de.html?dram:article_id=426514 (accessed 7 October 2018). J. Zimmerer, “Habitus der Kolonialherren (24 January 2018)” (Habitus of the Colonial Rulers), Sueddeutsche Zeitung, www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/aussenansicht-habitus-derkolonialherren-1.3838662 (accessed 7 May 2018).

Index aasdomsrecht 178, 181, 196 Acuña, Diego Palomeque de 121 Africa 29, 32, 50, 174–177, 179, 185, 194 African Union 3 Aguayo, Geronimo de 84, 86 Albújar, Juan Martin de 87, 88 Algiers 123 Algonquin 31, 44, 198, 299 Alguiza, Sancho de 187 Almagro, Diego de 35 Altenbocken, Dietrick von 209 Alvarado, Eugenio 147, 160–162, 229 Amazon (Marañon, Maransan) Americas 5, 23–25, 28, 33, 42, 45, 46, 53, 64, 95, 166, 171, 172, 174, 178, 179, 185, 198, 299 Amerindians 75, 76, 83, 101, 108, 112, 201 Amsterdam 24, 39, 166, 167, 175, 177, 186, 188, 194, 195, 198, 212, 229, 239 Anaya, James 7, 9, 61 Anglo-Dutch Treaty (1814) 13, 236, 291 Angostura 7, 139, 150–152, 156, 157, 159, 164, 294, 298 Antilles, Lesser 76, 101 Antilles, Greater 74, 76, 201 appropriation, legal colonial 9, 12, 18, 25, 28, 29, 34, 73, 88–90, 114, 165, 210 appropriation, legal means of 13, 28, 36, 41, 42, 45, 46, 48, 51, 53, 56, 61, 64, 66, 70, 82, 85, 168, 172, 174, 185, 186 appropriation, indigenous laws of 299, 300 Aranda, Cristóval de 124, 202 Araucanians 43, 91 Arawak. See Indigenous Peoples Arinda 217, 218, 237–242, 245, 248, 249, 259, 268, 281, 284, 285, 298 Aripiaba 141, 281 Aruacas, Province of 84, 86–88, 93, 122, 135 Aruacas. See Indigenous Peoples Arredonda, Augustin de 146 Asscher, Lodewijk 20 Aubert, Jean 106, 107, 300 Australia 1, 4, 6, 29, 31–33, 35, 45, 175

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110690149-017

Axpe y Zuñiga, Tiburcio de 109, 134, 136 Ayala, Francisco de 80, 86 Backer, Johannes 221, 285, 286 Bahamas (Guanahani) 47–49, 62, 74 Balboa, Vasco Núñez de 35, 36 Banner, Stuart 30, 31, 179 baptism 132, 139, 188 “barbarians” 17, 63, 65–70 Barcelona, Carlos de 152 Barguicana 92, 117 Barkham case 31 Bastidas, Rodrigo de 73, 77, 101 Bauwmerona. See Pomeroon Benton, Lauren 35, 299 Berbice 15, 123, 126, 165, 175, 178–182, 185, 186, 189–201, 249, 265–267, 270, 276, 282, 283, 289, 291, 297, 299 – colony 189, 190, 193, 196 Berbice Rebellion 270, 282, 284 Berlin Congo Conference (1884/85) 33 Berrio, Antonio de 82, 89–92, 96–99, 101, 113–116, 118, 119, 123, 127, 135 Berrio, Fernando 99, 100, 119–123, 135, 187 Berrio, Francisco de 123 Beteta, Gregorio de 84 Bolívar, Simón 294, 298 Bono de Quejo, Juan 75 Bonnesique Creek 228, 229, 298 Boundary Arbitration between Venezuela and British Guiana 23, 50, 295. See also Washington Treaty of Arbitration (1897) 295 Boundary Award of Paris (1899) 8, 293, 295, 296, 299, 300 Brazil 6, 10, 37, 44, 78, 108, 138, 166, 171, 176, 180, 185, 191, 192, 195, 200, 242, 270 British Guiana 7–9, 23, 50, 291, 293, 295 Burgos 27, 61, 64 Cabot, John 37, 44, 45 Cabruta 83, 84, 105, 121, 130

334

Index

Caciques 52, 55, 79, 82, 92, 95, 97, 103, 107, 127, 146, 162, 205 Caciques – Abraham 288 – Acabari 146 – Aguareba 119, 120 – Amanatey 79 – Ankouw 288 – Araguacare 146 – Araruana 145 – Arcoeri 290 – Aretana (Aritana, Araytana, Maraywakke) 146, 246, 247, 251, 264 – Argy Manare 287 – Arroywaynyma 288 – Aruaca 119 – Aterima 95, 97 – Awamca 287 – Awamuroe 287 – Away 251 – Bacunar 79 – Baratubaro 83 – Barguicana 117 – Baron 106, 107, 299 – Behechio 53 – Caerewan 287 – Cajaromare 287 – Caonabo 53 – Carapana 117 – Caro 146 – Carroari 95, 97 – Carrouwe 288 – Chabiruma 146 – Cloos 288 – Correcanne 251 – Diamaná (Diamainmá) 79 – Guacanaagari 52 – Guanaguanare (Goanagoanare) 95, 97 – Guaramental 78 – Guarionex 53 – Guyma (Guaimá) 79 – Hierreima (Hierreyma) 102–104, 299 – Higuanama 53 – Ingles 119 – Jourawarie 283 – Macuare 132, 133 – Makrawacque 251

– Maluana 78 – Maniwara 287 – Maquarima 95, 97 – Maracayan 148 – Marjarewyna 242 – Maturin 138 – Maycay 95 – Maycoannaree 288 – Mayroa 81 – Moraru 288 – Morawary 288 – Mori 92 – Moriquite (Morequito) 97, 114 – Ocapra 133 – Oerakaja 287 – Oraparene 161, 162 – Orocopón 78 – Pamacoa 79 – Paraco 95 – Paraguani 79 – Paripa 141, 155, 279, 281 – Patacon 148, 161, 162 – Perivuris 288 – Tabari 146 – Taricura 111, 139, 145, 146, 149, 162, 246 – Taroopanama 95, 97 – Tuapocan 138, 139 – Turipari 78, 79 – Utuyaney 79 – Warouws (Warao) 127, 132, 234, 276–280, 288, 297, 300 – Weepackea 127 – Yacabai 139 – Yaguaria 145 Cadiz 49, 52 Cameron, David 21 Campbell, Alexander 113 Campbell, Stephen 7, 8, 11 Canada 1, 4, 6 Candardt, Abraham 271 cannibalism, Carib 16, 17, 43, 44, 56–58, 60, 62, 64, 70, 72, 75, 76, 122, 130 cannibalism, punishment for 59, 69, 170 cannibals 54, 55, 58, 60, 64, 130, 242 Cape Verde 53, 176, 194 capitulaciones 48, 52, 53, 77, 81, 82, 84, 87–89, 116, 203. See also letter patents

Index

Capuchin missions 94, 135, 136, 144, 146–150, 153, 156, 162, 165, 251–257, 259, 260. See also missions Capuchins 14, 109–112, 136–140, 150, 155–157, 259, 261, 277–281, 297 – Andalusian 140 – Aragonese 111, 133, 136 – Catalonian 110, 112, 134, 139–141, 143, 147, 151–156, 160, 164, 165, 237, 248, 270, 298 captives 54, 80, 82, 87, 97, 98, 114, 115, 123, 148, 151 – war captives 58, 59, 69, 73, 76, 79 Caracas 24, 109, 128, 130, 131, 155, 159, 202 “Caraibans” 197, 241, 259, 260, 262, 264–268, 279, 280, 284–287 Carib-Acawaio War 264, 266 Caribs 16, 60, 72, 74, 84, 91, 92, 94–96, 103–114, 116, 118–124, 126–128, 130–139, 141, 144, 147, 149–151, 159, 160, 162–164, 182–184, 187, 189, 198, 199, 202, 205, 207, 209, 226, 242, 244, 246–248, 250–252, 258–262, 265, 267, 268, 276–279, 281–287 – attacks of 78, 80, 94, 96, 100, 104, 106, 107, 114, 122, 143, 145, 146, 148, 149, 157, 161, 189, 200, 202, 204, 205, 207, 257, 259, 260, 264, 266, 269, 271, 272, 298 – of Dominica 80, 82, 100, 120, 122 – of Guayana 80 – of Trinidad 80, 113 – Orinoco Caribs 13, 146, 297 Carib-Warouw War (1748) 269 Caroni River 81, 84, 91, 92, 95, 99, 114, 124, 127, 144, 145, 161 Carreño, José 138 Carthagena 57, 58, 60, 176, 194 Caura 87, 101, 105, 108, 116, 127, 132, 133, 137, 145, 146, 148, 162, 163, 297 Cayenne 167, 175, 187–189, 191, 192, 194 Centurion, Manuel 140, 141, 149, 150–153, 159, 164, 165, 279 Charles I, King 204 Charles II, King 207, 208 Charles III, King 141 Charles IV, King 154

335

Charles V 63, 64, 70, 71, 77, 78 Charter of Acadia 37 Chávez, Luis-Enrique 4 Cherokee Nation vs. Georgia (1830) 41 Chesapeake Bay 35 Chile 6, 36, 43 Christianity 43, 72, 278 – rejection of 58, 60, 62, 68, 70, 75, 78, 170, 174 – spread of 42, 52, 58, 64, 67, 69–71, 77, 131, 170 Claessen, Theodore 175, 188, 194 Colón, Cristóbal. See Columbus, Christopher colonization 9, 10, 12–14, 18, 19, 23–25, 27, 28, 40, 41, 45, 294, 299–301 – British 14, 21 – Dutch 15, 18 – Spanish 15, 18, 32, 46 Colt, Henry 106 Columbia 4 Columbus, Christopher 16, 35, 36, 46–56, 64, 73, 77, 94, 95, 166, 201, 294 Compagnie des Isles de l’Amérique 37 compensations 11, 20, 21 Connecticut 30, 31, 44, 179 conquest 13, 14, 16, 19, 27, 32, 36, 42–45, 48, 53, 66, 68–71, 82, 84, 88, 93, 96, 98, 107, 119, 131, 136, 143, 163, 164, 169–171, 180, 185, 291, 297, 299 – doctrine of 11, 12, 28, 34, 41, 77, 174, 186 – replacement by pacification 70, 72, 89, 94, 110, 114, 132, 136, 164 conversion 58, 62, 68, 70, 72, 140, 143, 170. See also Christianity; Holy Faith Cook, James 31, 32, 45 Corentyne (Corantijn) 86, 167, 187, 270, 271, 281, 283, 296 Cortes, Melchor 187 Cosby, William 30 Cotton, John 30 Council of the Indies 24, 43, 80, 100, 108, 110, 115, 116, 120, 154, 163, 187, 297 Courland 186, 204–206, 208, 209 Courland, Duke of 200, 205, 207–209 Courten, William 197 Courthial, Ignatius 234, 254 Creole Island 221, 222

336

Index

Crewitz, Christian 221, 223 Cruijnsen (Crynsen), Abraham 183, 206, 211, 222 Cuba (Juana) 47–49, 54, 63 Cubagua 73, 75, 76, 78, 79, 101 Cumaná 24, 76, 98, 108, 109, 111, 112, 115–117, 119, 120, 122, 128, 130, 131, 135–139, 157, 158, 160, 176, 201, 255 260, 263, 269 Cumanagoto. See Indigenous Peoples Curamueuru Island 257, 269, 298 Curaçao 62, 176–178, 185, 194, 198, 282 Cuyuni (Cajoeny) 13, 130, 138, 141, 145, 150, 184, 197, 226, 234, 236, 243, 248, 250–254, 256–264, 278, 282, 296, 297 – Lower 211, 213–215, 220, 221, 237, 255, 269, 270, 298, 299 –Upper 244, 249, 269 D’Olive, Charles 107 da Gama, Vasco 44 De Bry, Johann Theodor 81, 84, 87, 114, 127 de Carvajal y Lancaster, José 158 De Freitas, Serafim 27, 42, 170 de la Peña, Juan 72 de Montes, Roque 89 Declaration of Independence, USA (1776) 40 Declaration of Independence, Venezuela (1811) 299 Demerara 14, 24, 165, 198, 212, 226, 233–236, 254, 264–267, 270, 276, 282, 283, 286, 287, 291, 297, 298 deportation 136–138 discovery, doctrine of 12, 13, 25, 28, 34–40, 45, 46, 48, 51, 53, 77, 82, 84, 87, 90, 91, 116, 168, 169 Dominica 54, 74, 80, 82, 96, 99, 100, 101, 106, 107, 118, 120, 122, 207, 209, 299 Dominicans 61–64, 71, 72, 130 du Plessis, Jean 107 Dudley, Robert 97 Dyk, Arnoldus 264 Earl of Warwick 204, 205 East India Company, Dutch (VOC) 39, 167, 168, 173, 178 East India Company, English (EIC) 168

East Indies 29, 166, 168, 171, 179, 196 El Dorado 38, 87, 89–91, 118, 131, 239 Elizabeth I, Queen 37 encomiendas 64, 71, 99, 101, 102, 108, 111–113, 204 Engelhardt, Édouard 33 English Common Law 31, 35 Enkhuizen 186 enslavement 17, 43, 44, 46, 61–65, 67, 69, 71, 73, 93, 99, 100, 102, 110, 114, 131, 132, 135, 243 – prohibition of 56–59, 64, 76–78, 120, 181–183, 185, 195, 198, 200 Escobar, Diego 102–106, 199, 202, 203 Espinosa, Josef Francisco de 160 Essequibo (Isekepe) 16, 87, 104, 105, 121–124, 126–130, 138, 155, 162, 163, 164, 177, 179–181, 183, 185, 186, 189, 190, 193, 195–200, 206, 210–229, 234–236, 241, 252–260, 270, 279, 281, 284, 286, 287, 289–292 – Lower 197, 211, 217, 220, 225, 227, 228, 233, 237, 283 – Upper 197, 211, 216, 217, 220, 222, 224, 237, 238, 242–245, 248, 249, 267, 269, 270, 282, 286, 297, 298 Essequibo colony 14, 199, 200, 201, 210, 211, 216, 217, 229, 236, 239, 242, 244–246, 249, 252, 266–268, 271, 276, 277, 282, 285, 286, 297, 298 expeditions, enslavement 75–79, 105, 120, 127, 163 expeditions, punishment 74–76, 113, 127, 132, 138, 202 Fajardo, Francisco 63 Ferdinand II, King 43, 47, 50, 56, 59–61, 63, 73, 74 Ferrer de Blanes, Jaume 52 Figueroa, Rodrigo de 16, 62, 63, 75, 76, 86 “first occupant” 40, 66, 172 Flag Island (Vlaggen Island) 227–230, 236, 283, 298 Florida 35, 37, 138, 176, 252 Fort Hipoqui 164, 298 Fort Kijkoveral 193, 200–213, 223, 226, 234, 256, 273, 274, 284

Index

Fort San Carlos 133, 135 Fort Zeelandia 211, 213, 222, 227–229, 236, 238, 242, 252, 253, 287, 298 Franciscan missions 139. See also missions Franciscans 14, 96, 108, 139, 140, 203 François I, King 37 Galle, Daniel 271 Gambia 32, 176, 194, 208 Garriga, Benito de la 139, 147, 280 Gast, Pierre du 37 Gastel, Adriaen van 272 Gentili, Alberico 26, 42 Gilbert, Humphrey 37, 38 Grados, Jeronimo de 121, 122 Great Britain 32, 181, 195, 292–296, 299 Groenewegen, Aert Adriaenssen 104, 126, 196, 197, 199, 200, 299 Grotius, Hugo 17, 23, 26–29, 31, 34, 35, 42, 43, 45, 58, 65, 70, 166–174, 178, 182, 186, 209, 269 – De Jure Belli ac Pacis (1625) 23, 27, 42, 166, 169, 171–173, 178 – Mare Liberum (1609) 23, 27, 34, 166, 168, 169, 171 Guanahani. See Bahamas Guarani War 158 Guarapiche 109, 112, 119, 122, 130, 132, 133, 135, 137, 139, 297 Guayana 8, 80, 84, 87–92, 98, 104, 106, 107, 110, 116, 123, 126–128, 130, 131, 136, 139, 145, 156, 160, 165 Guerra, Cristóbal 73 Gustav Adolf, King 39, 174 Guterres, António 8, 300 Guzman, Cristobal Felix de 111 Halimand Treaty 5 Hammar, Claes 20 Haudenosaunee 5 Henry IV, King 37 Henry VII, King 37 Hispaniola. See Santo Domingo “Holy Faith” 58, 62, 64, 68–70, 78, 95. See also Christianity hostage practices 54, 102, 107, 115, 205, 299

337

Humboldt, Alexander von 82, 138 idolatry 42, 59, 62, 69 ill-treatment 77, 81, 118, 184, 185, 218, 226, 243, 281 India 6, 32, 44 “Indians” 16, 23, 30, 38, 42, 44, 48, 54, 57, 59–64, 72, 75, 79–81, 83, 91, 96, 99, 101, 105, 106, 108, 110–112, 116, 121, 130, 131, 133, 140, 141, 151, 154–156, 161–165, 169, 181, 183, 184, 197, 202, 204, 205, 217, 234, 237, 243–246, 251, 252, 257–263, 267, 268, 274–281, 284 – Aruac 84, 120, 280 – Carib 43, 76, 88, 126, 136, 137, 187, 199, 226 – Chiama 278 – Mapoye 128 – Pequot 31, 179 “Indians”, “friendly” 63, 78, 90, 102, 117, 120, 122, 127, 138, 207, 271, 288 – “rebellious” 60, 74, 79, 103 Indigenous Peoples of northeastern South America – Achagua 84, 90, 91 – Acowaio (Accoways) 133, 194, 197, 225, 225, 246–249, 251, 264–267, 282–284, 286–289, 297 – Arawak (Aruacas) 7, 8, 10, 11, 15, 16, 53, 55, 56, 74, 76, 78, 80, 81, 83, 84, 86, 87, 95–98, 101, 102, 106, 111, 112, 114, 116, 126–128, 145, 182, 183, 184, 187, 195–199, 201, 205, 227, 247, 250, 265, 266, 270, 271, 276, 277, 279, 283, 284, 288–290, 297, 300 – Barinagoto 162, 165 – Camaragoto 147 – Carinepagoto 79, 95–98, 101, 102, 113 – Cerekon 13, 242, 281, 284, 297 – Chaguanas (Chaguanes) 105, 121, 128, 297 – Chiamas (Chaimas, Shiamacotte) 148, 151, 277, 278, 280, 297 – Commanagoto (Cumanagoto) 76, 88, 130, 131, 201 – Chacopatas 88 – Guaicas (Guayacas) 147, 149, 162, 257

338

Index

– Guaranos (Guaraunos) 151 – Guayanos 84, 92, 114, 119, 121, 124, 128, 135, 141, 143, 144, 147, 150, 151, 154, 297, 298 – Guayqueri 63, 106, 132 – Iao (Yao) 96–98, 101, 127, 197, 270, 297 – Lucayan 74 – Magnauts 184, 197, 241, 242, 267, 268, 297 – Makushi 133, 241, 297 – Mapoie (Mapoyo) 128, 132, 146 – Nepoio 92, 94, 96, 101–103, 106, 110, 111, 127, 132, 146, 199, 202, 206, 297, 299 – Omagua 87 – Panacay 148, 260 – Paracoates 187, 189 – Paraugotos 149, 151 – Pariagoto (Pariacotte) 112, 143, 250, 297 – Pariapo 147 – Perhavians 197, 241, 297 – Sapoyos 127, 128, 189, 297 – Shebaio 101 – Tivitives (Tibetibes) 94, 103, 105, 127, 128, 200, 297 – Wapishana 133, 241, 297 Indigenous Peoples, resistance of 57, 61, 79, 80, 110, 119, 130, 239 inheritance 89, 174, 178, 181, 196 Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) 10, 24, 301 International Court of Justice (ICJ) 8, 32, 300 Isabella I, Queen 16, 43, 47, 49, 51, 56–59, 60, 73 Iske, Johann Stephanus 257, 259 Itturiaga, Joseph 150, 160–163 Jamaica 21, 54, 209 James I, King 38 James II, King 209 Jamestown 31, 38, 198, 299 Jansse, Gerritt 241, 242 Jefferson, Thomas 40 Jessup, Philip 32 Jesuits 110, 132, 134, 139, 140, 146, 165 Johnson vs. M’Intosh (1823) 40 Jorge, Alvaro 97, 115, 118

Jurado, José 138 jurisdiction 31, 47, 70, 72, 101, 113, 122, 155, 168, 169, 171–174, 178, 180, 185, 191, 192, 195, 210, 234, 237, 289, 293, 294, 300. See also sovereignty – Dutch 16, 180, 181, 236, 247, 248, 265, 269, 299 – papal 34, 65 Kalinago 100, 122, 205, 206, 209 Kellogg-Briand-Pact (1928) 41 Kenia 20 Keymis, Lawrence 121, 300 labour, forced 76, 184 Labrid, Nicolas Gervaise 278 Lampsins colony 201, 205, 206, 207 Lampsins, Adriaen 204, 206, 207 Lampsins, Cornelis 205, 206, 207 Landazuré, Thomas Ortiz de 154 Las Casas, Bartolomé de 27, 63, 64, 71, 72, 80 law of nations 7, 12, 18, 26–29, 33, 41, 46, 50, 66, 71, 206, 276 law rule, intertemporal 18, 21, 25, 41, 290, 293, 294, 299–301 Laws of Burgos (1512) 27, 61, 64 League of Nations 5 Leeward and Windward Islands 43, 101, 207 Leguaan Island 231, 232, 298 Lenape 30, 167, 179 Lenzerini, Federico 1, 32, 33 letter patents 36, 37, 70, 84, 87, 88, 91, 98, 114, 116, 196, 202 Lezana, Juan de 121, 122 Locke, John 27, 39, 170 Mabo vs. Queensland (1992) 33 Maburesa 127, 197 Maerten, Jacob 201, 202 Magellan, Ferdinand 35, 36 Maldonado, Diego Ruiz 105, 128, 130, 131 Manrrique, Margarita Aldonca 88 Māori 31, 45 Marañon (Amazon) 82, 87, 88, 127, 137, 139, 164, 187

Index

Marchial, Peter 225, 226, 243, 244, 246–248, 252, 264 Margarita 62, 74, 80, 86–88, 92, 99, 100, 106, 108, 120, 128, 130, 131, 138, 201, 203 Marmion, Miguel 155 marriage practices 178, 196–198, 299 marriage, forced 197, 198 Marshall, John 40, 41, 203 Martitz, Ferdinand von 33 Masham, Robert 106, 203 Mau Mau 20, 21 Mazaruni (Massaruni), Lower 211, 213, 214, 217, 220, 221, 223–227, 251, 264, 266, 298 – Upper 13, 133, 249, 251, 252, 264, 267 Mendoza, Joachim Moreno de 159 Mendoza y Berrio, Martin de 107, 131, 132 Middelburg 166, 186, 201, 212, 213, 272 Minaya, Bernadino de 64 Minuit, Peter 179 missionaries 14, 44, 109–111, 134, 137, 138, 140, 141, 143, 148, 153, 154, 156, 164, 259, 261, 277, 279–281, 297. See also Capuchins; Franciscans missions – Anjel Custodio de Aicana 154, 155 – Arrecifes 111 – Asución 111 – Ayma 147, 150, 156, 162 – Barceloneta (Barceloneta de Españioles) 164, 298 – Calvario 150, 151, 153 – Caronis 136, 143, 144, 153, 157, 165 – Casacayma (Payarayma) 144, 146, 151 – Cavallapi 149, 151 – Cuara 111 – Cunuri 147, 148 – Curumo 147, 148 – Divina Pastora 112, 143, 144, 151 – Mamo 146, 156, 298 – Maruanta 150, 151 – Matanambe 147, 148 – Miamo 147, 151 – Mucurapo 95, 111 – Murucuri 148, 153, 161, 162 – Naparimas 110–113

339

– Palmar 143, 147, 148 – Panapotar 138, 139 – Pariri 138, 139 – Puedpa 147, 148, 151, 156 – San Antonio de Caroni 140, 141, 144–147, 150, 153, 156, 157 – San Augustin de Arauca 111 – San Francisco de Alta Gracia 143 – San Francisco de los Arenales 109, 110, 133 – San Joacquin 138, 151 – San José de Cupapuy 143 – San Joseph de Otomacos 146 – San Juan Bautista de Avechiva (Supama) 149, 154, 156, 257, 264 – San Miguel de Unata 145 – San Pedro de Bocas 151 – San Pedro de Pacarigua (Tacarigua) 111 – Santa Maria de Los Angeles 146 – Santa Rosa de Arima 111 – Santa Rosa de Cura 154 – Suay 140–145, 150, 156, 157, 260, 298 – Tacarigua 101, 111, 204 – Tumeremo (Cantuario) 141, 154–156, 298 – Tupuquen 141, 147–151, 155, 156, 279, 281 – Tupurma (Tiparua) 144, 146 – Yaruari 151, 156 Molleyns, Wilhelm 204, 205 Monsalbe, Luis 123 Montesinos, Antonio de 61 Montesinos, Francisco de 86 Moor, Jan de 103, 188, 189, 194, 196, 201–203 Munoz, Juan Baptista 46 natives 31, 40, 60, 72, 73, 100, 101, 105, 120, 121, 123, 124, 127, 131, 163, 177, 190, 208, 212, 239 Navarrete, Rodrigo 86 Neelis, Diederick 233, 280 New France 33, 176 New Granada, Kingdom of 88, 89, 108, 157 New Jersey 29, 30 New Netherland 39, 167, 176, 177, 179, 180, 183, 185, 194 New Spain 118, 137 New York 1, 21, 30

340

Index

New Zealand 1, 4, 31, 45 North America 27, 29, 30, 33, 36–38, 44, 45, 167, 179, 187 Nova Zeelandia (Pomeroon) 182, 195, 201, 212, 270, 272, 296 Nueva Andalucía 87 Nueva Extremadura 87, 130 Ocampo, Gonzalo de 76 occupation 25, 28, 31–41, 45, 52, 70, 91, 94, 113, 114, 135, 166, 171, 172, 174, 177, 178, 180, 185, 186, 191, 192, 197, 209, 211, 237, 248, 255, 256, 289, 291, 294, 295, 298, 299. See also conquest; discovery; sovereignty; jurisdiction Olazarra, José 156 Ordás, Diego de 77, 79, 82–84, 86 Oregon 40 Orinoco (Huyapari) 13, 73, 77–80, 82–84, 86–88, 90–92, 94, 96–98, 100, 104, 105, 109, 114, 116–122, 124, 126–128, 130, 132, 134–137, 139–141, 143, 145–147, 150, 156, 158, 159, 163, 176, 180, 183, 184, 189, 199, 200, 202, 238–242, 246, 249, 251, 253, 254, 258, 266, 269, 270, 275–281, 283–285, 291, 292, 296–299 – Lower 93, 112, 127, 134, 136, 140, 151, 155–157, 160, 277, 297, 298 – Upper 83, 84, 139, 140, 160, 163, 165 Order of San Salvador 178, 180, 198 Ousiel, Jacques 102, 103, 200, 203 Ovando, Nicolás de 56 Oviedo, Fernandez de 82–84 “Owls” (Indian Chiefs) 246, 249, 251, 264, 265, 274, 279, 281, 283–290. See also Caciques pacification 36, 70, 72, 77, 79, 89, 93, 94, 108, 110, 114, 132, 136, 143, 161, 162, 164. See also conquest Pakistan 6, 32 Panama 6, 11, 76 Panapana 150, 151 papal bulls – Dudum siquidem 23, 46, 49, 51, 52 – Ea Quae 52

– Eximiae Devotionis 23, 46, 49–51 – Inter Caetera I 23, 26, 46–51, 56 – Inter Caetera II 23, 26, 46, 47, 49–53 – Intra Arcana 63, 77, 78 – Pontifex Romanus 101 – Sublimis Deus 64, 65, 77, 87 Paraguay 6, 10, 11, 165 Paragua River 148, 163, 164, 297, 298 Paria 55, 63, 73, 76–79, 81, 82, 93, 118, 130, 176, 294 Paris Award of 1899. See Boundary Award Peace of Breda (1667) 183, 216 Pearl Coast 63, 87 pearl fisheries 76, 80, 100 Penn, William 30 Pennsylvania 30 Pequot Indians 31, 44, 179 Pequot Wars 44 Philipp II, King 36, 72, 82, 87, 89, 90 Piepersberg, Engelbert 223, 224, 226–228, 240, 243, 247, 252 pirogues 81, 91, 92, 95, 99, 100, 104, 109, 122, 128, 130, 132, 133, 145, 146, 207 plantations: cocoa 214, 215, 218, 221, 298 – coffee 214, 215, 218, 221, 236, 255, 256, 298 – indigo 214, 215, 221, 223 255, 256, 259 – tobacco 167, 187, 202, 203 plantations, free 211, 215–218, 220–222, 229 Pocahontas 31, 198, 299 Pomeroon 109, 135, 177, 182, 195, 201, 206, 211, 212, 227, 267, 270–275, 277, 280, 281, 286, 287, 296, 297, 299 Pomeroon River 197, 235, 270, 274, 279, 289 – Upper 141, 155, 279, 281, 297 Ponce de León, Juan Troche 44, 73, 80–82, 88, 94, 101 popes: Alexander VI 26, 34, 46, 47, 49, 51, 52, 56 – Benedict XIV 64 – Clement V 63 – Gregory XVI 64 – Julius II 58–60, 62 – Paul III 64 – Paul V 43 – Urban VIII 64

Index

Portugal 20, 37, 49, 50, 52, 53, 158, 168, 169 possession taking, symbolic 35, 54, 55, 81, 94 Prevost, Claude 189, 192 proclamations, symbolic 48, 94 property 31, 113, 170–172, 174, 178, 180, 182, 185, 248, 256, 269, 289, 295, 299, 300. See also jurisdiction; sovereignty property by occupation 113, 191, 192, 209, 289, 291, 294, 299 Psamonte, Miguel de 76 Puerto Rico 54, 59, 63, 74, 75, 79, 80, 82, 101, 128, 137 Pufendorf, Samuel von 27 Punta de Galera 122 purchase agreements 29–32, 34, 44, 178, 179 Quesada, Gonzalo Ximinez de 88, 89 Raleigh, Walter 37, 38, 95–98, 105, 114–117, 121, 197, 299, 300 Raleigh, Wat 121, 128 res nullius 28, 29, 32–34, 168 172 Rio de la Plata 33, 118 Rio Negro 133, 139, 140, 165, 268 Rodriguez, Juan 99, 202 Rol, Hendrik 212, 249 Roteta, Sebastian de 108 Rotterdam 166, 186 Royal African Company 208 Royal Audiencia of Santa Fé de Bogotá 88, 99, 107, 124, 132 Saint Vincent 107, 210 San Fernando 160 San Francisco 5, 157 San Joseph (de Oruña) 24, 93–109, 111–117, 124, 134, 200, 204, 272 Sandoval, Sancho de Angulo 135–137 Santiago, Phelipe de 116 Santo Domingo (Hispaniola) 43, 47–49, 52–56, 59–61, 63, 64, 73–78, 80, 86, 95, 100, 120, 137, 211 Santo Tome de Morequito (Santo Thomé de Moriquite) 24, 99, 102–104, 113, 114,

341

116, 119–126, 128, 131–136, 140, 144, 145, 148–150, 157, 159, 160, 183, 200, 204, 271, 298 Santo Tome de Usupamo 124, 147 Schaghen, Peter 179 schependomsrecht 178 Schomburgk, Robert 291, 292 School of Salamanca 26, 64, 72. See also Vitoria, Francisco de Schreuder, Pieter 242 Scott, John 190, 206 Seacoast Revolt (1772) 285, 286 Secret Boundary Expedition 136, 157–161, 260, 282 Sedeño, Antonio 73, 77–79, 81, 82, 94 Sepúlveda, Juan Ginés de 27, 71 Serpa, Diego Fernández de 84, 87, 88 settlements 35, 155, 158, 177, 257, 291 – Carib 91, 116, 130–132, 134, 163 – Dutch 102, 103, 105, 124, 167, 171, 175, 182, 186–190, 195, 196, 199, 201, 203, 296 – English 29, 121, 189, 204, 209, 291 – French 37, 107, 189, 210 – indigenous 83, 84, 102, 105, 112, 114, 117, 127, 138, 270 – Spanish 77, 79, 81–83, 88, 89, 93–97, 101, 102, 114, 122, 128, 130, 133, 134, 136, 137, 139, 147, 150, 157, 158, 160, 164, 202, 298 Sierra Imataca 105, 152, 264, 296 Silva, Pedro de 87, 88 slave raids 43, 44, 59, 63, 74–76, 78–80, 86, 127, 128, 202 slave trade 14, 120, 135, 164, 184 slave traders 73, 75–77 slavery 16, 20, 21, 58, 74, 108, 181 slaves 57, 65, 73, 106, 110, 122, 123, 130, 131, 163, 215, 230, 233, 236, 243, 251, 276 – African 99, 100, 158, 207, 230, 251, 275, 282–284, 286, 288, 290 – indigenous 56, 61, 65, 71, 73, 76, 78–80, 99, 105, 121, 133 – “red slaves” 183, 184, 237, 238, 249, 251, 252, 274, 275

342

Index

Solano, Joseph 150, 152, 158–160 Sotomayor, Cristóbal de 59, 74 sovereignty 2, 5, 7, 19, 61, 113, 150, 171–174, 178, 180, 182, 185, 192, 209, 269, 289, 291, 293, 294, 299, 300. See also jurisdiction; property – indigenous 20, 32, 41, 70 Spain 20, 26, 34, 36, 37, 46, 47, 49–53, 55–57, 61, 64–66, 73, 88, 89, 93, 117, 118, 123, 126, 131, 150, 158, 167, 188, 192, 260, 295, 299 – King of 24, 36, 37, 43, 48, 54, 59, 61, 70, 78, 82, 84, 87, 89–91, 95, 96, 105–107, 110, 111, 118, 121, 122, 138, 155, 159, 164, 176, 252, 257, 258, 273, 279, 282, 293, 297 Stabroek 236 Stedevelt, Nicolas 243–245 Stok, Jan Baptist 218, 220, 243, 245 Sucre, Carlos de 39, 141, 157 Suriname 206, 211, 222, 239, 271, 274, 299 ten Haeft, Adriaen 186 terra nullius 11, 25, 28, 32, 33, 45, 53 Tierra Firme 73, 74, 76, 132 Tivitives (Tibetibes) 94, 103, 105, 127, 128, 200, 297 Toenamoeto Island 263, 269 Tollenaer, Pieter 216, 217, 241 Treaty of Amiens (1802) 93, 94, 113, 291, 294, 299 Treaty of London (1814) 24 Treaty of Madrid (1750) 24, 37 Treaty of Münster (1648) 24, 107, 131, 254 Treaty of Nijmegen (1678/79) 209 Treaty of Tordesillas (1494) 26, 46, 50, 52 Treaty of Utrecht (1713) 24 Treaty of Waitangi (1840) 31 Treaty of Westminster (1674) 207 treaty making 28, 70, 94, 114, 166, 174, 177, 185, 186 Trotz, Georg 232, 281, 285, 287 United States of America (USA) 1, 6, 41 United Nations 5

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) 1–3, 6, 9–11, 18, 19, 24, 294, 301 United Nations Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples 6 United Provinces of the Netherlands 24, 131, 175, 182, 192, 195, 206, 258, 273, 293, 295, 299 Unzaga, Luis de 154 Usselincx, Willem 39, 167, 174 Valdivia, Pedro de 43 Valladolid debate 27, 71. See also Sepúlveda; Las Casas van Bercheyck, Laurens Lodewyk 229 van der Burgh, Jacobus 237 van der Goes, Jan 193, 196, 198–201 van der Heijden, Abraham 233 van der Heijden, Stephanus Gerardus 221–223, 227 228, 233, 286 van der Wehe, Philippus 218, 220, 223, 224 van Pere, Abraham 175, 182, 190–201, 299 van Rhee, Pieter 189, 193, 202 van Rooden, Jacobus 230 van Sommelsdijk, Cornelis 15, 182, 183, 271, 299 van’s Gravesande, Bernard Jacob 229 van’s Gravesande, Laurens Storm 215, 222, 224, 226, 229, 232, 235, 253–256, 260, 268, 283 van Wittinge, Jan 262, 263 van Wittinge, Pieter 233 Varken Island 227, 230 Vattel, Emer de 27 Venezuela 6–8, 23, 24, 50, 78, 80, 123, 136, 291–296, 299, 300. See also Boundary Arbitration Vera, Domingo de 94–96, 99, 113, 116–119 Verhulst, Willem 167, 179 Vides, Francisco de 98, 115–117, 202 Viedma, Pedro 132–134 Villacorta, Andres de 79 Villalobos, Marcello de 74 Villasana, Francisco 160

Index

violence 67, 252, 260, 268, 278, 281 violent removal 112, 136, 138, 141, 143, 156, 164, 237, 251, 252, 259, 270, 277–279, 282 Virginia 381, 176 Virginia Company 31, 38 Virginia massacre (1622) 44, 45 Vitoria, Francisco de 16, 23, 26, 28, 31, 34, 35, 42, 43, 45, 46, 58–60, 62, 64–72, 75, 77–80, 93, 94, 95, 97, 105, 114, 166, 168–174 Vlissingen 188, 200–204, 212, 272 VOC. See East India Company, Dutch Wacupo 267, 273, 274, 296 Wacquename Island 217, 227, 228, 231 Walcheren cities 182, 195, 201, 204–206, 212, 270, 299 Wampanoag 31 war, “just” causes for 42, 43, 58, 66–70, 78, 166, 169, 170, 174 – unjust” causes for 62, 66, 69, 71, 75, 95, 170, 173 Warner, Thomas 101, 204 Washington Treaty of Arbitration (1897) 293, 296, 298, 299

343

West India Company (WIC) 30, 39, 166–168, 171, 176, 179–202, 233, 234, 239, 244, 249, 250, 254, 259, 263, 266, 267, 276, 287 – Charters 174, 175, 177, 178, 180, 191, 195, 212, 270 – WIC Nineteen 188, 192, 199, 201, 212 – WIC Ten 24, 272, 287, 289 – WIC Zeeland 175, 190, 193, 194, 199–201, 212, 216, 229, 253, 255, 261, 263, 272, 274, 275, 285, 299 WIC plantations 184, 211–217, 221–223, 225, 229, 230, 283, 298 Western Sahara 32, 33. See also terra nullius Westphalian states 2, 3, 6, 7 WGIP. See UN Working Group on Indigenous Populations Wiapoco River 167, 187–189, 191, 202 WIC. See West India Company Wild Coast 127, 166, 167, 174–177, 180, 181, 185–187, 189, 190–195, 199, 202, 210, 212, 270, 276, 277, 281, 296, 297 Xákmok Kásek vs. Paraguay 10, 11