Post on 11-Apr-2023
COPYRIGHT AND CITATION CONSIDERATIONS FOR THIS THESIS/ DISSERTATION
o Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if
changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that
suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
o NonCommercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes.
o ShareAlike — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your
contributions under the same license as the original.
How to cite this thesis
Surname, Initial(s). (2012). Title of the thesis or dissertation (Doctoral Thesis / Master’s Dissertation). Johannesburg: University of Johannesburg. Available from: http://hdl.handle.net/102000/0002 (Accessed: 22 August 2017).
A Social History of Robben Island as a Penal Colony, c. 1652-1795
by
Laylah Albertyn
200971729
Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree
Master of Arts
in the
Department of Historical Studies
of the
Faculty of Humanities
at the
University of Johannesburg
supervised by
Prof. Gerald Groenewald
March 2019
Acknowledgements
My sincere gratitude goes to my dissertation supervisor, Professor Gerald Groenewald
of the Department of Historical Studies at the University of Johannesburg. Prof.
Groenewald’s office was always open whenever I had any queries with regards to my
research and writing – he has allowed this dissertation to be my own work but has
guided me in the right direction. His patience, encouragement, enthusiasm and
support were greatly appreciated.
I would also like to thank my parents, Fieroza and Jamiel, for being my pillars of
strength and for always believing in me. I am especially grateful to my siblings, family
and friends whose love, guidance, support and encouragement have always been and
will always be appreciated. A very special thanks to my late grandparents for pushing
me to pursue my studies and for moulding me into the person I am today.
Abstract
There has been no extensive, systematic work on Robben Island as a penal colony in
the VOC period (1652-1795), although some historians have explored aspects of the
history of the Island during this period. Robben Island often acted as a secondary site
of imprisonment and banishment. Cape authorities used the Island as its main site of
imprisonment and banishment since it provided the farthest and safest place of exile
and imprisonment for both the inhabitants of the Cape and those transported from
other colonies. This dissertation discusses Robben Island as both a penal colony and
a community during the period of Dutch administration at the Cape of Good Hope. The
study adopts a socio-cultural historical approach by focusing on convict experience on
the Island. It also discusses the social identities of the Island’s various inhabitants in
an attempt to measure how these identities related to the various social identities
which existed in colonial Dutch South Africa.
To understand the VOC policies that dealt with crime and punishment, it is important
to consider the laws, customs and sensibilities surrounding crime and punishment
within the Company, all of which were influenced by developments in Western Europe.
Consequently, chapter 2 traces how trends in Europe were reflected in or differed in
the Company settlements of Batavia and the Cape of Good Hope. It also explores
general trends dealing with offenders and the nature of crime and punishment in these
Company settlements. The following chapters deal with the administration and the
inhabitants of Robben Island. Chapter 3 discusses the administration of and
infrastructure on Robben Island during the VOC period at the Cape. Chapter 4 traces
the Island’s transformation into a prison by looking at the convicts and exiles serving
their sentences on Robben Island. It not only explains how convicts ended up on the
Island, but also uses case studies which came before the Cape’s Council of Justice to
explore both the living and working conditions of prisoners and exiles on the Island.
Chapter 5 discusses resistance and rebellion on the Island. It argues that both
resistance and rebellion on the Island follow similar trajectories to those of the
underclasses (slaves, soldiers and sailors) on the mainland.
Table of Contents
Page
Chapter 1: Introduction, Literature Review and Research Methodology 1
Chapter 2: Crime and Punishment in the Early Modern Dutch World 12
Chapter 3: The Infrastructure and Administration of Robben Island 34
Chapter 4: The Bandieten and Bannelingen of Robben Island 45
Chapter 5: Resistance and Revolts on Robben Island 72
Chapter 6: Conclusion 93
Appendices 97
Bibliography 101
List of Graphs
Page
Graph 1: ‘Non-European’ Convicts and Exiles on Robben Island, 1728-1788 58
Graph 2: European and Indiaanen Prisoners on Robben Island, 1728-1748 60
Graph 3: Convicts on Robben Island, 1765-1795 61
Graph 4: Places where Robben Island Convicts Were Sentenced, 1728-1788 62
1
Chapter 1
Introduction, Literature Review and Research Methodology
Introduction
Robben Island is a well-known historical site and is known worldwide for the role it
played as a political prison during apartheid. The Island symbolises both the
‘repressiveness of the apartheid state and the strength of those who opposed it.’1 This
aspect of the Island’s history has lately been well covered by historians and others.2
While the use of Robben Island as a political prison during the apartheid period is
familiar, the various ways in which it had been used in the past has been less fully
explored.3 In particular, its use as a penal colony in the seventeenth and eighteenth
century’s remains little known.
From the late sixteenth century the Dutch and English began challenging Portuguese
hegemony in the Atlantic World. In 1619 both the Dutch East India Company’s (VOC)
and the English East India Company (EIC) agreed to use Table Bay as a halfway
station en route to the East, consequently incorporating Table Bay into the Atlantic
orbit. From early on, Robben Island acted as a pantry where passing visitors could
collect eggs, grow crops, fatten livestock and hunt animals (mainly seals, penguins
and birds) – the Cape however became more than a halfway station; with English ships
sometimes off-loading convicts and unwanted persons at either Table Bay or on
Robben Island during the 1620s and 1630s. The Cape became a permanent feature
in Atlantic world when the VOC formally founded a refreshment station for passing
ships on the shores of Table Bay in 1652.4 In order to supply meat to passing ships,
1 Deacon, H. (ed) The Island: A History of Robben Island 1488-1990 (Bellville: University of the Western Cape, 1997), p. 1 2 For example, Alexander, N. Robben Island Dossier, 1964-1974 (Cape Town, 1994); Buntman, F.L. Robben Island and Prisoner Resistance to Apartheid (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003) and Desai, A. Reading Revolution, Shakespeare on Robben Island (Haymarket Books, 2014) 3 An exception being Harriet Deacon’s detailed work on the nineteenth century: ‘A History of the Medical Institutions on Robben Island, 1846-1910’ (PhD thesis, Cambridge University, 1994) 4 Groenewald, G. ‘Southern Africa and the Atlantic World’ in Coffman, D., Leonard, A. and O’Reilly, W. (eds) The Atlantic World (New York: Routledge, 2015), pp. 103-104
2
the VOC authorities had to barter with the indigenous Khoikhoi, which sometimes
proved problematic and led to a series of skirmishes and wars. Political considerations
soon prompted the VOC to consider using the Island as a place of imprisonment and
banishment – first for Khoikhoi ‘political prisoners’ and later for criminals as well.5
The Cape of Good Hope formed part of the VOC’s vast empire. This empire was
centred on Batavia (modern Jakarta in Indonesia) and often made use of penal
transportation, with banishment being one of the harshest penalties imposed in the
Dutch East Indies (due to the lack of prisons in the modern sense). Criminals and
convicts from various colonies in the Dutch East Indies (Southeast Asia and the
Indonesian archipelago), and of various ethnic groups, were banished to the Cape –
these ranged from high ranking political exiles to slaves and VOC employees. The
Cape’s geographical location and isolation from the Dutch East Indies made it ideal
for both penal transportation and political exile.6
Robben Island often acted as a secondary site of imprisonment and banishment; Cape
authorities used the Island as its main site of imprisonment and banishment as the
Island provided the farthest and safest place of exile and imprisonment for both the
inhabitants of the Cape and those transported from other colonies.7 As such Robben
Island in fact became a small microcosm of the Cape – containing people of various
ethnicities, cultures, languages and status groups. These cosmopolitan collections of
people were all under the control of a small number of Dutch officials and soldiers who
were stationed on Robben Island (which was technically an ‘outpost’ under the control
of the Cape’s VOC government).8 All these people intermingled with each other on a
daily basis which over time led to the development of a unique Island culture.
5 Penn, N. ‘Robben Island 1488-1805’ in Deacon, H. (ed), The Island: A History of Robben Island 1488-1990 (Bellville: University of the Western Cape, 1997), pp. 14-15 6 Ward, K. Networks of Empire: Forced Migration in the Dutch East India Company (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009), pp. 11, 123-124 7 Ibid., pp. 139 and 244 8 Truter, P. ‘The Robben Island Rebellion of 1751: A study of Convict Experience at the Cape of Good Hope’ Historical Approaches, Vol. 3, 2004, p. 39
3
Robben Island is thus of interest not only to the history of the Cape of Good Hope, but
also to the wider history of the Dutch colonial empire in the early modern period. In
addition, because its primary function was to serve as a place of punishment for
individuals sentenced by institutions of justice, a study of the people of Robben Island
during this period, and the ways in which they ended up there, can lead to a better
understanding of the operation of criminal justice in the Dutch colonial world and, by
extension, add to our understanding of thinking about crime and punishment in the
early modern world. This dissertation will therefore be investigating Robben Island as
both a penal colony and a community during the period when the Cape of Good Hope
fell under Dutch administration (1652-1795). The study adopts a socio-cultural
historical approach by focusing on convict experience on the Island; in short it is a
history from below. The social identities of the Island’s various inhabitants will also be
investigated in an attempt to gauge how it related to the various social identities which
existed in early Dutch South Africa (a topic which has been well studied of late).
Ultimately the aim of this research is to link two distinct histories: namely the workings
of criminal justice, in particular punishment, in the VOC Empire, and the social history
of early Cape inhabitants. This dissertation will seek to answer the following questions:
Where did the prisoners come from and why were they banished to Robben Island?
How did prisoners communicate and interact with each other? How did prisoners
interact with the Dutch authorities on the Island? What social and cultural distinctions
existed between prisoners on the Island? Did their social perceptions mirror the
perceptions of the mainland’s inhabitants? And what were the daily experiences of
those living on the Island? What forms of resistance did they use, and did uprisings on
the Island lead to a greater feeling of cohesion among the various prisoners? In short,
the study aims to provide a better understanding of both the place of Robben Island in
the administration of criminal justice in the VOC Empire and the experience of
prisoners in this location off the shore of early colonial Cape Town.
4
Literature Review
In recent years, the history of early modern crime and punishment has received much
attention from scholars all over the world which has led to an increased understanding
of both the control of crime and crime itself.9 Robben Island’s seventeenth and
eighteenth century history is intimately connected to both the history of the operation
of criminal justice in the VOC’s vast empire and the social history of the Cape. As such,
a study like this needs to take cognisance of relevant literature from all three these
areas.
Interpersonal violence decreased dramatically in Europe from the mid-sixteenth to the
early twentieth century. Various explanations for this decline have been offered by
different scholars. These include the effects of the civilising process, the strengthening
of modern states powers and the need for social control.10 Julius R. Ruff’s work on
violence in early modern Europe notes a decline in levels of violence and a change in
punishments inflicted on criminals during the early modern period. He attributes this
decline in levels of violence and change in punishments to the growth in the power of
the modern state and the emergence of an increasingly polite ruling class, who
developed a distaste for public executions of punishment.11 In The London Hanged,
Peter Linebaugh uses the Tyburn gallows as a method of tracing a variety of working
class lives during the eighteenth century. He argues that the criminal population of
London was practically indistinguishable from the poor of London and asserts that
various forms of capitalist exploitation either caused or altered criminal activities; and
that forms of crime consequently caused changes in capitalism.12 In A History of
Murder, Pieter Spierenburg traces the gradual decline of murder and interpersonal
violence in Europe from the Middle Ages to the mid-twentieth century. He argues that
9 Eisner, M. ‘Long-term Historical Trends in Violent Crimes’ Crime and Justice, Vol 30, 2003, p. 83. There is a large literature on historical changes in patterns of crime and punishment, much of it reported in journals such as Crime, Histoire & Sociétés / Crime, History & Societies and Criminal Justice History. 10 Ibid. 11 Ruff, J.R. Violence in Early Modern Europe 1500-1800 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001) 12 Linebaugh, P. The London Hanged: Crime and Civil Society in the Eighteenth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992)
5
this decline was brought about by a change in attitudes, with regards to honour, and
the development of nation-states.13 In his earlier study, The Spectacle of Suffering,
Spierenburg highlights the gradual disappearance of public punishment in the Dutch
Republic of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.14 His influential work on crime
and punishment in seventeenth and eighteenth century Amsterdam provides useful
insights in to the changing mentalities of the Dutch. More recently, Dutch scholars
have focussed on various status groups and their treatment in criminal justice, leading
to a host of studies on, for example, crime and women, soldiers, sailors and other
marginal groups.15
The VOC formed part of this Dutch world, hence the laws, customs and mentalities
regarding crime and punishment were exported to its various colonies. Pamela
McVay’s thesis ‘I am the Devil’s Own’ provides a better understanding of the criminal
justice system and the significance of status and identity under the VOC, particularly
in Batavia. Her thesis explains the way the VOC used social services, military
regulation and the criminal justice system to encourage and enforce ethnic, class and
gender identities in the Dutch East Indies. She argues that daily life was expressed
through the VOC’s legal codes which offered different legislation based on people’s
gender, ethnicity and class.16 Kerry Ward’s seminal book on forced migration between
Batavia and the Cape is particularly noteworthy. Ward argues that forced migration
between Batavia and the Cape of Good Hope simultaneously facilitated and limited
the sovereignty of the VOC during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Ward
not only explores the dynamics of forced migration (comprising the slave trade, penal
transportation and political exile), but provides insights into the use of banishment as
a form of punishment. In addition to this, Ward highlights the fact that the legal
identities imposed upon individuals determined their position in society and thus
provided opportunities and placed constraints on individuals. Ward asserts that these
13 Spierenburg, P. A History of Murder: Personal Violence in Europe from the Middle Ages to the Present (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2008) 14 Spierenburg, P. The Spectacle of Suffering: Execution and the Evolution of Repression: from a Pre-industrial Metropolis to the European Experience (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984) 15 E.g. Diederiks, H. In een land van justitie. Criminaliteit van vrouwen, soldaten en ambtenaren in de achttiende-eeuwse Republiek (Hilversum: Verloren, 1992) and Van der Heijden, M. Misdadige vrouwen. Criminaliteit en rechtspraak in Holland 1600-1800 (Amsterdam: Bert Bakker, 2014). 16 McVay, P. ‘‘I am the Devil’s Own’: Crime, Class and Identity in the Seventeenth Century Dutch East Indies’ (PhD thesis). Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois, 1995
6
legal identities could change over time and place, and were overlaid with other
identities such as ethnicity, gender and religion.17
The historiography of the VOC Cape has long been concerned with the interactions
between settlers and the indigenous Khoikhoi, as well as the institution of slavery and
the experiences of slaves.18 Historians writing during the 1970s and 1980s for the most
part wrote ‘histories from below’ and primarily focussed their attention on the political
and economic ramifications of colonialism. This particular approach is evident in the
work of scholars such as Worden, Armstrong, Ross and Shell.19 However, more
recently, VOC Cape historiography has seen a shift away from a focus on control and
resistance towards a deeper understanding of the development of social identity. The
construction of identity is primarily traced through material culture and markers of
cultural practices; issues of honour and status are crucial to this particular process.
Ross and Worden’s work on honour and status in the late eighteenth century highlights
this particular shift.20 In addition, this shift towards cultural history has led to the study
of groups found in the Cape colony which had hitherto received scant attention. These
groups include Company employees, sailors, soldiers, servants, convicts and exiles.
This social and cultural history is particularly evident in the chapters found in the edited
volume, Cape Town: Between East and West.21 Other scholars attempted to place the
Cape colony within the broader VOC Empire that consisted of the Dutch East Indies
and the Netherlands. This is evident in the work of historians such as Vink, Taylor and
17 Ward, K. Networks of Empire: Forced Migration in the Dutch East India Company (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009) 18 Bergemann, K.J. ‘Council of (in)Justice: Crime, Status, Punishment and the Decision-Makers in the 1730s Cape Justice System’ (MA Dissertation, University of Cape Town, 2011), p. 1 19 Worden, N. Slavery in Dutch South Africa (Cambridge, 1985); Armstrong, J. ‘The slaves, 1652-1795’ in Elphick, R. and Giliomee, H. (eds), The Shaping of South African Society (Cape Town, 1979); Ross, R. Cape of Torments: Slavery and Resistance in South Africa (London, 1983); Shell, R. Children of Bondage: A Social History of the Slave Society at the Cape of Good Hope, 1652-1838 (Johannesburg, 1994). Also see the later contributions, following a different style, and the verbatim records of trials involving slaves in, Worden, N. and Groenewald, G. (eds.), Trials of Slavery: Selected Documents concerning Slaves from the Criminal Records of the Council of Justice at the Cape of Good Hope, 1705-1794 (Cape Town: Van Riebeeck Society 2005) 20 E.g. Ross, R. Status and Respectability in the Cape Colony 1750-1870: A Tragedy of Manners (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999); Worden, N. ‘‘Unbridled Passions’, honour and status in the late eighteenth century Cape Town’’ in Strange, C., Cribb, R. and Forth, C.E. (eds) in Honour, Violence and Emotions in History (New York: Bloomsbury, 2014) 21 Worden, N. (ed.), Cape Town between East and West: Social Identities in a Dutch Colonial Town (Johannesburg: Jacana & Hilversum: Verloren, 2012)
7
Wijsenbeek.22 Although there has been some effort to investigate less prominent
groups at the Cape (such as the small Chinese community), little has been done on
the lived experience of criminals, political exiles and convicts. Historians have used
the criminal records of the Council of Justice in an attempt to understand the social
and cultural values of the inhabitants of the Cape, particularly slaves. However there
has been relatively little extensive, systematic work on the nature of crime and their
accompanying punishments. This state of affairs is however slowly changing, with
Bergemann who has investigated trends in crime and punishment for the 1730s, and
Groenewald’s ongoing work on long-term changes in crime and punishment from 1652
to 1795.23
There is no extensive, systematic work done on Robben Island as a penal colony in
the VOC period, although some historians have explored aspects of the history of the
Island during this period. Perhaps the most detailed and factual account of Robben
Island history during this period is provided by Dan Sleigh. During the course of the
VOC’s occupation at the Cape, the Company established an extensive network of so-
called ‘outposts’ or service stations – Robben Island was one of these outposts. In
chapter six of Die Buiteposte, Sleigh examines the general transformation of the Island
over the period of VOC occupation at the Cape of Good Hope. Sleigh’s work provides
valuable insights into the administration of the Island and the relationship between the
‘post-holder’ (administrative head of the service station), his staff and the inhabitants
of the Island. However, Sleighs account of the Island is overwhelmingly empirical and
offers little interpretation of the primary sources. In addition, he is more interested in
the experiences and activities of the Dutch administrators than in those of their
prisoners.24 Penn provides a brief overview of the Island’s varied functions from 1488
to 1805 and argues that, had it not been for Robben Island, the ‘initial Dutch settlement
22 Vink, M. ‘Freedom and Slavery: The Dutch Republic, the VOC World, and the Debate over the ‘World’s Oldest Trade’’, South African Historical Journal, Vol. 59, 2007; Taylor, J.G. ‘The Painted Ladies’, South African Historical Journal, Vol. 59, 2007; Wijsenbeek, T. ‘Identity Lost: Huguenot Refugees in the Dutch Republic and its Frontier Colonies in North America and South Africa, 1650-1750: A Comparison’, South African Historical Journal, Vol. 59, 2007 23 Bergemann, K.J. ‘Council of (in)Justice: Crime, Status, Punishment and the Decision-Makers in the 1730s Cape Justice System’ (MA Dissertation, University of Cape Town, 2011); Groenewald, G. ‘In a Land of Justice? Crime, Punishment and Slavery in Dutch Colonial South Africa, 1652-1795’, Paper delivered at the European Social Science History Conference, Vienna, Austria, 23-26 April 2014. 24 Sleigh, D. Die Buiteposte onder Kaapse Bestuur, 1652-1795 (Pretoria: Protea Publishers, 2004), Chapter 6
8
would have miscarried.’25 In trying to reconstruct a rebellion that took place on the
Island in 1751, Truter attempts briefly to highlight both the daily experiences and social
relations of convicts that stayed on the Island.26 It is important to note that most of the
scholarly literature which deals with Robben Island are case studies of various topics,
and for this reason not much importance is placed on the Island itself. This is evident
in the case studies of specific events which happened on Robben Island by
Groenewald and Newton-King which refer to Robben Island.27 More recently, the
eighteenth century history of the Island has garnered some public attention thanks to
the art film, Proteus, which is set in Robben Island in the 1730s. However, historians’
commentary on Proteus focusses more on historical inaccuracies than on exploring
daily experiences of life on the Island, or on the Island’s status as a penal colony. This
is evident in the work of Newton-King and Worden.28
Consequently, this dissertation aims to contribute to the current literature on Robben
Island by seeking to combine case studies with factual information in an attempt to
understand the Island as both a penal colony and a community of people during the
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. In addition to this, this research project aims to
make a contribution to VOC Cape historiography, the historiography of the broader
VOC Empire as well as the history of criminal justice.
Research Methodology
This dissertation is largely based on qualitative research and used both secondary
literature and primary sources. Secondary literature on Company settlements in the
25 Penn, N. ‘Robben Island 1488-1805’ in Deacon, H. (ed), The Island: A History of Robben Island 1488-1990 (Bellville: University of the Western Cape, 1997) 26 Truter, P. ‘The Robben Island Rebellion of 1751: A Study of Convict Experience at the Cape of Good Hope’ Historical Approaches, Vol. 3, 2004 27 Groenewald, G. ‘Panaij van Boegies: Slave – Bandiet – Caffer’ in Shell, R. (ed.) From Diaspora to Diorama: The Slave Lodge in Cape Town (Cape Town: Ancestry24, 2009); Newton King, S. ‘For the Love of Adam: Two Sodomy Trials at the Cape of Good Hope’ Kronos, no. 28, 2002 28 Newton King, S. ‘History and Film: A Roundtable Discussion of ‘Proteus’’ Kronos, no. 31, 2005; Worden, N. ‘‘What are We? : Proteus and the Problematising of History’ in Smith, V. B. and Mendelson, R. (eds) Black and White in Colour: African History on Screen (Cape Town: Double Story Books, 2007)
9
East Indies and the Cape not only highlights social and cultural identities, as well as
the living conditions of those residing in these settlements, but also sheds some light
on the nature of crime and punishment in these Company controlled territories.
Primary materials were drawn from the online database, Transcription of Estate
Papers at the Cape Project (TEPC),29 the records of the Council of Policy and the
records of the Council of Policy’s resolutions.
The TEPC contains full transcriptions of several archival volumes which contain
documents which consider convicts, exiles and prisoners (known as the
bandietenrollen), in addition to hundreds of volumes of inventory lists, auction lists and
estate accounts from the late seventeenth century to the early nineteenth centuries.
For the purpose of this study, the bandietenrollen are particularly important as they
comprise detailed lists relating to people banished to the Cape and Robben Island
from the Dutch East Indies and South Asia. The bandietenrollen consist of two series
of eight archival volumes each. The first series was used for this dissertation and
contains volumes that deal with the annotation of prisoners arriving from Batavia and
Ceylon between 1722 and 1757, the annotation of prisoners in 1786, the convict rolls
between 1728 and 1795, a list of convicts sent to Robben Island between 1758 and
1802, a list of prisoners names who served their sentences and were returned to their
place of origin, sentences for which summation and renovation were given in writing
but execution did not occur, sentences that were not executed between 1790 and
1827, and the registers of prisoners between 1814 and 1822.30 In analysing these
different sets of data, both external and internal historical source criticism will be
applied, with careful attention being paid to the role of bias, possible ideological
influences, authenticity, reliability, unwitting evidence and their different contexts.31
29 TEPC (Transcription of Estate Papers at the Cape Project), Cape Transcripts: TEPC - Two Centuries Transcribed, 1673-1834. CD-ROM. Cape Town: TEPC, 2008). Also available online: http://www.tanap.nl/content/activities/documents/index.htm 30 Liebenberg, H. ‘Introduction to the Documents of the Court of Justice at the Cape of Good Hope regarding Convicts and Exiles’ TEPC Project, pp. 12-14 31 Tosh, J. The Pursuit of History: Aims Methods and New Directions in the Study of Modern History (5th ed., London, 2010), pp. 122-138
10
The records of the Council of Justice incidentally reveal details of less prominent
groups found in the Cape, which are not really available in the official administrative
records. These rich qualitative sources can reveal notions of honour, identity and
attitudes of those living at the Cape. This, however, requires one to use the micro-
historical technique of ‘reading between the lines.’ It is, though, important to consider
that the records only describe events which involved crimes: officials involved in cases
were not neutral, statements were given in intimidating circumstances and the voice
of those accused is often not in its ‘purest’ form. It should therefore be kept in mind
that these were not everyday circumstances and that the documents which were
produced and eventually archived were done so in highly unusual circumstances.32
The voluminous records of the Council of Justice can be found in manuscript form in
the Western Cape Archives Repository although a large part of the records have been
indexed,33 and some material on slavery has been published.34 The Council of Policy
was responsible for both the management and administration of the Cape and as such
acted as its governing body.35 Official records between the Council and the
administrators of Robben Island can be gleaned from the published Resolutions
(minutes or proceedings of the Council). In addition to this, the archival records of the
Council of Policy also contain incoming and outgoing letters, including those to and
from Robben Island.
As noted earlier, the inhabitants of Robben Island were people of various ethnicities,
cultures, languages and status groups. These cosmopolitan collections of people
intermingled on a daily basis with both each other and the Dutch officials and soldiers
stationed on the Island. As this dissertation aims to provide a better understanding of
not only the administration of criminal justice in the VOC Empire but also the
experiences of prisoners on Robben Island, the study takes on a social history
approach. The dissertation explores not only social changes, but also the social
relationship between the different groups found on the Island. Additionally, it can be
32 Worden, N. and Groenewald, G., Trials of Slavery, ‘Introduction’ 33 Heese, H.F. Reg en Onreg: Kaapse Regspraak in die Agtiende Eeu (Bellville: University of the Western Cape, 1994) 34 Worden, N. and Groenewald, G. Trials of Slavery 35 Ibid., p. xxi
11
considered a ‘history from below’ as it explores groups that have been less visible in
the historical record.36
Chapter Outline
To understand VOC policies that dealt with crime and punishment, it is important to
note that laws, customs and sensibilities surrounding crime and punishment within the
Company were influenced by developments in Western Europe. Therefore, chapter 2
traces how trends in Europe were reflected in or were different in the Company
settlements of Batavia and the Cape of Good Hope. It also discusses general trends
with regards to the perpetrators of crime and the nature of crime and punishment in
these Company settlements.
Chapters 3, 4 and 5 deal with the administration of and the inhabitants on Robben
Island. Chapter 3 discusses the administration of and infrastructure on Robben Island:
during the VOC period at the Cape, Robben Island acted as a prison, an emergency
refreshment station, a quarantine station, signal post and a scout’s post. Chapter 4
discusses Robben Island’s transformation from a pantry to a prison by looking at the
convicts and exiles serving their sentences on the Island. It not only explains how
convicts ended up on the Island, but also employs case studies that came before the
Cape’s Council of Justice to explore the living and working conditions of prisoners and
exiles on the Island. Chapter 5 discusses resistance and rebellion on the Island. It
argues that both resistance and rebellion on the Island follows a similar trajectory to
those of the underclasses (slaves, soldiers and sailors) that were found on the
mainland.
36 Cf. Tosh, J. The Pursuit of History: Aims Methods and New Directions in the Study of Modern History (5th ed., London, 2010), pp. 70-73
12
Chapter 2
Crime and Punishment in the Early Modern Dutch World
Introduction
The history of early modern crime and punishment has received much attention from
scholars around the globe. Consequently, this has led to an increased understanding
of the control of crime, crime itself and the punishments that convicted crimes
received.37 Punishment is evolutionary in character, and methods of punishment
changed over time and differed between regions. During the course of the seventeenth
and eighteenth centuries, the Dutch Republic saw a transformation in criminal justice
and a gradual disappearance of public punishment. This was not only the result of
legal and political changes, but was also the outcome of a fundamental change in
sensibilities –it was this change in sensibilities that preceded the abolition of public
punishment.38 Spierenberg notes that by the mid- to late seventeenth century, feelings
of ambivalence towards public executions had already started taking root amongst the
Dutch elite. However, this abhorrence towards public executions was centred more on
elite perceptions of spectators of public justice – a general feeling of repugnance
towards public executions was absent as is evident in the fact that no one opposed
the system.39 But, by the mid-eighteenth century support for public executions began
to wane. Lower class spectators of public justice increasingly began identifying with
certain offenders and could consequently feel the pain endured by the convict, ‘the
death and suffering of fellow human beings were increasingly experienced as painful,
just because other people were increasingly perceived as fellow human beings.’40
37 There is a large literature on historical changes in patterns of crime and punishment, much of it is reported in journals such as Crime, Historie & Sociétés / Crime, History and Societies and Criminal Justice History. 38 See Spierenberg, P., The Spectacle of Suffering: Execution and the Evolution of Repression from a Pre-Industrial Metropolis to the European Experience (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984) 39 Ibid., pp. 98-99 40 Ibid., pp. 184-185
13
The Dutch East India Company formed part of this Dutch world, hence some of the
laws, customs and sensibilities regarding both crime and punishment were often
exported to its various colonies, settlements, forts and factories – the VOC and most
of its employees hailed from the Netherlands and its surrounding regions. To
understand how these sensibilities affected Company policy with regards to crime and
punishment, it is important to understand the legal and judicial systems used by the
Company in its attempts to control populations that fell under its jurisdiction. This
chapter attempts to illustrate how trends in Europe reflected or differed in both Batavia
and the Cape of Good Hope. It discusses the general trends with regards to
perpetrators of crime, and the nature of crime and punishment in these Company
settlements.
Criminal Justice in Europe and the Netherlands
The evolution of crime and the punishment systems adopted by European states
during the early modern period was integral to European social development. At the
start of the early modern period both crime and the treatment of those who committed
crimes still reflected the social structure of the feudal age – crime was considered a
private matter and individuals settled conflicts either through revenge or reconciliation.
The emergence and stabilisation of criminal justice is a process which can be linked
to both the emergence of the modern state and urbanisation. These processes began
in the late twelfth century and continued into the early sixteenth century. Consequently,
it was during this period that criminal justice transitioned from the private domain to
the public domain. The state increasingly began intervening in the administration of
criminal justice which subsequently saw the revision of criminal definitions, different
methods of prosecution and a general increase in the severity of punishment given to
offenders. Corporal punishment and public executions of justice soon became
common forms of punishment.41
41 Weisner, M.R., Crime and Punishment in Early Modern Europe (Sussex: Harvester Press, 1979), Chapters 1 and 2. Ruff, J.R., Violence in Early Modern Europe 1500-1800 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), pp. 73-87.
14
Execution of Justice
The emergence of criminal justice was primarily the consequence of state formation.
Hence, the practice of criminal justice, punishment of the body and the public nature
of punishment was used by state authorities to maintain public order. Consequently,
both the scaffold and gallows became symbols of state authority. Public executions in
Western Europe were carefully staged and enacted dramas that not only reinforced
state authority but also served an exemplary function – both physical punishments and
public executions were designed to instil fear into spectators to such an extent that it
would deter them from future criminal activities. Thus, ‘it warned potential
transgressors of the law that criminal justice would be practiced and it warned
everyone to remember who practiced it.’42 Punishments however, were also designed
to fit the crime committed and it is for this reason that symbolic objects or articles, that
were either involved in the crime or reflected the crime, sometimes accompanied the
offender in the execution of their punishment. This peculiarity links to the exemplary
function of public executions of justice – spectators would know the consequences of
similar transgressions.43
Public executions of justice generally inflicted pain on those subjected to it.
Spierenberg, focusing on the Netherlands but identifying punishments in terms of the
broader European experience, details the wide range of penalties available to
authorities. He also conveniently classifies physical punishments according to severity
in both the corporal and capital domain.44 In ranking the severity of corporal
punishment, Spierenberg notes that whipping and branding were the most common
punishments administered to offenders, with the former being the lightest physical
punishment that could be imposed. Whippings were generally carried out with the
greatest publicity, and symbolic objects were occasionally displayed above the
offender’s head. However, a distinction between whipping indoors and public flogging
existed in numerous cities throughout Europe, including Amsterdam. In cases where
42 Spierenberg, P. The Spectacle of Suffering, pp. 43-55 43 Ibid., pp. 66-68 44 Ibid., pp. 68-77
15
offenders were whipped indoors, no formal sentences were recorded, and for this
reason, it is not known whether this type of punishment was considered a milder
punishment to public floggings, or whether the harshness of this punishment was
expressed in the number of lashes received. The number of lashes administered in
Amsterdam seems to have been a matter of magisterial preference and individuals
sentenced to flogging, whether indoors or in public, received lashes on their bare
backs.45
Branding was the next punishment in order of severity and was used as both a painful
way to punish the offender and to record commission of an offense on the body of the
offender – it usually left a permanent scar which stigmatized the offender as someone
who had once mounted the scaffold and excluded them from respectable society. In
Europe during the early modern period, it usually saw the offender being burned on
the shoulder (where it could be hidden with clothing) with a red-hot iron.46 In
Amsterdam, branding was always accompanied with whippings, with the latter usually
administered first.47 However, the most severe form of corporal punishment involved
the physical mutilation of the offender’s body. Mutilation was generally reserved for
more serious crimes and was usually applied to the body part that was associated with
the crime. Earlier mutilations imposed by European authorities included blinding,
amputation of either hands or fingers, piercing or removing the offender’s tongue,
cutting off ears and, up until the mid-eighteenth century, slashing the cheek of the
offender – but already by the mid-seventeenth century offenders were rarely
sentenced to visible mutilations.48 Spierenberg explains the trend towards the
disappearance of physical mutilations as an increased revulsion towards such
punishments. This repugnance towards mutilations, he argues, formed part of the
long-term general decline of both the physical content and public character of
punishment, but preceded the rise against public executions themselves.49
45 Ibid., p. 69 46 Ruff, J.R., Violence in Early Modern Europe, p. 97 47 Spierenberg, P. The Spectacle of Suffering, pp. 69-70 48 Ruff, J.R., Violence in Early Modern Europe, pp. 96-97. Spierenberg, P., The Spectacle of Suffering, pp. 74-77 49 Spierenberg, P., The Spectacle of Suffering, p. 77
16
Offenders of more serious infringements risked the possibility of a capital sentence.
Individuals could be sentenced to death for a variety of crimes. These included murder,
infanticide, robbery, abduction, and more serious sexual offences, such as sodomy
and incest. Offenders found guilty of certain property crimes, such as breaking and
entering, also risked a possible death sentence.50 Western European legal systems of
the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries established a number of different methods
to execute death sentences, with the precise procedure depending on the severity of
the crime committed. Spierenberg, in noting the severity of capital executions,
distinguishes between instant and prolonged death sentences – prolonged death
sentences were regarded as a more severe punishment.51
Breaking on the wheel was the most common method of prolonged death in
Amsterdam during both the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Spierenberg notes
that after 1650, with a few exceptions, other types of prolonged death sentences were
rarely practised in Amsterdam. This punishment was particularly painful and saw
offenders fastened to a wheel while the executioner broke their bones with an iron rod.
In Amsterdam, breaking on the wheel was somewhat simplified – the convict was
instead tied to a cross. However, if the sentence was accompanied with the stipulation
that the corpse of the offender was to be displayed, the offender’s corpse would be
fastened to a wagon wheel and strung up at the gallows. Two variations of breaking
on the wheel existed in Amsterdam, breaking from below and breaking with the coup
de grace, the latter being the milder punishment as the offender was killed prior to
having their bones broken. Breaking from below was a more brutal variation of the
punishment – the offender was alive while the executioner broke him from the legs
up.52
Instant death sentences could be considered lighter and more merciful sentences as
it saw the death of convicts within minutes. In Western Europe, instant death
50 Ruff, J.R., Violence in Early Modern Europe, p. 98 51 Spierenberg, P., The Spectacle of Suffering, pp.71-73 52 Ibid., pp. 71-72
17
sentences included decapitations, garrotting and hangings. Decapitations were
usually reserved for individuals condemned for homicide and was considered a more
honourable death. Spierenberg points out that sentences of garrotting and hanging
were largely dependent on the sex of the offender – hanging women was uncommon
but was occasionally recorded throughout Europe, including Amsterdam. Garrotting
saw the offender fastened to a strangling pole (‘garrot’) with his or her back facing the
pole. The executioner, standing behind the offender, would tighten a cord around the
offender’s neck using a small stick.53 Hanging was the most common instant death
sentence imposed throughout Europe. It saw the executioner fasten a noose around
the neck of the convict – the rope was attached to a structure of two or three vertical
beams connected by a horizontal post. The convict would then mount a ladder and his
death would come from strangulation once he was pushed off the ladder.54
The Legal Foundation of the Dutch East India Company
European legal systems and punishment techniques influenced criminal justice in the
VOC colonies, settlements and forts – the Company was granted its charter from the
States General of the United Provinces of the Netherlands, and most of its employees
hailed from there and the surrounding regions. The Dutch East India Company was
established in 1602 and was granted monopoly trade from the Dutch Republic to the
east of the Cape of Good Hope and through the straits of Magellan. Although the
Company’s primary concern was trade and profit, it was never only commercial in
nature. The Company’s charter not only provided it with monopoly trade rights but also
gave the Company the right to conclude treaties with foreign powers, establish forts,
factories and settlements, create and impose laws, and inflict punishment on
individuals that fell under its jurisdiction. These rights, consequently, allowed the
Company to maintain order and discipline not only on Company ships but also within
53 Ibid., p. 71 54 Ruff, J.R., Violence in Early Modern Europe, p. 99
18
its various settlements. Thus, the VOC’s charter contained the legal conditions for its
transformation from merchant enterprise to empire.55
Though the VOC was a merchant enterprise primarily concerned with profit and trade,
it was also an imperial organisation that governed territories throughout its vast
empire. Its legal system functioned separately from the application of law in the United
Provinces and its rule of law authorised the Company’s control of individuals that it
believed fell under Company jurisdiction. The Company’s legal network operated on
two levels – internally through the application of civil and criminal law, and externally
through treaties and international law that was negotiated with indigenous polities. The
VOC’s colonial government, with its headquarters in Batavia, acted as the control
centre of the Company’s imperial empire. The legal system developed in Batavia
extended to other Company territories and settlements through the VOC’s
communication networks.56
Political power in the Company was split between the Seventeen Gentlemen (Heeren
XVII) in the Netherlands and the High Government in Batavia (made up of the
Governor-General and the Council of the Indies). Theoretically, the Seventeen
Gentlemen were the apex of Company authority, but given the time and distance
involved in receiving their instructions and decisions, the High Government in Batavia
exercised a de facto independence.57 Consequently, VOC law evolved through the
passing of resolutions (resoluties) and decrees in the form of placards (plakaaten)
which frequently became foregone conclusions by the time the High Government
received a response by the Seventeen Gentlemen.58 These ad hoc resoluties and
plakaaten were redacted during the early 1640s and became known as the ‘Statutes
55 For more information on the Company’s charter see: Ward, K., Networks of Empire: Forced Migration in the Dutch East India Company (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009), pp. 51-55, Worden, N. and Groenewald, G. (eds), Trials of Slavery: Selected Documents Concerning Slaves from the Criminal Records of the Council of Justice at the Cape of Good Hope, 1705-1794 (Cape Town: Van Riebeeck Society, 2005), pp. xix-xxi, and Ulrich, N., ‘Counter Power and Colonial Rule in the Eighteenth-Century Cape of Good Hope: Belongings and the Protest of the Labouring Poor,’ (PhD thesis, University of the Witwatersrand, 2011), pp. 63-67 56 Ward, K., Networks of Empire, pp. 14-17 57 Taylor, J.G., The Social World of Batavia: European and Eurasian in Dutch Asia (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1983), p. 4 58 Ward, K., Networks of Empire, p. 68
19
of Batavia.’ Hence the Statutes of Batavia acted as the legal foundation of Company
policies throughout its Indian Ocean empire.59
Structures of Governance in Batavia
During the early years of the VOC, justice was mainly confined to Company fleets as
the Company had almost no territories or settlers under its control. However, the
founding of Batavia in 1619 and its subsequent evolution into the VOC’s imperial
headquarters, led to the expansion of both Company sovereignty and administrative
control over populations that fell under its jurisdiction. Batavian authorities initially tried
to govern using the written law of its employees’ provinces of origin whilst
simultaneously posting placards to announce new laws and policies. This however
proved problematic as no one knew the laws of all the provisions of the Dutch
Republic, and employees seldom knew the rules of their own provinces. Hence, for
this reason, Governor-General Anthonij van Dieman, compiled a short handbook
which summed up the Company’s customary, civil and criminal laws. This handbook
became known as the ‘Statutes of Batavia.’ The creation of the Statutes, however, did
not stop authorities from issuing new placards prior to having the Statutes of Batavia
approved by the Seventeen Gentlemen. This meant that the Statutes of Batavia were
partially obsolete before they had even been approved. Constant revision of old laws
and the promulgation of new ordinances subsequently saw the Statutes of Batavia
revised and reissued in 1731.60
The Statutes of Batavia and Batavian placards sought to provide solutions to
perceived problems and to provoke change. The VOC authorities strived to mould its
subjects into the standard they believed common in the Netherlands and felt that lower
ranking employees and retired lower officials posed the greatest threat to this ideal.
Consequently, the Statutes of Batavia, Batavian placards and church ordinances
subjected lower-ranked Company employees to greater regulation, using a
59 Worden, N. and Groenewald, G. (eds), Trials of Slavery, pp. xx-xxi 60 McVay, P., ‘‘I am the Devil’s Own’: Crime, Class and Identity in the Seventeenth Century Dutch East Indies’ (PhD thesis, University of Illinois, 1995), pp. 26-27
20
combination of omissions and strictures. For example, the consequences for arriving
drunk on duty, failing militia duties or sinning were very specific, whereas
consequences for being drunk while performing magisterial duties, failing to carry out
magisterial duties or being a poor governor-general were not. It could therefore be
argued that the Batavian authorities not only targeted laws at specific crimes but also
targeted specific groups of people.61
The Statutes and Batavian placards also served an additional function. They sought
to inform residents of the city of the Company’s wishes and to provide them with
reasons to comply with these wishes. This consequently made it possible for Company
authorities to assume that everyone that fell within Company jurisdiction not only knew
and understood the law but also knew the consequences for breaking it. However,
neither the Statutes nor the placards were entirely effective and public executions of
punishment ‘advertised the law better than placards or the Statutes.’ In this regard,
Batavia followed European traditions of prosecution: open spaces in Batavia were
reserved for ceremonial and ritualistic acts – criminal justice was no exception to this.
Executions of punishment in Batavia were performed in the public domain and the
crime of the offender was loudly announced to spectators so as to deter them from
similar transgressions.62
In attempting to control the populations under its jurisdiction, Batavian authorities
devised a legal system that not only saw the separation of judicial and government
structures, but also made a crucial distinction between civil and criminal law.63 The city
had three main institutions that dealt with civil and criminal matters. These were: the
Schepenbank (Council of Aldermen), the Raad van Justitie (Council of Justice) and
the Dutch Reformed Church. Institutions of the Dutch Reformed Church were
designed to reinforce the paternalism that Company elites thought necessary.
Consequently, the church operated as a symbolic parent that extended Company
instruction, assistance and correction – through the church, Batavian authorities
61 Ibid., pp. 33-35 62 Ibid., pp. 29-30 63 Ward, K., Networks of Empire, pp. 68-69, 102
21
financed extensive social services and welfare payments. The church used marriage,
education, welfare, communion and the power to refer matters to criminal courts to
influence it members and enforce its wishes. Hence, many criminal defendants were
individuals that had already spent some time receiving attention from church
institutions. Thus, the Council of Aldermen and the Council of Justice were ideally
places of last resort and theoretically only dealt with cases that had slipped through
the church’s informal and semi-formal channels.64
The Council of Aldermen, through the Court of Aldermen, dealt with judicial powers,
local government and the policing of Batavia and its surrounding areas. The Court of
Aldermen, with the assistance of their servants, a bailiff and patrols, not only
maintained law and order in Batavia and its environs, but also tried residents that were
not Company servants. The Council of Justice was the highest court in the VOC’s
entire empire – it dealt with cases of Company interest, criminal cases and it also acted
as an appellate court for all Company settlements throughout its empire. The Fiscal
not only acted as prosecutor for the Council of Justice, but also served as the
equivalent of a police chief, with an executioner under his command. It is however
important to note that both the Statutes of Batavia and the legal institutions of the
Company were established out of necessity – the gradual expansion of Batavia and
the complex nature of its cosmopolitan population saw the gradual evolution of legal
and judicial institutions.65
Crime and Punishment in Batavia
Criminal justice procedures in the Dutch East Indies had much in common with early
modern European criminal processes. However, there were also ‘consistent patterns
of difference’ in criminal justice systems when compared to Europe. Company
settlements were not only governed differently but the presence of slaves instead of
servants, the large presence of military and quasi-military VOC personnel, the
64 McVay, P., ‘‘I am the Devil’s Own,’’ pp. 55-58 65 Ward, K., Networks of Empire, pp. 68-70, 102-103
22
effectiveness of church institutions, the use of forced labour as a punishment, and the
composition of the criminal population in Company settlements not only altered the
societal structure of Company territories but also changed the social dynamics of crime
and the prosecution of crimes.66
Profiles of Batavian offenders were highly stereotyped. As mentioned earlier, criminal
laws were not only targeted at specific crimes but were also targeted at specific groups
of people. For example, lower-ranking Company employees, mainly sailors and
soldiers, primarily came before the courts for desertion, being absent without leave
and various forms of assault, ranging from brawling to manslaughter and murder.
These employees were subjected to the full range of penal devices available to
Batavian authorities and their punishments ranged from riding the wooden horse (a
sawhorse with an edged central wooden beam), being keel-hauled and flogged, to
being hanged, beheaded and burned. On the other hand, Burgher men generally faced
whippings followed by hard labour in chains or fines, and were generally charged with
adultery, theft, private trade, or breaking religious or trade relations.67 It is for this
reason, McVay argues, that if one knew the rank, ethnicity and sex of the offender,
one could generally narrow down the range of crimes they were prosecuted for to two
or three.68
Sailors and soldiers were the groups most likely to appear before the courts for illegal
transgressions. These groups were not only left to their own devices most of the time,
but their lives were also generally lived in the public domain. These low-ranking
Company employees also failed to benefit from church institutions and received no
assistance from social services. Hence, the only institution capable of discouraging
undesirable behaviour or settling disputes between these bachelor employees were
the courts. The courts, however, ‘had no techniques for fostering or encouraging
desirable behaviour, only for punishing offenders.’69 Women and children, on the other
hand, were groups that were the least likely to be caught transgressing the law.
66 McVay, P., ‘‘I am the Devil’s Own,’’ p. 84 67 Ibid., pp. 85-86 68 Ibid., p. 82 69 Ibid., pp. 63 and 66
23
Women and children spent most of their time in the household, where discipline and
order were maintained by the head of the household – either the husband or the father.
Privately owned slaves, McVay argues, were also protected from the court system.
Slave owners could discipline their slaves (short of killing them) and most offences
committed by privately owned slaves could be smoothed over by their owners.70
Once offenders had been convicted by the courts, a wide variety of punishments were
at the disposal of Batavian authorities. Most punishments in Batavia, like those in
Europe, sought to publicly humiliate the offender and caused some degree of physical
harm. The lightest punishment that could be handed down by Batavian courts were
fines. Fines were generally levied in cash for individuals of means and in terms of
monthly wages for low-ranking Company employees.71 However, it is important to note
that fines could be, and usually were, accompanied with additional punishments.
In her analysis of the punishments meted out by the Batavian courts, McVay focuses
on the corporal and symbolic punishments used by the Company in Batavia and
makes little mention of capital sentences. She does however highlight the wide range
of penal options that could theoretically be handed down to all who fell under Company
jurisdiction. These punishments included flogging, branding and physical mutilations
(such as cutting off the ear or nose of the offender). Offenders could also be sentenced
to symbolic and humiliating punishments, such as standing on the scaffold wearing
placards with terms like ‘fornicator’ or ‘thief’ written on them, or making the offender
ride the ‘wooden horse’ wearing weights attached to their feet. Additionally, offenders
could be sentenced to mock executions by either having a noose fastened around
their neck or being stroked with the flat side of a sword. McVay also notes some
interesting punishments that were reserved for military personnel. These include
having one’s weapons dashed to the ground, formally being declared unfit to ever
serve again, keel-hauling, running the gauntlet and having one’s hand fastened behind
70 Ibid., p. 66 71 Ibid., p. 69
24
ones back whilst having the other was stuck to a mast, struggling to free his hand as
best as possible.72
Theoretically, most of the aforementioned punishments could be equally applied to all
social classes that fell within the Company’s jurisdiction. However, in practice,
punishments such as whippings, physical mutilations and forms of humiliation were
generally handed down for crimes such as brawling, theft, disorderly conduct and
absconding. These crimes were not committed by every social class and was
generally associated with lower-ranked Company personnel, particularly soldiers and
sailors. Crimes that incurred only fines, namely, private trade, embezzlement and the
misuse of funds, were only committed by those who had the resources to commit these
crimes and were generally well-off. Consequently, it could be argued, that lighter
punishments fell on the more powerful members of society whilst harsher penalties fell
disproportionately on weaker members of society, viz. lower-ranked Company
personnel.73
In addition to fines, symbolic and physical punishments, the courts could also place
restrictions on the physical freedom of an offender. This was done either through
forced labour or banishment. Forced labour was a common sentence for offenders
who avoided their duties and saw convicts sentenced to hard labour, sometimes with
the stipulation of having their legs chained. Sentences of hard labour were generally
reserved for men, but some lower-class women and women slaves could also be
sentenced to this type of punishment. However, McVay notes that Batavian courts
rarely sentenced offenders to hard labour and that the penalty was gradually phased
out. Runaway slaves also faced the possibility of being returned to their owners to
labour in chains for a set number of years.74
Banishment was one of the harshest punishments that could be imposed and were
frequently accompanied with the stipulation of hard labour. It was most commonly
72 Ibid., pp. 69-70 73 Ibid., pp. 70, 81 74 Ibid., pp. 70-71, 83
25
imposed on convicted offenders who had managed to break out of their chains and
escaped imprisonment. Although rare, banishment could also be used to mitigate
death sentences. Banishment took place on three levels: offenders could be banished
to the United Provinces (only Europeans could be banished to the Netherlands), to a
specific place within the Company realm or banishment outside ‘all the forts, cities,
and places under the jurisdiction of the Company under the pain of harsh penalty
should they return.’75
Criminal Justice at the Cape of Good Hope
The Statutes of Batavia served as a template for the Company’s legal and judicial
structures in all VOC territories, including the Cape of Good Hope. These structures
however, were adapted to local circumstances and were generally more simplified in
composition when compared to Batavia. In theory the Cape, like other Company
settlements, fell under the administration of Batavia. But in practice the Cape was
primarily governed by resoluties and plakaaten promulgated by the Cape’s Council of
Policy – the Statutes of Batavia were irregularly quoted in legal decisions or in the
issuing of local plakaaten at the Cape. Nevertheless, like Batavia, plakaaten at the
Cape frequently became common law. This is evidenced by the fact that prosecutors
at the Cape seldom made overt reference to them in their deliberations.76
During the early years of the settlement, the Cape was governed by the Council of
Policy, headed by the Commander and other high-ranking Company officials.77 The
Council of Policy not only had the right to promulgate plakaaten, but was also tasked
with the administration and management of the settlement. Additional officers,
comprising the Council of Justice and a military court were added to this body in 1656.
In 1657 two (and later three) burgher councillors were granted advisory positions on
the Council of Justice, in cases involving free burghers. Although burgher councillors
75 Ward, K., Networks of Empire, p. 117. Banishment as a punishment will be explored in greater detail in chapter 4. 76 Worden, N., and Groenewald, G. (eds), Trials of Slavery, pp. xx-xxi 77 The rank of Commander was changed to Governor in 1671
26
were not officially part of the Council of Policy, they were regularly consulted on
matters that dealt with their welfare. However, decisions taken by the Council of Policy
were not subject to free burgher approval and ultimate veto power in all court and
government decisions resided with the governor.78
Given the fact that the Cape operated as a halfway station between the Netherlands
and the Dutch East Indies, the Cape was frequently visited by ex-governors and
councillors en route to Europe. Once these high-ranking visitors docked at the Cape,
they out-ranked the local governor and could institute reforms without his consent. It
is for this reason that Governor van der Stel, acting on the orders of visiting
Commissioner, Hendrik Adriaan van Rheede, officially separated the Council of
Justice from the Council of Policy in 1685.79 The Council of Justice was the highest
court of law at the Cape and tried all criminal cases which involved some form of
physical violence, as well as more serious civil cases. The court also had jurisdiction
over all the Cape’s inhabitants, irrespective of rank and status.80
The independent fiscal served as the chief legal officer at the Cape and was tasked
with investigating all serious criminal offences. The fiscal was directly responsible to
the Seventeen Gentlemen, hence his designation as ‘independent.’ Consequently, this
meant that he could by-pass both the local governor and the local councils. In addition
to being tasked with the investigation of criminal cases, the fiscal also acted as public
prosecutor, thus making him an important link between those accused of a criminal
offense and their jurors. The extensive powers of the fiscal were however kept in check
by the Council of Justice – the fiscal needed prior consent from the Council before
being allowed to act against the accused. At the Cape, the role of the fiscal was
somewhat complicated by the Collegie van Heemraaden which was established in the
Stellenbosch and Drakenstein district in 1682. The heemraaden not only acted as the
main administrative body of a district, but it also served as the representatives of
78 Worden, N., and Groenewald, G. (eds), Trials of Slavery, p. xxi. Ward, K., Networks of Empire, p. 155 79 Ward, K., Networks of Empire, p. 155. For more information on the composition and history of the Council of Justice see, Visagie, G.G., Regspleging en Reg aan die Kaap van 1652 tot 1806 (Cape Town: Juta, 1969), pp. 41-46 80 Worden, N., and Groenewald, G. (eds), Trials of Slavery, p. xxii.
27
justice. Consequently, this body not only dealt with civil cases, where the dispute did
not exceed 50 rixdollars, but could also (under certain circumstances) take down
statements and conduct (with the landdrost) post-mortem investigations. In addition to
presiding over the heemraaden, the landdrost also presided as chief legal officer over
his district. Hence, the landdrost served as prosecutor before the Council of Justice
for crimes committed within his district.81 It is, however, important to note that the fiscal
had the so-called ‘right of prevention’ and could, if he so desired, prosecute the case
himself.82
Legal Procedure at the Cape
Once informed of a criminal offense, the fiscal or landdrost had to immediately begin
investigating the case. However, for the prosecutor to have the accused arrested
(even slaves), he had to first apply to the Council of Justice for permission. In more
serious cases, the fiscal could immediately take the accused prisoner, with the
stipulation that he apply for confirmation from the Council of Justice within twenty-four
hours. Once approved by the Council of Justice, the prosecutor immediately began
collecting evidence from witnesses in the form of depositions (verklaringen) and
statements (relasen). This was conducted in the presence of two eyewitnesses and in
the case of settlers (but not slaves), also included the promise to swear by the truth of
the statement, which was taken under oath. Subsequently, the accused (within twenty-
four hours) appeared before two delegates (gecommitteerdens) from the Council of
Justice, where they were scrutinized based on preliminary evidence. The Cape, like
the Netherlands and other western European states (except Britain), used the
inquisitory procedure, which meant that a confession was necessary before the
accused could be found guilty of a crime. Confessions could be extracted in three
ways: through voluntary confession, interrogation and torture.83
81 On the functions and development of the heemraden and landdrost, see Visagie, G.G., Regspleging en Reg aan die Kaap, pp. 52-55 82 Worden, N., and Groenewald, G. (eds), Trials of Slavery, p. xxiii. Visagie, G.G., Regspleging en Reg aan die Kaap, p. 55 83 Worden, N., and Groenewald, G. (eds), Trials of Slavery, pp. xxiii-xxiv and Newton-King, S., ‘For the Love of Adam: Two Sodomy Trials at the Cape of Good Hope’, Kronos: Journal of Cape History 28 (2002), p. 27
28
In cases where voluntary confessions were obtained from the accused, the confession
(confessie) was considered sufficient evidence to have the offender prosecuted. This
was certainly the case for one escaped slave, Reijner van Madagascar. Reijner having
attacked his owner with a knife (for the maltreatment of his daughter, Sabina), and
subsequently fleeing to the mountains around the Franschhoek region (where he
remained unnoticed for twenty years), voluntarily confessed to his crime after being
recaptured. Following his confession, Reijner was sentenced to hard labour for life on
Robben Island.84 If voluntary confessions could not be obtained, the accused would
then be interrogated by the delegates, in the absence of the prosecutor. Interrogation
questions were drawn up by the prosecutor and were supposedly formulated in such
a way that the accused would admit to their guilt by the end of the interrogation.85
Only when guilt could not be obtained from either a voluntary confession or from an
interrogation, but there were sufficient witness accounts to convince the legal
authorities of guilt, would the prosecutor proceed to torture in order to extract a
confession. However, in order for the prosecutor to proceed with torture, he had to
convince the Council of Justice that it was absolutely necessary by presenting an
eijsch ad torturam to them. Torture tended to be applied only in capital cases where
there was clear evidence of guilt, but where the offender refused to admit to this.86
This was certainly the case for Company woodcutter, Jurgen Scholts, who, together
with three other woodcutters, were caught stealing sheep from the Company. Scholts,
refused to admit to his guilt and his confession was subsequently extracted through
torture. The confessions of his co-accused were given voluntarily, thus providing the
prosecutor with sufficient evidence of his guilt. Scholts was subsequently sentenced
to death by hanging with the stipulation that his corpse be transported to the outer
place of execution, where he was to be hanged again as ‘prey to the air and birds of
84 Worden, N., and Groenewald, G. (eds), Trials of Slavery, pp. 263-269 85 Worden, N., and Groenewald, G. (eds), Trials of Slavery, p. xxiv. Newton-King, S., ‘For the Love of Adam’, p. 35 86 Worden, N., and Groenewald, G. (eds), Trials of Slavery, p. xxiv.
29
heaven.’87 Although there are other examples of confessions extracted through
torture, this method of obtaining a confession was relatively rare at the Cape.
Only after having obtained a confession, could the prosecutor bring the case before
the Council of Justice. This was done by drawing up what was known as the eijsch
(literally meaning ‘claim’ or ‘demand’). The eijsch was usually arranged chronologically
and was based on the depositions, statements and the confession or interrogation that
was produced in the case. The eijsch not only provided the Council of Justice with an
account of the events but also contained some deliberations based on legal authorities
– these usually included lengthy quotations accompanied by moralisations. Based on
his eijsch, the prosecutor would then move to a conclusie (conclusion), in which he
suggested appropriate punishments for the accused. However, before these
depositions, statements, confessions and interrogations could be used as evidence
before the Council of Justice, they had to be verified. The verification process saw the
person appear before two deputised members of the Council of Justice, where the
documents were read back aloud (gerecolleert), word for word. Thereafter, the person
had the option of making changes and then, alongside the two deputies, he or she
signed the recollement. After the verification process had been concluded, the
prosecutor, in his capacity as claimant (eijscher), together with the accused, appeared
before the Council of Justice. Once the prosecutor delivered his eijsch, the accused
was offered the opportunity to reply. The prosecutor could then offer his replicq, after
which the accused gave their duplicq. Only with the conclusion of this process did the
Council of Justice announce its final verdict.88
Crime and Punishment at the Cape
Prosecution and punishment procedures at the Cape of Good Hope, like those in
Europe and the Dutch East Indies, sought to emphasise the authority and power of
the state. Physical punishments that inflicted pain and humiliation, and both instant
87 Ibid., pp. 154-161 88 Ibid., pp. xxiv-xxv
30
and prolonged death sentences were ritualistic in nature and were performed in the
public domain. Once the Council of Justice had delivered its verdict, the sentence was
publicly read to the offender and spectators from the balcony of the chamber in the
Castle where the Council met. The offender would then be escorted to the execution
grounds, located just outside the Castle alongside the only road into town, where the
punishment was subsequently inflicted. As in Europe and the Dutch East Indies,
convicts sentenced to death frequently had their corpses taken to the ‘outer place of
execution’ where they were subjected to the elements and left to decompose in the
sight of all.89 Consequently, it could be argued that public executions of justice not only
reinforced the Company’s authority but also served an exemplary function: they sought
to deter spectators from engaging in similar crimes and served as a constant reminder
of the consequences of infringing on Company law. However, unlike Batavia, the Cape
primarily relied on the Council of Justice in dealing with all criminal matters. The
Church was not a major recourse for criminal affairs at the Cape. Nevertheless, both
religious ideals and religious works played a role in the sentences levied against
offenders at the Cape.90
Corporal and capital punishments at the Cape generally mirrored trends in both
Europe and the Dutch East Indies. A wide range of corporal and capital punishments
was employed by the Council of Justice. Corporal punishments at the Cape invariably
included floggings, brandings and physical mutilations; with whipping and brandings
being the most common form of corporal punishment imposed. These punishments
were often handed out in conjunction with additional penalties such as fines and
labouring on Company works. With regards to labouring on Company works, the Cape
differed from Batavian trends. As noted earlier, Batavian courts rarely sentenced
offenders to hard labour and the penalty was gradually phased out.91 Cape authorities
however frequently sentenced offenders to hard labour on Company works as the
89 Ross, R., Status and Respectability in the Cape Colony, 1750-1870: A Tragedy of Manners (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), p. 17 90 Bergemann, K.J., ‘Council of (in)Justice: Crime, Status, Punishment and the Decision-Makers in the 1730s Cape Justice System’ (MA Dissertation, University of Cape Town, 2011), pp. 41-44, 48-50, 84 91 McVay, P., ‘‘I am the Devil’s Own’, p. 83
31
Cape suffered from a chronic shortage of labour and convict labour helped to alleviate
this problem.92
Execution of capital punishments at the Cape varied, but as in the Netherlands, the
most common instant death sentence was hanging whilst the most common form of
prolonged death was breaking on the wheel. In his analysis of punishment at the Cape
during the 1730s, Bergemann notes that each of these punishments occurred 41 and
29 times, respectively. Breaking on the wheel, like the Netherlands, included
stipulations of ‘breaking from below’ and breaking with the coup de grace.93
A substantial number of cases tried by the Cape’s Council of Justice involved soldiers
and sailors. This is not surprising given the fact that, together with slaves, these low-
ranking Company employees made up the bulk of the settlement’s population. Soldiers
and sailors appeared before the Council of Justice for a wide range of crimes, some
of which include desertion, theft, assault, murder, military crimes and insubordination.
Hence, it could be argued that with respect to soldiers and sailors, the Cape followed
Batavian trends. However, in cases involving slaves, the Cape deviated from Batavian
trends. Slaves at the Cape were not ‘protected’ from the courts and together with
sailors and soldiers accounted for over 70% of cases tried by the Council between
1730 and 1739. Like Batavia, Company law at the Cape was structured in such a way
that certain groups were targeted by the justice system. Crimes such as absconding,
vagabonding and insubordination, could only be committed by sailors, soldiers and
slaves. Sailors, soldiers and slaves were also subjected to the full range of penal
options available to the authorities, with slaves being subjected to the harshest
punishments.94 Groenewald notes that till the end of the VOC period, slaves found
guilty of murder could be drawn-and-quartered (reserved for heinous crimes involving
92 Bergemann, K.J., ‘Council of (in)Justice’, p. 64. This was particularly the case later in the eighteenth century when the Cape authorities engaged in the building of large-scale defensive works. 93 Ibid. 94 Ibid., pp. 13-20
32
the murder of their owners), impaled, broken on the wheel or burnt alive (for
arsonists).95
Outside sailors, soldiers and slaves, free burghers made up the bulk of the record (for
the 1730s) whilst smaller groups such as convicts, caffers, Chinese and free blacks
made up the remaining percentage.96 During this period, burghers were primarily
sentenced for assault, murder, smuggling and illegal trade. Convicts generally came
before the court for cases of sodomy and theft, whilst all caffers were sentenced for
crimes of theft. Chinese were generally tried for smuggling, illegal trade and theft whilst
free blacks came before the courts for breaking Company regulations. The status of
an accused also played a role in the types of punishments they received. Burghers
were generally given fines and were rarely subjected to corporal punishments such as
whippings or brandings, whilst caffers were generally sentenced to death, with
hangings and strangulation being the predominant methods used. Free blacks and
Chinese offenders were generally sentenced to fines, floggings and hard labour in the
Company works.97 Consequently, it could be argued that, as in Batavia, the status of
the accused, rather than the nature of the crime alone, determined the type of
punishments that were handed down by Council of Justice.
Conclusion
In conclusion, European legal systems and punishment techniques influenced the
practice of criminal justice in both Batavia and the Cape. Physical punishments and
public executions not only sought to humiliate the offender, but also sought to
emphasise the power and authority of the state. Additionally, both punishments of the
body and the public nature of punishment served an exemplary function – they were
used to instil fear into spectators to such an extent that it would deter them from
95 Groenewald, G., ‘In a Land of Justice? Crime, Punishment and Slavery in Dutch Colonial South Africa, 1652-1795’, Paper delivered at the European Social Science History Conference, Vienna, Austria, 23-26 April 2014, p. 6 96 The term caffer will be explained in chapter 5. 97 Bergemann, K.J., ‘Council of (in)Justice’, pp. 26-32
33
criminal activity. Both physical and capital sentences also mirrored trends in Europe.
A wide variety of corporal and capital punishments were at the disposal of Batavian
and Cape authorities. These included whipping, branding, physical mutilations,
garrotting, hanging and being broken at the wheel, to name a few. As in Europe,
physical and capital punishments were also ritualistic in nature – the crime of the
offender was announced to spectators and punishments were performed in public
spaces.
It is however important to note that there were also differences in the practice of
criminal justice when compared to trends in Europe. The composition of the criminal
population in Company settlements altered the social dynamics of crime and the
prosecution of crimes. Profiles of offenders were highly stereotyped, and the status of
the offender played a role in the punishments handed out by Batavian and Cape
officials. Certain groups were targeted by the justice system – laws were targeted at
specific crimes but certain crimes could only be committed by certain groups of people.
Although there are similarities between the Batavian and the Cape criminal justice
systems, there were also some differences. Unlike in Batavia, Cape authorities
primarily relied on the Council of Justice in dealing with criminal matters – the church
was not a major recourse for criminal matters at the Cape. Slaves at the Cape were
not ‘protected’ from the courts and frequently came before the Cape Council of Justice
– they were also subjected to the harshest punishments. Batavian and Cape
authorities could also hand out fines, symbolic punishments and could place
restrictions on the physical freedom of an offender through forced labour or
banishment. Batavian courts, however, rarely sentenced offenders to hard labour
whilst Cape authorities frequently sentenced offenders to hard labour as it helped to
off-set chronic labour shortages. Consequently, it can be argued that the Batavian and
Cape justice systems mirrored but also differed from European trends. Thus, the Cape
justice system also shared some similarities and differences with those in Batavia.
34
Chapter 3
The Infrastructure and Administration of Robben Island
Introduction
Robben Island is located in Table Bay. The Island is situated approximately 11 km
north west of the Castle and 6 km west of Bloubergstrand. It is approximately 4,5 km
in length and 1,5 km in width. The absence of mountains on the Island results in it
receiving much lower rainfall than the Table Valley and because of this the only source
of water on the Island consist of wells containing brackish water. A dale, wherein a
temporary marsh forms during the rainy season, is situated on the eastern side of the
Island which makes this area the ideal place for a vegetable garden.98 Prior to the
formal establishment of the Dutch settlement at the Cape, the Island frequently acted
as a pantry for passing ships en route to the East. Dutch and English travellers
collected eggs, grew crops, fattened livestock and hunted seal, penguins and birds.99
The Cape, and subsequently Robben Island, became a permanent feature of the
Atlantic world when the VOC formally established a refreshment station at the Cape
of Good Hope.100 Following the establishment of the refreshment station, the Island
had a variety of functions. These functions included a prison, an emergency
refreshment station, a quarantine station, a scouts post, a signal post and a source of
building materials. Consequently, the Island required some administration and
infrastructure. This chapter discusses both these aspects of Robben Island.
98 Sleigh, D., Die Buiteposte: VOC-Buiteposte onder Kaapse Bestuur, 1652-1795, (Pretoria: Protea Publishers, 2004), p. 349 99 See examples of such activities in Raven-Hart, R., Before van Riebeeck: Callers at South Africa from 1488 to 1652 (Cape Town: A.A. Balkema, 1967), pp. 24-28, 39-40 100 Groenewald, G., ‘Southern Africa and the Atlantic World’ in Coffman, D., Leonard, A. and O’Reilly, W. (eds),The Atlantic World (London & New York: Routledge, 2015), pp. 103-104
35
Robben Island before Dutch Settlement
There are no references to Robben Island in the literature of Portuguese expeditions
prior to the visitation of Antonio d’ Saldanha in 1503. Portuguese explorers generally
avoided Table Bay as much as possible following the killing, ‘with a lance through his
throat,’ of Portuguese Viceroy, Franscisco d’ Almeida in 1510, by the indigenous
Khoikhoi.101 Dutch, English and French explorers, however, continued using this sea
route in their voyages to the East, and in 1619 the Dutch East India Company (VOC)
and the English East India Company (EIC) agreed to use Table Bay as a half-way
station, thus incorporating Table Bay into the Atlantic orbit. Consequently, the Island
began to serve as a pantry where Dutch and English travellers could stock up on food
supplies. Both English and Dutch travellers placed sheep on the Island and, as early
as 1601, visitors to the Island used the oil, which was a natural fuel source, of seals
they killed. English General, Sir James Lancaster, for the ‘reliefe [sic] of strangers that
might come thither,’ placed six ewes and two rams on the Island in 1601.102 It would
seem these sheep came in handy – two months after Lancaster’s visit, Dutch General,
Joris van Spilbergen, not only killed some penguins but also shot and took the sheep
placed on the Island by Lancaster. Spilbergen, also described the Island as ‘somewhat
larger, high and more coursely [sic] grown’ than Dassen Island (in Saldanha Bay), and
noted that there were no dassies. He subsequently released a few dassies and rabbits,
taken from Dassen Island, so that they could breed and multiply on the Island.103
An entire Goringhaicona group of strandloopers, made up of about 60 people, could
be found on the Island during the 1630s. These people stayed in huts and acted as
caretakers of some livestock belonging to an unnamed English captain. The leader of
the group, Hudah, spoke a little English and received letters from English sailors and
kept them safe until the arrival of the next English fleet. The Goringhaicona, however,
seemed to have had an adverse effect on the Island’s wildlife: when Dutch captain, C.
Gerritsen visited the Island (to plant some fruit and vegetable seeds) in 1638, only one
101 Raven-Hart, R., Before van Riebeeck: Callers at South Africa from 1488 to 1652, pp. 9, 22 102 Ibid., pp. 24-25 103 Ibid., pp. 27-28
36
penguin could be found on the Island. It would however seem that between 1638 and
1639, this group was removed from the Island since, in 1639, the strandloopers asked
Danish ship captain, Johan van Mandeslo, if he could return them to the Island where
they could survive off the its wildlife and be free from their enemies. Four men, eight
women and three children were subsequently taken to the Island, but by 1641 the
entire group was once again on the mainland. Given the nature of the Goringhaicona’s
stay on the Island, it could be argued that they served as the first ‘administrators’ of
the Island and its resources.104
Robben Island during the Early Years of the Dutch Settlement
Approximately three months after the establishment of the refreshment station, Van
Riebeeck attempted to reach the Island so that he could determine how the Island
could help the refreshment station at the Cape in achieving its aims. However strong
winds and surfs prevented him from reaching the Island. Consequently, he had to wait
until September before a visit could be made. In his inspection of the Island, the
Commander found large numbers of penguins and a number of seals on the Island.
He noted that some areas were extremely sandy with lots of bushes whilst other places
had mostly grass with lots of flowers and found streams of sluggish water that
navigated their way back to the ocean which he believed were the results of a shallow
underground water table. After spending the night on the Island, the Commander
returned to the fort with some penguin eggs he had collected, approximately six
hundred penguins and six seals, which were shot dead for their blubber.105
In May 1653, six sheep and a few dassies, taken from Dassen Island, were placed on
the Island as a test. By September, the sheep had multiplied to nine and the dassies
were still alive. Given this success, in March 1654 the Council of Policy decided that
all the Company’s ewes and a handful of its best rams would be placed on the Island.
Consequently, four or five people would also be placed on the Island to prevent the
104 Ibid., pp. 129, 138, 143, 148, 153 105 Sleigh, D., Die Buiteposte: VOC-Buiteposte onder Kaapse Bestuur 1652-1795, p. 352
37
theft of the animals and to kill seals for oil. These individuals would be accompanied
by accountant, F. Verburgh, who would oversee the management of the Island.
Verburgh also had the additional tasks of investigating the possibility of agriculture on
the Island and of constructing wells and homes for both animals and people.106
The Buildings of Robben Island
Not much is known about the buildings, and where on Robben Island they were located
during the early years of the Dutch settlement. However, the records do provide some
information on structures that could be found on the Island. Already in 1654, when
Corporal Marcus Robbeljaert was appointed the first postholder of the Island, there
existed a stable on the Island. Robbeljaert, with the help of three men, were not only
tasked with taking care of the sheep and slaughtering seals for their oil, but were also
tasked with feeding the calves, cleaning the stables, putting new grass on the stable’s
floors, carrying manure to the garden and keeping watch for sailors rowing from ships
towards the Island.107 Based on records, there also existed a milk cellar on the Island
– in October 1655 over 3 000 stones and a shipment of building sand were sent to the
Island for the construction of the milk cellar.108
It seems a sheep enclosure could also be found on the Island – Overhagen’s (who
became postholder in 1658) first task was to improve the sheep enclosure. However,
to make these improvements Overhagen was given 100 poles but no nails and he
consequently had to use rope as binding. However, a new sheep enclosure was
commissioned following the significant increase in sheep after the winter rains of 1658.
The new sheep enclosure was 100 feet by 18 feet, had two doors (built from wood
found at the back of Table Mountain) that were wide enough for a wheel barrow to fit
through. Its location was chosen by Van Riebeeck himself. The following winter
106 Ibid., p. 353 107 Ibid. 108 Ibid., p. 354
38
however, saw the stable blown away. Nevertheless, it was rebuilt and covered with
straw.109
The first functioning administrative building that could withstand heavy rains, was built
in 1664. The building was commissioned after a visit from Commander Zacharias
Wagenaer who subsequently sent 15 000 bricks, a shipload of clay, timber and 100
bushes of reeds for the building’s construction. While the construction of the
administrative building was underway, the existing houses (which likely housed the
postholder and those stationed on the Island) and animal cages were also fixed.110
The administrative building housed working tools used for stone work and gardening,
weapons and ammunition, signal apparatus, homeware, crockery, psalm books and
provisions.111
The administrative building was however rebuilt in 1679. The new administrative
building was built with stone and brick, with shell lime used as brick plaster. The former
sheep enclosure, which was being used as housing, was also repaired while the new
sheep enclosure was also built during this time. The sheep enclosure was also moved
further away from the administrative building so that the sheep would be kept safe
from potential fires in the administrative building. These buildings were more than likely
constructed by convicts sentenced to the Island.112 The upkeep of these buildings
does not seem to have been of great importance to Company authorities at the Cape:
in 1698, for example, the administrative building’s roof had begun to collapse due to
age. The postholder at the time, Maarten Hamerling, had to wait from December 1698
to August 1699 for the roof to be fixed, and in the meantime had a difficult time keeping
their rations dry.113
109 Ibid., pp. 354-355 110 Ibid., p. 355 111 Ibid., pp. 356-357 112 Ibid., pp. 359-360 113 Ibid., p. 362
39
By 1711, the buildings on Robben Island were once again in disrepair. In a letter,
postholder Hameling informed the governor at the time, Louis van Assenburgh, of the
poor conditions of the Island’s buildings. Eight months later, a carpenter and mason
were sent to inspect the buildings and subsequently sent a list to the Cape noting
everything that was needed. However, the long illness and eventual death of the
governor meant that for more than a year nothing was done to fix the buildings.
Following the death of van Assenburgh, the postholder wrote to the acting authorities
once more, and noted that the building was just about being held together – two
months later the building was finally fixed. Following this, it would be 39 years before
any construction was recorded being done on the Island: in 1750 bricks and lime, but
not thatching was sent to the Island.114
By then it was noted that the postholder’s house and the Island’s housing for Company
employees, convict and exiles were not big enough. In the kraal (‘corral’), where the
convicts were housed, a partition of seal skin was erected around each convict’s bed
for privacy. An increasing number of high-ranking political exiles from Asia were being
kept with the convicts. Wanting to spare them this humiliation, Governor Tulbagh
commissioned two designs for a house for these high-ranking exiles and one of these
designs was approved by the Council of Policy in January 1760. This consequently
resulted in other buildings on the Island being repaired: the postholder’s house and
the signal hut received new doors and frames while the corporal’s house got a new
thatch roof. The kraal which was too small for all its residents and dilapidated, was
also extended in 1763.115
Possibly the best impression of the Island’s buildings and accommodation can be
gained from Colonel Robert Gordon’s paintings of the Island in the 1770s. From these
drawings it appears that there were several buildings erected close to the landing
beach at Murray’s Bay, and that the postholder’s house was about three or four metres
to the west of the anchoring place. The Island also had a flag house from which the
114 Ibid., p. 368 115 Western Cape Archives Repository (hereafter: CA): Council of Policy (hereafter: C) 138, pp. 55-74 (per Tanap). CA: C 141, pp.45-56 (per Tanap). CA: C 144, pp. 392-407 (per Tanap)
40
signals fires were lighted, the kraal, housing for Company soldiers and people living
on the Island by choice, a graveyard, Company garden and a slave garden.116
The Administrators (Postholders) of Robben Island
As mentioned earlier, Robben Island variously served as a prison, an emergency
refreshment station, a quarantine station, a scout’s post, a signal post and a source of
building materials. Consequently, it be argued that the Island was one of the most
important outposts of the Company during the VOC period at the Cape. Given its
various functions, some administration was required, and this was usually carried out
by the postholder. The postholder was tasked with a variety of functions. In addition to
acting as warden for the convicts and exiles imprisoned on the Island, the postholder,
with the help of some soldiers stationed on the Island, also had to ensure that the
Island’s livestock was being taken care of, that the signal fires were lit, and that the
Island’s vegetable garden was maintained.
The functions and duties of the postholder and outpost was codified for the first time
in 1719 – prior to this postholders acted on the initial instructions drafted by Van
Riebeeck in 1654. These instructions firstly noted the signals that should be used
given different situations. For example, if there was conflict amongst the convicts and
exiles of the Island, one shot was to be fired and the flag was to be hoisted in a certain
way whilst, if a distressed ship appeared, three shots would be fired and the flag
hoisted However, if signals were to be fired at night, signal shots and no flags were to
be used. The postholder was also instructed not to allow people from English, French,
Portuguese and Danish ships on the Island.117
116 Reproductions of Colonel Robert Gordon’s paintings can be found in Sleigh, D., Die Buiteposte: VOC-Buiteposte onder Kaapse Bestuur 1652-1795, p. 361 and in Penn, N., ‘Robben Island, 1488-1805,’ pp. 22-27. 117 Sleigh, D., Die Buiteposte: VOC-Buiteposte onder Kaapse Bestuur 1652-1795, pp. 363-364
41
As for those stationed on the Island, the postholder had to ensure that they were well
disciplined and that their weapons were looked after and well taken care of. He was
also charged with controlling how much they drank, and if found drunk, he needed to
punish them. Convicts and slaves on the Island had to collect shells sonder ophou
(‘without pause’) and carry them to Sandbay. Incoming ships requiring emergency
assistance were not allowed to receive more than wethers and older ewes. In addition
to this, the ship’s crew was not allowed to help themselves to provisions. Ships of 160
feet were allowed 12 sheep, ships of 140 feet were allowed 10 sheep and 8 sheep
were allowed for ships of 130 feet. If the postholder allocated more sheep than
dictated, the price of the sheep would be deducted from his pay. Additionally, the
postholder was also instructed not to provide provisions for any ships coming from the
anchorage side of the Cape as these ships had already been provided with provisions.
These instructions, however, were amended in 1732 and again in 1776, with the main
changes being the number of shots fired depending on the situation.118
There was a high turnover rate of Robben Island postholders during the early years of
Dutch settlement at the Cape. Between 1654, when the first postholder was appointed,
and 1670, seven different individuals held this position. This could in partbe attributed
to labour shortages, military stress, financial constraints and poor agriculture.
However, some of these postholders also failed to carry out their duties. This was
certainly the case with postholder Jan Woutersz. Woutersz, who served as postholder
from March 1657 to March 1658, frequently got drunk and often forgot to light the
signal fires at night. In addition to this, his neglect caused the death of more than 120
sheep during the winter of 1657. Woutersz, together with his wife and child, were
subsequently deported back to the East where he was to serve as a soldier.119
Another example of the postholder failing to carry out his duty was one of Woutersz’s
successors, Jan Zacharias. Zacharias’ negligence in failing to light the signal fires
almost led to the wrecking of the Princes Roijael, while his failure to notify Van
Riebeeck of hydropsy (or oedema) on the Island not only cost him his wife, but also
118 Ibid., pp. 363-364 119 Ibid., p. 354
42
saw many of the Islands convicts bedridden, leading to a cessation of labour on the
Island.120 In May 1665, Zacharias was replaced by surgeon Pieter van Meerhof.
However, in 1668, Meehof was killed during a slaving expedition and was
subsequently replaced by Pieter Siegfriedt. Following Siegfriedt’s transfer to the
outpost of Saldanha Bay in 1669, Zacharias was reinstated. This time however, his
negligence saw the escape of two convicts. The two convicts managed to steal the
Island’s boat and sailed to the mainland where they made it known that Zacharias was
selling Company sheep to passing ships.121
By the mid-eighteenth century, it seems that the postholders of Robben Island found
it easier to work for governors when compared to their predecessors. It was also
possible for postholders to supplement their wages, using convict labour, without the
risk of either losing their job or overstepping the boundaries of private trade. Earlier
postholders, like Zacharias, were removed from their post following allegations of
private trade. Postholder Callenbagh was removed from the Island and deported to
the Netherlands after being accused of driving private trade and selling sheep, eggs
and vegetables to the Oosthuizen.122 This, however, was not the case with eighteenth-
century postholders, examples being postholders Vermoons, Vilter and Lehr. Lehr
made furniture for settlers at the Cape, whilst both Vermoons and Vilter collected
penguins for the Cape’s settlers. It would also seem that tensions between the
postholder and convicts sentenced to the Robben Island eased over the course of the
eighteenth century. During the final decade of Company rule, convicts worked as
carpenters and blacksmiths. One convict even served as the postholder’s steward and
was tasked with delivering the convicts’ wages.123 This was certainly not the case for
earlier postholders. Postholder Berewitz, in a letter written to the Council of Policy in
1673, highlighted the fact that he lived in fear of dangerous criminal which often kept
him awake at night.124
120 Ibid., p. 355 121 Ibid., pp. 355-356 122 Ibid., p. 362 123 Ibid., p. 365 124 Ibid., p. 356
43
Conclusion
Prior to the formal establishment of the Dutch settlement at the Cape, Robben Island
often acted as a pantry for passing ships en route to the East. Portuguese explorers
generally avoided Table Bay following skirmishes with the indigenous Khoikhoi, but
Dutch, English and French explorers continued using this sea route to their journeys
to and from the East. In 1619 the VOC and the EIC decided to use Table Bay as a
halfway station, subsequently incorporating both the Cape and Robben Island into the
Atlantic orbit. Both English and Dutch travellers placed sheep on the Island and, as
early as 1601, visitors to the Island used the oil, which was a natural fuel source, of
the seals they killed. An entire Goringhaicona group of strandloopers, could be found
on the Island during the 1630s. This group of strandloopers took care of livestock of
an unnamed English captain. Given the nature of the strandloopers’ stay on the Island,
it could be argued that they served as the first ‘administrators’ of the Island and its
resources.
Following the formal establishment of the refreshment station at the Cape in 1652,
Robben Island served a variety of functions. These included a prison, an emergency
refreshment station, a quarantine station, a signal post and a source of building
materials. The administration of the Island was carried out by the postholder who not
only acted as warden for the prisoners and exiles imprisoned on the Island, but also
had to ensure that the signal fires were lit, and that the livestock and vegetable garden
on the Island were tended to. Not much is known about the buildings, and where on
Robben Island they were located during the early years of the Dutch settlement.
However, the records do provide some information on structures that could be found
on the Island – Colonel Robert Gordon’s paintings of the Island in the 1770s probably
provides the best impression of the buildings and accommodation found on the Island.
From these drawings it appears that there were several buildings erected close to the
landing beach at Murray’s Bay, and that the postholder’s house was about three or
four metres to the west of the anchoring place. The Island also had a flag house from
which the signals fires were lighted, the kraal, housing for Company soldiers and
45
Chapter 4
The Bandieten and Bannelingen of Robben Island
Introduction
The Cape of Good Hope became a permanent feature in the Atlantic world when the
Dutch East India Company established a refreshment station on the shores of Table
Bay, thus incorporating the Cape into the Company’s vast empire. The Company
constantly sought to emphasise its power and authority and subsequently passed
criminal laws that sentenced individuals that failed to comply with the law to various
punishments, including penal transportation and banishment.125 Consequently, those
who fell foul of the law became particularly vulnerable to the possibility of forced
migration. The Cape’s geographic location coupled with its isolation from other Dutch
settlements in the East made it the ideal location for both penal transportation and
political exile. Thus, almost from the onset of the refreshment station, the Cape was
incorporated into the Company’s network of forced migration.
The Cape, however, had its own localised sub-circuit of forced migration. Robben
Island frequently acted as a secondary site of imprisonment and banishment for both
those transported from the East Indies and those sentenced at the Cape – some
convicts and exiles at the Cape were seen as particularly dangerous and were often
relegated to Robben Island which provided the safest place for incarceration as it was
isolated from both the East and the Cape, and was thus extremely difficult to escape
from. In addition to this, it allowed Cape authorities to decrease the number of convicts
and exiles residing at the Cape.126 Consequently, prisoners and exiles of various
ethnicities, ranks and languages served their sentences on the Island – which was
technically an outpost under the control of Cape VOC officials.127 This chapter seeks
to explore the convict experience on Robben Island. A major preoccupation of the
125 Ward, K., Networks of Empire, pp. 18, 85 126 Ibid., pp. 139, 244 127 Truter, P., ‘The Robben Island Rebellion of 1751,’ p. 39
46
Dutch East India Company was controlling populations that fell under its jurisdiction
throughout its empire, and one of the ways the Company sought to maintain this
control was through penal transportation. Penal transportation linked settlements in
the East with the Cape and Robben Island. Thus, this chapter begins by discussing
how the VOC authorities used legal categories, banishment and political exile in their
attempts at controlling both their own subjects and the indigenous populations of the
parts of Asia they controlled.
The chapter then proceeds to discuss the Island’s transformation from pantry to prison
by looking at early convicts and exiles on the Island. The convict population is then
examined for the period between 1728 and 1795, with the focus being the
cosmopolitan convict population on the Island. The bandietenrollen (‘convict rolls’) are
particularly important in attempting to understand the cosmopolitan make-up of
prisoners residing on the Island.128 The bandietenrollen are comprised of detailed lists
relating to the people banished and exiled to the Cape and Robben Island, from the
Dutch East Indies. Included in these lists are also convicts sentenced at the Cape. The
registers include the names of convicts, their origins, where they were sentenced and
the number of years they were meant to serve their sentences. Some registers also
include the ranks, crimes, punishments and additional commentary on convicts
serving their sentences on Robben Island. However, it is important to note that the
bandietenrollen are not without their limitations – there are no registers prior to 1728
while those for the years 1749 to 1757 are also missing. Additionally, the list of convicts
on Robben Island between 1758 and 1802 contains numerous registers for any given
year.129
Finally the chapter discusses the living and working conditions of prisoners on the
Island by exploring as case studies certain cases that came before the Council of
Justice at the Cape. Finally, a conclusion is provided, summing up the contents of the
chapter.
128 All the tables provided in this chapter, and their accompanying appendices at the end of the dissertation, were compiled using these bandietenrollen. 129 For the purpose of this chapter, the last register available for the years 1758 to 1795 was used.
47
Controlling the Populace of the VOC’s Empire
The Dutch East India Company sought to maintain control over populations that fell
under its jurisdiction, particularly its own employees and slaves. One way in which the
Company sought to maintain control was by instituting criminal laws that sentenced
law-breakers to various punishments, including banishment. Banishment was one of
the harshest punishments that could be imposed on individuals throughout the VOC’s
vast empire. As mentioned earlier, those sentenced to penal transportation and
banishment could either be sentenced to the United Provinces (only European
convicts could be banished to the Fatherland), to a specific territory within the empire
or beyond ‘all forts, cities and places under the jurisdiction of the Company.’130 Hard
labour, often in chains, frequently accompanied a sentence of banishment and
convicts laboured alongside slaves and led lives comparable to slaves. Theoretically,
banishment could be administered to anyone within the Company’s realm regardless
of rank, status or ethnicity. However, like other punishments, high-ranking Company
officials and settlers were rarely subjected to this type of punishment. Banishment was
primarily imposed on low-ranking VOC employees, mainly sailors, soldiers, and
slaves.
The VOC also sought to maintain control of individuals who fell under its control by
assigning legal and, to a great extent social, categories. Individuals were typically
categorised according to their position within the Company’s empire.131 As previously
mentioned, VOC employees mostly resided on the lower rungs of the Company’s
hierarchy with soldiers, sailors and artisans making up the bulk of its personnel. Low-
ranking employees were prosecuted for much of the same crimes as slaves, and were
harshly punished for the crimes they committed. Desertion and absconding were the
most common crimes committed by low-ranking employees, but employees were also
sentenced for insubordination, theft, assault, smuggling, murder, suicide, attempted
suicide and sodomy. Banishment was also frequently imposed on convicts who broke
130 Ward, K., Networks of Empire, p. 117 131 Ibid., p. 18
48
out of their chains and escaped incarceration, and infrequently imposed in mitigating
a death sentence. For example, Lodewijk Rets and Arnoldus van Zuijlon were both
banished to the Cape with a sentence of hard labour after breaking out of their chains
in Batavia. Both Rets and Van Zuijlon eventually ended up on Robben Island.132
All Company employees were subjected to multi-year contracts, but some employees
were released from their contracts and granted permission to either farm or trade.
Those released from their contracts were styled ‘free burghers’ (vrijburgers) and
largely provided the basis of the VOC’s settler population. Free burghers, however,
were still considered Company subjects and consequently fell under Company
jurisdiction. That being said, burghers who fell foul of the law faced the possibility of
either forcible re-enlistment or banishment. However, both these punishments were
resented by burgher populations throughout the empire and were for this reason rarely
utilised.133 It is important to note that European convicts sentenced to the Cape only
came from within the VOC Indian Ocean empire – no European prisoner was ever
transported directly from the United Provinces.134 For European settlers and Company
employees residing at the Cape were frequently sentenced to incarceration on and
banishment to Robben Island.
In the Company’s network of forced migration, individuals were mostly categorised as
slaves, bandieten (‘convicts’) and bannelingen (‘exiles’). These categories negated all
other categories in terms of treatment under the law.135 The legal slave trade was one
of the most vital elements in the Company’s network of forced migration, but it was not
an essential source of income for the Company – slaves were primarily used to meet
the labour demands of the Company and its settler populations. Slave labour at the
Cape was obtained from slave trading networks that existed within the Indian Ocean
region, and most slaves at the Cape were imported from various regions within the
132 See Ward, K., Networks of Empire: Forced Migration in the Dutch East India Company, pp. 118-119. CA: Council of Justice (hereafter: CJ) 3188, pp. 321- 333: Lodewijk Rets and Arnoldus van Zuijlon first appear on the convicts rolls in 1745. CA: CJ 3188, pp. 349-352: However, Arnoldus van Zuijlon managed to escape Robben Island in January 1745. 133 Ward, K., Networks of Empire, pp. 19-20 134 Ibid., p. 150 135 Ibid., pp. 117-118
49
Dutch East India empire. However, not all slaves at the Cape originated from the East:
Cape officials sometimes sent slaving expeditions to Madagascar and, later in the
eighteenth century, Mozambique; while some slaves were bought from private traders
on foreign ships that docked at the Cape.136
At the Cape, tensions often arose between Company officials and slave owners over
the price and marketing of produce, but both agreed on the tight control of slaves. As
Nigel Worden noted, it was in the interest of both slave owners and Company officials
that slaves were efficiently kept under control in order to provide enough labour and
produce for the Cape to remain self-sufficient.137 Slavery at the Cape operated on two
levels of discipline and control. The first level involved the relationship between slave
owner and slave, with the slave always subservient to the owner. The second level
encompassed the broader context of both the administrative and legal system of the
Cape; which generally favoured the slave owners. Slaves were primarily kept in check
by their owners, who constantly sought to re-assert their authority and emphasise the
subservience of their slaves. Corporal punishment, mainly whipping, was one of the
most common ways owners obtained co-operation from their slaves. The legal and
administrative systems of the Cape was of vital importance in the control of slaves:
when slave discipline broke down, owners had the option of turning their slaves over
to Cape authorities for punishment. Most slaves, however, only came into contact with
the Cape’s legal and administrative systems as accused in criminal cases, when they
were harshly judged and sentenced by the courts.138
Exile of indigenous and religious rulers also formed part of the Company’s network of
forced migration and was frequently used by VOC officials in the Dutch East Indies to
enforce treaties and contracts. Most exiles sent to the Cape came directly from
Batavia, but some were also transported from Ceylon – exiles who posed a security
risk in Ceylon because of their possible access to indigenous trading and religious
136 For more information on how slaves were obtained see, Worden, N., and Groenewald, G. (eds), Trials of Slavery, pp. xi-xii. Also see Worden, N., Slavery in Dutch South Africa, chapter 2 137 Worden, N., Slavery in Dutch South Africa, p.110 138 For more information on the discipline and control of slaves see, Ross, R., The Cape of Torments: Slavery and Resistance in South Africa, chapters 2 and 3. Also see Worden, N., Slavery in Dutch South Africa, chapter 8
50
networks were sent to the Cape, as Company officials felt more certain of their control
of the Cape and its surrounding territories. This was certainly true in the case of
religious scholar and prisoner of state, Shaykh Yusuf. Yusuf was initially exiled to
Ceylon following a succession dispute in Banten that resulted in a full-scale civil war
in 1682 – he sided with Sultan Ageng against his usurping son, Sultan Haji, who had
garnered the Company’s support. However, Yusuf’s exile in Ceylon did not diminish
his religious and political influence in the Indonesian archipelago: Ceylon was on the
pilgrimage route from the archipelago to India which enabled open communication
between Yusuf and Muslim pilgrims and scholars. His political influence could also be
seen by the petitions from Makassarese nobility for his return. Consequently, in
attempts to neutralise his religious and political influence, Yusuf was exiled to the
Cape.139 Exiles sent to the Cape were predominately male, but wives, children and
slaves often accompanied them into exile: when Shaykh Yusuf arrived at the Cape in
April 1694, he was accompanied by forty-nine family members, religious followers and
slaves.140
Exile was also of strategic significance – it allowed VOC authorities to physically
remove individuals who, they felt, threatened VOC interests and could be used as
leverage. However, it is important to note that not all exiles who were transported to
the Cape were necessarily instigated by the Company – indigenous allies often sought
the VOC’s assistance in the exile of their adversaries.141 One such example can be
seen in the case of the Makassarese nobleman, Karaeng Lambengi, who arrived at
the Cape in 1681. Lambengi had allegedly seduced one of the wives of Company ally,
Arung Palakka. As a matter of honour and retribution, Palakka insisted that Lambengi
be severely punished and the Company subsequently banished Lambengi to the Cape
– Company officials were willing to go to great lengths to ensure Palakka remained an
ally as he ruled the Bugis kingdom of Bone and without his alliance peaceful trade in
the region would not have been possible.142
139 Ward, K., Networks of Empire, pp. 204-207 140 Ibid., p. 207 141 Ibid., pp. 187-199 142 Ibid., pp. 196-197
51
High-ranking exiles that were transported to the Cape arrived with detailed instructions
which specified not only their housing arrangements but also their monthly stipends:
Shaykh Yusuf, for example, received a stipend of twelve rixdollars per month and,
together with his entourage was housed on the farm, Zandvliet.143 Cape officials, for
the most part, executed these instructions as directed. However not all high-ranking
exiles were treated the same by Cape officials – some were treated fairly well in
accordance with their rank and status whilst others were subjected to harsh
environments and were treated not much better than convicts. Some exiles at the
Cape were seen as particularly dangerous and were often relegated to the outskirts of
town or to Robben Island in order to minimise their contact with those residing in town.
Treatment of exiles largely depended on the locality they originated from – exiles from
territories over which the Company had extended jurisdiction were generally treated
better than exiles who originated from regions in which the Company was engaged in
open conflict or those that had been sent to the Cape for rebellion.144 Subsequently, it
could be argued that exile was not only used as a political tool that aided Company
interest, but was also used to control individuals who threatened Company control.
Consequently, those categorised as slaves, convicts and exiles from various regions
within the VOC’s empire and comprising various cultures and ethnicities, found
themselves serving their sentences at the Cape. Convicts arriving at the Cape, for the
most part, arrived with some documentation that provided Cape officials with their
basic biographical information and the length and, sometimes, details of their
sentences. Most convicts arriving from the East were sentenced to hard labour and
were usually placed on batteries and outposts that required labour – this was mainly
done to minimalise their social contact with the underclasses in Cape Town. Cape
officials feared that the presence of convicts and exiles in town would incite violence
and desertion amongst slaves.145 Convicts sentenced to hard labour at the Cape were
used exclusively by the Company and made up a substantial percentage of the
Company’s unpaid labour force – for every two slaves imported to the Cape, there was
143 Ibid., p. 208 144 Ibid., pp. 242-248 145 Ward, K., ‘Southeast Asian Migrants’ in Worden, N. (ed.), Cape Town Between East and West: Social Identities in a Dutch Colonial Town (Johannesburg: Jacana Media, 2012), p. 89
52
one convict.146 The detention of prisoners and the hard labour they were subjected to,
took place in a variety of locations in and around Cape Town. These included
Company warehouses, fortifications, the hospital, the Slave Lodge and even the
Castle itself.
Although convicts constituted a significant proportion of the Cape’s unpaid labour
force, Cape authorities and settlers still saw them as a potential threat to the social
structure of the Cape. Consequently, numerous letters were sent to both the
Seventeen Gentlemen and the High Government in Batavia, pleading to have the
number of convicts and exiles sent to the Cape reduced. Governor de Chavonnes’
letter to the Seventeen Gentlemen provides an example. In his letter, he highlighted
the plight of the Cape and noted that:
Regarding the convicts sent annually from Batavia, Ceylon and other places
we wish to state that we are being swamped with rascals, this year again we
received twenty-one and if it continues at this rate, the number will increase
to such an extent that they may do a deal of mischief by running away, as
has often occurred to the interior. They daily urge the slaves to run away and
even provide them with arms.147
Pleas such as the one made by Governor de Chavonnes, however, did little to lighten
the Cape’s burden as the Company’s jailers – convicts were sent to the Cape
throughout the VOC period. Consequently, Robben Island and, for a limited time in the
seventeenth century, Mauritius acted as alternative places of incarceration and
banishment for both convicts and exiles arriving from the East and those sentenced at
the Cape.
146 Armstrong, J.C., ‘The Chinese Exiles,’ in Worden, N. (ed.), Cape Town Between East and West: Social Identities in a Dutch Colonial Town (Johannesburg: Jacana Media, 2012), p. 102 147 Quoted in Ward, K., Networks of Empire, p. 247
53
Robben Island provided the safest place for incarceration as it was isolated from both
the East and the Cape and was extremely difficult to escape from. In addition to this,
it allowed Cape authorities to decrease the number of convicts and exiles residing at
the Cape. Elphick and Shell have approximated that between 200 and 300 convicts
were banished to the Cape throughout the eighteenth century.148 However, the
number of convicts at the Cape would have been substantially larger as Elphick and
Shell only tallied those that had been transported to the Cape from the Dutch East
Indies – Company employees, slaves, settlers and others who attained convict status
in the Cape are not accounted for. Thus, the Island, like the Cape, housed a
cosmopolitan collection of people: the convicts and exiles serving their sentences on
the Island, like the inhabitants of the Cape, had diverse languages, religions, cultures
and ethnicities.
The Bandieten and Bannelingen of Robben Island
During the founding years of the Dutch settlement at the Cape, Robben Island
frequently acted as an emergency food supply for Dutch settlers – when livestock trade
with the indigenous Khoikhoi broke down, eggs, cormorants and penguins from the
Island were used to supply the settlement with food. Sheep were also placed on the
Island as an insurance for when livestock could not be obtained through trade with the
local Khoikhoi.149 However, political considerations soon prompted Van Riebeeck into
using the Island as a place of exile for political dissidents who threatened perceived
Company interest. Van Riebeeck felt in the mid-1650s that should the Khoikhoi
translator, Autshumato (also known as Harry), and his followers be removed from the
Cape and placed on Robben Island, livestock trade with other Khoikhoi leaders would
be cheaper and more abundant. Autshumato along with two of his followers were
indeed placed on the Island in July 1658 – he had been implicated in the murder of a
Dutch shepherd and had been accused of duplicity. Nevertheless, when his skills as
a translator were required, Autshumato was secretly removed from the Island and then
148 Elphick, R. and Shell, R., ‘Intergroup Relations: Khoikhoi, Settlers, Slaves and Free Blacks, 1652-1795,’ in Elphick, R., and Giliomee, H. (eds), The Shaping of South African Society, 1652-1840, 2nd edition, (Cape Town: Maskew Miller Longman, 1989), p. 216 149 Penn, N., ‘Robben Island, 1488-1805,’ pp. 14-15
54
promptly returned. However, in November 1659, using the Island’s leaky row-boat,
Autshumato and one of his fellow hostages managed to escape the Island. Cape
authorities believed it unlikely that the escapees could have survived but two weeks
later they found the Island’s boat docked not too far north from the Fort.150
Autshumato and his followers were not the only Khoikhoi imprisoned on the Island.
Krotoa, Autshumato’s niece also spent some time on the Island. Having been brought
up in the Van Riebeeck household, Krotoa, or ‘Eva’ as she was called by the Dutch,
mastered both Dutch and Portuguese and subsequently replaced her uncle as
mediator between the Dutch and Khoikhoi. In 1662, Krotoa was baptised into the
Dutch Reformed Church and two years later, in June 1664, she married European
surgeon, Pieter van Meerhoff. A year later, Van Meerhoff became the third postholder
of Robben Island and Krotoa, together with their children, went to stay with him on the
Island. Following Van Meerhoff’s death on a slaving expedition to Madagascar, Krotoa
and her children returned to the mainland. Krotoa, however, became a chronic
alcoholic and her conduct became so unacceptable to the colonial society around her,
that she was periodically banished to Robben Island.151
Autshumato and Krotoa, however, were not the first, nor the last to be imprisoned on
the Island. In 1611, Thomas Aldworth, a member of the English East India Company,
proposed that approximately a hundred convicts be transported to the Cape and left
there to fend for themselves.152 Officials from the English East India Company agreed
and in 1615 ten men were put ashore, instead of the recommended one hundred,
under the leadership of a certain John Cross. Unfortunately, some of these men were
attacked by the Khoikhoi a few days after being placed on the shores of Table Bay.
Fortunately for the convicts, the English ship Hope was in Table Bay. The ship’s
skipper, Edward Dodsworth, provided them with a longboat and guns. The convicts
subsequently based themselves on Robben Island and consequently became the first
150 Ibid., pp. 15-16 151 For a more detailed account of Krotoa’s life, see Malherbe, V.C. Krotoa, Called Eva: A Woman Between (Cape Town: University of Cape Town, Centre of African Studies, Communications no. 19, 1990) 152 Raven-Hart, R., Before van Riebeeck: Callers at South Africa from 1488 to 1652, p. 61
55
group of convicts that were housed on the Island. Cross and his men however did not
stay long on the Island: some of the convicts were taken by English ships stopping
over in Table Bay whilst others were picked up by a Portuguese ship.153
In May 1657, two convicts, one exile, one male slave and one female slave were sent
to labour on the lime kilns found on the Island. This venture however was not
particularly fruitful: two prisoners fell ill and the female slave, Eva, was considered
rather troublesome. Not long after their arrival, the two sick prisoners and Eva were
removed from the Island and returned to the mainland.154 Nevertheless, a steady
trickle of convicts were imprisoned on the Island. The 1660s and 1670s saw an
increased demand of lime stone for building at the Cape (chiefly for the building of the
Castle), and this required the exploitation of the shells and limestone found on the
Island. Consequently, more convicts and a number of Khoikhoi volunteers were sent
to the labour on Robben Island.155 In 1666, Van Riebeeck’s successor, Commander
Wagenaer reported that ‘there are now in all 25 souls, including women and children,
14 convicts, for the Island makes a very good penitentiary, where a rogue, after one
or two years’ work in carrying shells, begins to sing very small.’156 Convict labour on
Robben Island thus early on provided the colonial Cape authorities with the prospect
of combining punishment with profit.
In November 1682, the first East Indian exiles, a prince from Makassar accompanied
by his slave, was sent to the Island.157 Following the Prince’s banishment to the Island,
Company officials increasingly used the Island as a place of banishment and
imprisonment for political and religious exiles hailing from the Dutch East Indies.
However, not all individuals originating from the East were high-ranking exiles: slaves,
thieves, smugglers, pirates and murderers were also eventually imprisoned on
Robben Island. The imprisonment of common East Indian prisoners and high-ranking
153 Ibid., pp. 67-69, 71-78 154 Penn, N., ‘Robben Island, 1488-1805,’ pp. 17-18 155 Moodie, D. (ed.), The Record, Book One: Or a Series of Official Papers Relative to the Condition and Treatment of the Native Tribes of South Africa (Amsterdam and Cape Town: A. A. Balkema, 1960), pp. 273, 275 156 Ibid., p. 295 157 CA: C 16, pp. 34-35 (per Tanap)
56
exiles not only made the Island’s population more cosmopolitan, but also cemented
its status as a place of political exile and criminal incarceration. Consequently, by the
start of the eighteenth century, Robben Island’s status as a place of incarceration was
secure and this became its primary function for the next century.
The Convict Population of Robben Island, 1728-1795
Criminals, convicts and exiles sentenced to Robben Island originated from a variety of
territories within the VOC’s empire, including the Cape. During the VOC period, almost
all Europeans serving their sentences on the Island originated from Europe: between
1728 and 1795, only fourteen Europeans sentenced to the Island were born at the
Cape whilst only one European, Hendrik Gooting, was born in Batavia.158 However
European convicts were not necessarily of Dutch ethnicity: approximately one million
German speakers travelled to the Netherlands between the seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries, with approximately five hundred thousand joining the Company
as new recruits. Even though German speakers made up a considerable proportion of
Company employees and settlers, this did not necessarily mean a shared ethnicity.
Not only were there regional and dialectical variations within the many different
German states, but soldiers also became somewhat alienated from their German
identity during their initial voyage to the Cape. German soldiers were severely
punished and verbally abused for failing to execute orders in Dutch, thus providing a
strong incentive for newly recruited soldiers to pick up the language. Consequently, by
the time they docked at the Cape, German-speaking soldiers had acquired a new
language and had been successfully distanced from their previous lives. This is
evident in the fact that the German language failed to serve as a second language
throughout the VOC’s vast empire.159
Convicts and exiles sentenced to the Island, for the most part, originated from the
Dutch East Indies. This, however, did not necessarily equate to a shared ethnicity or
158 CA: CJ 3188, pp. 1-631. CA: CJ 3189, pp. 1-363 (per Tanap) 159 Penn, N., ‘Soldiers and Cape Town Society,’ in Worden, N. (ed), Cape Town: Between East and West (Johannesburg: Jacana Media), pp. 178-179
57
culture. This, in part, could be attributed to their place of birth: most were born in
different parts of the Dutch East Indies with Batavia, Java and Ternate, as well as
Ceylon and Bengal in south Asia, being just some of the places they hailed from. It is
important to note that the trading, seafaring and refugee populations of the Indonesian
archipelago were extremely mobile. Thus, geographical markers assigned to Asian
convicts are unreliable as they do not necessarily convey the place of origin.160 Not all
convicts sentenced to the Island came from Dutch controlled territories in the East:
prisoners on the Island also originated from the Cape, Madagascar and Mozambique
– there were even some Chinese convicts on the Island.161
Prisoners who originated from the Cape, Madagascar and Mozambique were primarily
slaves. However, a small number of indigenous Khoisan were also sent to the
Island.162 During the early decades of the Cape settlement, VOC policy made it clear
that the indigenous population were a free nation governed by their own laws and
customs, and therefore could not be legally enslaved.163 However, the Khoikhoi
increasingly assimilated into settler society as labourers following the two Khoi-Dutch
wars, the loss of their land and cattle, and the outbreak of a devastating small-pox
epidemic in 1713.164 Consequently, the Khoikhoi at the Cape also increasingly came
under the jurisdiction of the Company. However, the number of Khoikhoi sentenced to
Robben Island were relatively few. Between 1728 and 1748 only four Khoikhoi
convicts were sentenced to the Island.165 By 1768, Khoikhoi convicts accounted for
only five of the 63 Asian and African convicts on the Island, and by 1788 only 24 of
the 102 Asian and African convicts there.166
160 Worden, N., and Groenewald, G. (eds), Trials of Slavery, pp. xi-xii (note 5) 161 Although these Chinese likely hailed from Batavia’s large ethnic Chinese population and not from mainland China. 162 The term Khoisan is a modern scholarly term used to denote both the hunter-gathering and pastoralist indigenous inhabitants of the Cape. 163 Elphick, R. and Malherbe, V.C., ‘The Khoisan to 1828,’ in Elphick, R., and Giliomee, H. (eds), The Shaping of South African Society, 1652-1840, 2nd edition (Cape Town: Maskew Miller Longman, 1989), p. 11 164 For more information on the breakdown of the Khoikhoi communities, see ibid. pp. 18-28 165 CA: CJ 3188, pp. 1-422 (per Tanap) 166 CA: CJ 3189, pp. 93-94 and 283-285 (per Tanap)
58
Chinese traders frequented Batavia during the seventeenth and eighteenth century
and the city had a rather large number of Chinese immigrants working on its sugar
plantations. Illegal Chinese residents of Batavia and those who committed crimes,
mainly smuggling, could be sentenced to either deportation or banishment to one of
the Company’s settlements. Chinese convicts and exiles sent to the Cape were
relatively small in number and were rarely sent to Robben Island: between 1728 and
1748, only four Chinese convicts were sent to Robben Island.167 Slaves accounted for
most of the Asian and African convicts found on Robben Island – in 1762, they
accounted for 26 of the 45 Asian and African prisoners on the Island and by 1782, they
made up 29 of the 55 individuals in this category serving their sentences on the
Island.168 Exiles and their entourages were also sent to the Island throughout the
eighteenth century. However, the entourages of exiles are difficult to tally as the
convict rolls do not necessarily list the exiles’ entourages. Table 1 illustrates the
number of convicts that were not of European descent on Robben Island over the
course of the eighteenth century. From this table it is clear that most of the convicts
sentenced to the Island were slaves.
Graph 1169
167 CA: CJ 3188, pp. 1-422 (per Tanap) 168 CA: CJ 3188, pp. 42-44 and 238-240 (per Tanap) 169 See Appendix A for the exact number of convicts on Robben Island for these years.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1728 1748 1768 1788
Convicts and Exiles on Robben Island
Slaves Khoikhoi Chinese Exiles and 'MahometaansePriesters'
Other
59
Even though many characteristics separated convicts on the Island, both the convict
rolls and the registers of convicts on Robben Island, separated prisoners on the Island
into Europeans and Indiaanen. The term Indiaanen was used loosely and inclusively
and was used to distinguish Europeans from those seen as ‘non-Europeans’. Hence,
the term Indiaanen could be used for slaves, Khoikhoi, Chinese, ‘Moors’ (Muslims)
etc. While the lists of convicts separate Europeans and Indiaanen in the
Bandietenrollen, it is not certain if this differentiation actually existed on the Island.
What is known is that prisoners engaged in similar types of labour and were housed
in what was known as the kraal. The kraal was mostly too small for all its residents
and became dilapidated, with seal skins acting as partitions to provide the convicts
with a measure of privacy.170 Penn does, however, suggest that European prisoners
may have been housed in the convict house while Indiaanen prisoners may have
stayed in the kraal. That being said, interactions did occur between European and
Indiaanen prisoners – these interactions will be explored later in this chapter.
The total number of prisoners and exiles on Robben Island was constantly changing
– over the course of the eighteenth century, the number of prisoners on the Island
steadily grew. Between 1728 and 1760 the prisoner population on the Island fluctuated
between 38 and 63 prisoners, with European convicts making up most of the convict
population.171 The first bandietenrol available, dated 1728, notes that there were 26
European convicts and 16 Indiaanen prisoners on the Island. This particular convict
roll fails to mention the ranks of the European prisoners on the Island, but it would not
be wrong to assume that most of these prisoners were soldiers and sailors who came
from the lower ranks of the VOC’s hierarchy. These individuals not only made up the
bulk of the Company’s employees but also featured quite prominently in the criminal
records throughout the VOC’s large empire. On the other hand, Indiaanen prisoners
on the Island seemed to have had a more eclectic make-up. Only two Indiaanen
prisoners serving their sentences on the Island had no indication of rank or status:
Hendrik Pietersz and one Pasquaal. There were two high-ranking Indiaanen on the
Island, Angenata, styled the ‘former head of Jampan’ and the ‘so-called Prince of
Ternate’, Daeng Mamoute. The Prince was seen as a troublesome character and in
170 Sleigh, D., Die Buiteposte: VOC-Buiteposte onder Kaapse Bestuur 1652-1795, pp. 368-369 171 CA: CJ 3188, pp. 1-405. CA: CJ 3189, pp. 1-8 (per Tanap)
60
1722 was exiled to the Island for encouraging both free individuals and slaves to enter
his house in Cape Town where they could gamble and engage in prostitution and other
‘indecent’ activities. Mamoute appears in every bandietenrol as the ‘so-called Prince
of Ternate’ until 1747, when he died.172 The remaining twelve Indiaanen were made
up of six slaves, three ‘Moors’, one Khoikhoi, one Chinese and one ‘Zingalees’ (likely
someone from Ceylon).173
Graph 2174
The 1760s through to the 1780s saw an increase in the overall number of convicts
sentenced to the Island, with Indiaanen prisoners making up the bulk of the prisoner
population: in 1761, there were 45 Indiaanen prisoners on the Island, by 1771 there
were 75 Indiaanen prisoners and by 1781 their number had increased to 87. In
contrast, the European prisoner population decreased: in 1761 they numbered 29, in
1771 their number had decreased to 19 and by 1781 there was only one European
prisoner on the Island, Gerrit Regters.175 The early 1780s saw a dramatic decrease in
both the number of European and Indiaanen prisoners found on the Island: in 1782
there was only one European prisoner on the Island whilst the number of Indiaanen
172 Worden, N., and Groenewald, G. (eds), Trials of Slavery, p. 59 (note 2) 173 CA: CJ 3188, pp. 1-5 (per Tanap) 174 See Appendix B for a more concise breakdown of the number of European and non-European prisoners on the Island between 1728 and 1748 175 CA: CJ 3189, pp. 25-28, 118-120 and 225-227 (per Tanap)
0
20
40
60
17
28
17
29
17
30
17
31
17
32
17
33
17
34
17
35
17
36
17
37
17
38
17
39
17
40
17
41
17
42
17
43
17
44
17
45
17
46
17
47
17
48
European and Indiaanen Prisoners on Robben Island
1728-1748
Europeans Indiaanen Total Convict Population
61
prisoners had been reduced to 55.176 The reduction in the number of prisoners on the
Island could be attributed to the Fourth Anglo-Dutch War (1780-1784) – Cape Dutch
authorities feared the prisoners might easily be captured or might join their English
rivals.177 Consequently, prisoners were evacuated from the Island and placed either
in the Slave Lodge or on the defensive batteries surrounding Cape Town. However, a
substantial number of Indiaanen prisoners remained on the Island: in 1784 there were
62 Indiaanen and only eight Europeans on the Island.178 It is more than likely that
Company officials believed that European prisoners were more valuable and more
likely to join the English due to the harsh living and working conditions on the Island.
However, it is important to note that most of the European convicts found on the Island
during the 1780s and 1790s were primarily soldiers; military offenders were sent to the
Island to serve out their sentences. These offenders were primarily from European
mercenary regiments and battalions stationed at the Cape; although a small number
of Company soldiers and free burghers could also be found on the Island. Of the 32
European convicts on the Island in December 1790, twelve hailed from the Meuron
Regiment, ten were from a battalion, two were from the Wurtenberg Regiment, two
were Company soldiers and six were Cape Burghers.179
Graph 3180
176 CA: CJ 3189, pp. 238-240 (per Tanap) 177 For more information on the Fourth Anglo-Dutch War and the military precautions taken by the Cape Council of Policy see, Potgieter, T.D., ‘Defence Against Maritime Power Projection: The Case of the Cape of Good Hope, 1756-1803’ (PhD Thesis, University of Stellenbosch, 2006), chapters 3-5 178 CA: CJ 3189, pp. 255-258 (per Tanap) 179 CA: CJ 3189, pp. 301-303 (per Tanap) 180 See Appendix C
0
100
200
1765 1767 1769 1770 1772 1774 1776 1779 1781 1783 1785 1787 1789 1791 1793 1795Nu
mb
er o
f C
on
vict
s o
n
Ro
bb
en Is
lan
d
Year
Convicts on Robben Island1765-1795
Europeans Indiaanen Total Convict Population
62
Like their origins, convicts found on Robben Island were originally sentenced in
numerous places and territories within the VOC Empire. During the early decades of
the eighteenth century, the number of convicts sentenced in the Dutch East Indies and
the Cape were, more or less, even. In 1748, 20 convicts were sentenced in the Cape
and 23 convicts were sentenced in the Dutch East Indies.181 However, towards the
latter decades of the century, these numbers had changed dramatically. In 1788, only
17 prisoners had been sentenced in the Dutch East Indies while the number of convicts
sentenced at the Cape had increased to 117.182 This change could be attributed to a
number of reasons: the waning influence of the Company in the Dutch East Indies and
the increased number of Cape slaves sentenced to Robben Island could have played
a part in this radical change. But one should also consider that for convicts sentenced
to Cape, the settlement opened up the possibility of further crime. This in turn would
see convicts sent to the Cape settlement, prosecuted for crimes committed at the
Cape and thus increasing the number of convicts sentenced to Robben Island by the
Cape Council of Justice.
Graph 4 183
181 CA: CJ 3188, pp. 406-411 (per Tanap) 182 CA: CJ 3189, pp. 238-285 (per Tanap) 183 See Appendix D
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
1728 1748 1768 1788
Where Convicts Were Sentenced
Dutch East Indies Cape Other
63
Prisoners serving their sentences on Robben Island were originally prosecuted for a
multitude of crimes. These ranged from absconding, insubordination, attempted
suicide and sodomy, to theft, house-breaking, smuggling, assault and murder. Some
convicts serving their sentences were also sentenced for multiple offences. This was
certainly the case of European prisoner, Hendrik van Driel. Van Driel was initially
sentenced to 25 years in Samarang for moordadige quetsing (‘murderous wounding’),
three years were then added to his sentence in Batavia for breaking out of his chains.
Following his second offence, van Driel was banished to the Cape, where he received
an additional three years for murderous aggression towards his corporal.184 Prisoners
like van Driel were likely placed on the Island because escape was extremely difficult
and because it isolated them from slaves, convicts and settler populations residing on
the mainland.
Life on Robben Island
Life on Robben Island was extremely harsh and seemed a suitable setting for convicts
and exiles serving their sentences. The Island was prone to fluctuating temperatures,
whilst its coastlines were lined with stones and rocky outcrops. The absence of
mountains resulted in lower rainfall when compared to Cape Town and the only water
sources on the Island were several wells with brackish water, that left a bitter
aftertaste.185 As mentioned earlier, convicts on the Island were housed in what was
known as the kraal but the records also mention a building known as the bandiet huisje
(‘little convict house’) – which probably housed European convicts.186 Prisoners
received two sets of clothes annually from the Company and the clothes received
consisted of two short tops and two wide trousers made with a rough fabric – the same
clothes worn by Company slaves. During the later decades of the eighteenth century,
warm winter clothes were also distributed.187 Working conditions on the Island were
no better than the living conditions. Most of the convicts serving their sentences on
Robben Island had been sentenced to hard labour and labour on the Island primarily
184 CA: CJ 3189, pp. 9-17 (per Tanap) 185 Sleigh, D., Die Buiteposte: VOC-Buiteposte onder Kaapse Bestuur 1652-1795, p. 349 186 CA: CJ 359, pp. 357-363. CA: CJ 339, pp. 230-232 187 Sleigh, D., Die Buiteposte: VOC-Buiteposte onder Kaapse Bestuur 1652-1795, p. 381
64
consisted of shell collection and stone cutting, but also included tending the vegetable
gardens, chopping wood, minding sheep while certain prisoners were even given the
responsibility of maintaining the Island’s boat.188
However, some high-ranking exiles were excluded from manual labour and lived
privileged lives on the Island. Eugenius Monoppo, former king of Boelong and
Mongodo, was excluded from work and allowed to roam the Island as he pleased. He
was also housed separately from the other prisoners (he stayed with the postholder),
was ‘well entertained’ and was also given a monthly stipend of three rixdollars.189 Not
all exiles on the Island were treated this way, some lived and laboured alongside
convicts serving their sentences on the Island, especially those who were sentenced
for rebellion. Prisoners were also taken periodically to Dassen Island in Saldanha Bay
to slaughter seals for the production of train oil or were transferred to other VOC public
works in the Cape, making the Island’s prisoners more mobile than has previously
been recognised. This mobility also provided convicts with a possible means of
escape. Three convicts managed to escape Dassen Island on one such trip in 1740
while another convict, Jan Oppe, managed to escape Dassen Island in 1742.190
Food was also a source of discontent amongst convicts on the Island. Prior to 1712,
convicts were not allowed to fish and their monthly rations of 40 pounds of rice or 31
pounds of maize were insufficient: rations were usually finished between the 20th and
the 24th of the month. Consequently, the prisoners of Robben Island petitioned the
Council of Policy for an increase as they could not subsist on their current rations.
Following the petition, it was decided that their monthly rations would be increased to
the same amount bestowed on Company slaves, and that they would be provided with
some meat and be allowed to fish for themselves.191
188 CA: CJ 788, pp. 81-88. European convict, Michiel van Embdneelen, and Indiaanen convict, Arend van de Velde, were in charge of the Island’s boat. 189 Penn, N., ‘Robben Island, 1488-1805,’ p. 17. Colonel Robert Gordon’s drawing of Robben Island notes the easy life of the king. CA: CJ 3189, pp. 115-117 (per Tanap) 190 CA: CJ 3188, pp. 288-291 (per Tanap) 191 CA: C 29, pp. 131-132 (per Tanap)
65
Headwinds, however, frequently delayed the ration boat causing meat rations to go
bad before it reached the Island. Subsequently, it was decided that live sheep would
be sent to the Island instead.192 However, the number of sheep sent was often
insufficient and for this reason, some convicts on the Island decided to slaughter some
of the Island’s sheep. The convicts that had slaughtered the Island’s sheep were sent
in chains to Cape Town where they laboured in Company works. For the convicts that
remained on the Island, rations of rice, meat and maize were halted. However, not
long after the suspension of rations, the postholder at the time, Christoffel Hehlt,
petitioned the Council of Policy on behalf of the prisoners. In his petition, Hehlt noted
that the prisoners were eating the rotting carcasses of sheep that had died on the
Island as well as the remains of pigs and sheep that had fallen off passing ships. He
also made it known that he had taken away the prisoners cooking pot on numerous
occasions as the smell that emanated from it was atrocious and he feared that it would
brew up some filthy disease.193 Following this letter, the number of prisoners
sentenced to Robben Island were reduced: those sentenced for absconding were
removed from the Island and sent in chains to the Cape to serve out their sentences.
Two years later, governor De la Fontaine increased the prisoners rations to 11,5
pounds per person per month.194 Although rations were increased, convicts continued
to supplement their diet with fishing and diving for shell-fish.195 Fishing and diving,
however, not only supplemented their diet – convicts often traded fresh fish,
vegetables and wood for arak and tobacco from soldiers and fellow convicts on the
Island.196
The discipline of convicts on Robben Island was also extremely harsh – postholders
and their corporals seemed to have had no restraints in handing out cruel and brutal
punishments. Prisoners were frequently beaten for their transgressions and these
beatings instilled a great deal of fear into convicts. This was certainly the case
concerning a murder on the Island which was brought before the Council of Justice in
192 CA: C 56, pp. 53-55 (per Tanap) 193 CA: C 66, pp. 92-106 (per Tanap) 194 Sleigh, D., Die Buiteposte: VOC-Buiteposte onder Kaapse Bestuur 1652-1795, p. 382 195 CA: CJ 339, pp. 236-238 196 Sleigh, D., Die Buiteposte: VOC-Buiteposte onder Kaapse Bestuur 1652-1795, p. 382
66
July 1740.197 After being caught with stolen property of another prisoner serving their
sentence on the Island, European convict, Jan Baptist Kaersteeker stabbed a fellow
convict in order to ensure his own execution. Kaersteeker was so fearful of corporal
Remmers that when the latter approached, possibly to administer his punishment,
Kaersteeker shouted: ‘daar komt dat bulderbeest weeder aan om mij te radebraken,
soo als hij laast gedaan heeft, het is beeter een koorte dood als een lange pijn.’198
Following this exclamation, Kaersteeker picked up a knife and stabbed the convict
closest to him, Michiel Pietersz. After Pietersz’s death, Kaersteeker response reveals
his desperation to escape both corporal Remmers and the Island itself. He exclaimed:
‘kompt nu maer hier en sluyt mij in die boeyen.’199 Kaersteeker, however showed some
remorse for killing Pietersz and indicated that he should have killed Remmers
instead.200
Harsh beatings and fear sometimes prompted prisoners into confessing their crimes.
This was certainly the case of European convict, Rijkhart Jacobsz, who had been
accused of sodomy.201 During the eighteenth century, same-sex relationships were
viewed as unnatural and was considered a crime punishable by death.202 Given the
fact that women were rarely sentenced to Robben Island and that the prisoners were
overwhelmingly male, it is not unlikely that same-sex relationships existed on the
Island. One morning in July 1735, Panaij van Boegies, a slave sentenced to life in
chains, informed sergeant Godlieb Willer, the postholder, that Rijkhart Jacobsz had
indecently propositioned him. According to Panaij, he had gone down to the beach to
retrieve his missing crayfish bait which fellow prisoners had informed him was in
Jacobsz’s possession. Panaij found Jacobsz standing on a rock but instead of handing
the bait over to Panaij, the latter removed his trousers and turned his backside towards
Panaij. Jacobsz then asked, in Portuguese, to be used against nature. Panaij refused,
using some colourful expletives, whereupon Jacobsz supposedly turned around and
197 CA: CJ 786, pp.327-332 198 Translation: ‘Here comes the bully to break me on the wheel again. Better a short death than long suffering.’ 199 Translation: ‘Now come here and put me in chains.’ 200 CA: CJ 786, pp.327-332 201 This narrative can be found in CA: CJ 339, pp. 218-238 and CJ 17, pp. 57-61 202 For more information on same-sex relationships see, Newton King, S., ‘For the Love of Adam: Two Sodomy Trials at the Cape of Good Hope’, Kronos: Journal of Cape History 28 (2002)
67
said: ‘see how big it [his penis] is ... take your trousers off and I will use you.’ By his
own admission, an appalled Panaij, hit Jacobsz in the face and immediately informed
the postholder. The postholder proceeded by having Jacobsz flogged and in the
presence of other convicts, Jacobsz eventually shouted: ‘slae niet, ik heb het gedaan,
send mij maer op.’203
This incident, it would seem, prompted two other convicts, Harmanus Munster and
Jacob de Vogel, to step forward and provide the postholder with further evidence
against Jacobsz. Munster informed the postholder that in April 1732 Jacobus van der
Walle, now repatriated, and himself had witnessed Jacobsz and Khoikhoi prisoner,
Claas Blank, having sex in the convict house. According to Munster, the two of them
informed the postholder at the time, sergeant Scholtsz. Scholtsz however informed
them that there was nothing he could do about the matter as they were convicts and
their testimonies would be disregarded. Nevertheless, Scholtsz had Jacobsz flogged
with daggetjes on the pretext that he had not removed his hat to him. Whilst receiving
his beating, in the presence of other convicts, Jacobsz allegedly shouted: ‘slaat mij
niet meer, send mij maar op, ik heb hom in ’t gat geneukt.’204 De Vogel claimed that
he had heard from the slave, Augustijn Matthijsz, that the latter had witnessed Jacobsz
and Blank ‘fornicating’ while collecting train oil a few years earlier.205 This was later
confirmed by Matthijsz in his testimony to the Fiscal.206 Both Jacobsz and Blank
confessed to all accusations, but Jacobsz maintained that he had not propositioned
Panaij and that Panaij was lying.207 Having confessed to all the accusations brought
against them both, Jacobsz and Blank were found guilty of mutual sodomy. They were
both sentenced to death and on 19 August 1735 were dropped into the sea to
drown.208
203 CA: CJ 339, pp. 236-238. Translation: ‘Don’t beat me. I did it. Just send me away.’ 204 CA: CJ 339, pp. 230-232. Translation: ‘Stop beating me, just send me away, I fucked him in the arse.’ 205 CA: CJ 339, pp. 235-236 206 CA: CJ 339, pp. 233-234 207 CA: CJ 339, pp. 226-227 208 CA: CJ 17, pp. 57-61
68
This particular case highlights not only the harsh discipline to which convicts were
subjected – in both instances, Jacobsz asked to be sent to the Cape in attempting to
escape the beatings he received from the postholders. The case also sheds light on
the interpersonal relations between convicts, their lack of privacy, communication and
the continued search for food to supplement the measly food rations on the isolated
Island.
Given the diverse background of prisoners serving their sentences on Robben Island,
it is not surprising that multiple languages were spoken there. In Panaij’s account,
Jacobsz had addressed him in Portuguese.209 The fact that Portuguese was spoken
on the Island is not surprising given the fact that the language served as the lingua
franca of the Indian Ocean world: Jacobsz may have picked up the language whilst in
Batavia. However, Portuguese was not the only language spoken on the Island: Dutch,
Malay and Bugis were also spoken.210 Although physical restraints were placed on
convicts and exiles by placing them on the Island, the Company was not able to control
communication and the distribution of knowledge. This is certainly evident in the plan
for rebellion that was uncovered in 1751. During the winter of 1751, a group of
Indiaanen prisoners conspired to kill all the Europeans on the Island and then set sail
for the East.211 The plot was uncovered before it could be put into action, but the case
illustrates how language was frequently beyond the control of the Company – plans
for the rebellion remained concealed for so long because those involved in the plot
communicated in their own indigenous languages.
The plan to kill all the Europeans on Robben Island provides some insight into the
interactions between prisoners on the Island. The fact that the Indiaanen prisoners
that were involved in the plot planned to kill all the Europeans on the Island, could
209 CA: CJ 339, pp. 236-238 210 CA: CJ 359, pp. 319-371. Convicts involved in the plot gave their testimonies either in Malay or Bugis. The defence of both Chinese prisoner, Limoeijko, and the Prince, Daing Mangenam, rested on their inability to speak or understand these languages. Therefore, they claimed, they could not have been involved in the conspiracy. However, given the origin of the Prince, it is highly unlikely that he did not understand Malay or Bugis - the postholder’s (who was considered a reliable witness) testimony supported that of the Prince. 211 The main source of this narrative can be found in CA: CJ 788, pp. 81-88, CJ 359, pp. 319-371 and CJ 33, pp. 92-97. This case will be explored in greater detail in chapter 5.
69
suggest that the Indiaanen prisoners considered all Europeans, irrespective of rank or
status, untrustworthy. Given that Indiaanen prisoners, unlike European convicts, had
no overseers of the same race or origin, and the fact that the plan was uncovered with
the help of some European convicts, their misgivings were not entirely misplaced. This
particular case not only provides some insight into the relationships between
Indiaanen and European convicts, it also reveals interactions between Indiaanen
convicts stationed on the Island. Like slaves at the Cape, Indiaanen convicts were
stereotyped according to their place of origin. Individuals of Bugis origin were seen
as particularly dangerous whilst Malay speaking slaves were admired for their
intelligence and craftsmanship.212 Some high-ranking exiles on the Island refused to
converse with convicts of Bugis extraction.213 This not only demonstrates that the
stereotypes imposed on Indiaanen prisoners by the Dutch were perhaps somewhat
internalised, but also highlights how rank and status continued to play a role in the
interactions between convicts and exiles, even in the restrictive environment that was
Robben Island in the eighteenth century. Moreover, the fact the fact that no Indiaanen
prisoners from outside of Asia was involved in the plot suggests possible tensions
between Indiaanen prisoners from Asia and those who originated elsewhere.
The propagation of Islam at the Cape also highlights the Company’s inability to
regulate and control the distribution of knowledge. Company officials at the Cape
feared the influence of Islam – they believed that Islam had the potential to become a
catalyst for slave uprisings.214 Consequently, the authorities sought to isolate Muslim
exiles, often imprisoning them on Robben Island. Throughout the eighteenth century,
'Mahometaanse Priesters' were placed on Robben Island. The first 'Mahometaanse
Priesters' noted on the convict rolls for Robben Island, Said Aloewie and Hadje
Mattarm, arrived on the Island in January 1744. Although, Mattarm died a year later,
Aloewie (also known as Tuan Said) is said to have been the first Imam at the Cape.215
212 Ross, R., Status and Respectability in the Cape Colony, 1750-1870, pp. 34-37 213 CA: CJ 359, pp. 339, 356 and 370. One of the conspiracy’s leaders, Radja Boekit, former Regent of Padang, gathered a few Malay convicts but did not bother seeking alliance from Bugis prisoners on the Island. In his testimony, the postholder noted that he had never seen Prince Daing Mangenam conversing with Bugis prisoners on the Island. 214 Ward, K., Networks of Empire, p. 231 215 CA: CJ 3188, pp. 313-316 (per Tanap). CA: CJ 3188, pp. 334-337 (per Tanap). Penn, N., ‘Robben Island, 1488-1805,’ p. 30
70
The fact that there were a number of Muslim scholars placed on the Island, coupled
with the fact that Muslim slaves often suffered forced migration, it is not unlikely that a
Muslim community, made up of convicts and exiles, existed on the Island. However,
not all convicts on the Island were Muslim – Sunday prayers were held on the Island.216
Conclusion
Robben Island provided the safest place for banishment and incarceration – it was
isolated from other Dutch territories, both in the East Indies and at the Cape, was
extremely difficult to escape from, and it allowed Company officials at the Cape to
decrease the number of convicts and exiles residing at the Cape. Convicts and exiles
serving their sentences on Robben Island originated from a variety of territories within
the VOC empire, including the Cape. Although many characteristics separated
convicts and exiles, the official registers of prisoners on the Island separated them into
European and Indiaanen. Over the course of the eighteenth century, the total number
of prisoners and exiles on the Island were constantly fluctuating– the early to mid-
eighteenth century saw the prisoner population fluctuating between 38 and 63
prisoners with European prisoners making up the bulk of the convict population. The
latter half of the century saw a general increase in the overall number of convicts
serving their sentences on the Island, with Indiaanen prisoners making up most of the
prisoner population.
For convicts and exiles serving their sentences on Robben Island, life was extremely
harsh. They engaged in hard labour which primarily consisted of shell collection and
stone cutting. Discipline on the Island also seems to have been particularly harsh –
prisoners were brutally beaten for transgressions which instilled a healthy dose of fear
into convicts. Living conditions on the Island were no better than working conditions –
prisoners and exiles were housed in the kraal, only received two sets of clothes
annually and were provided with insufficient food rations. Multiple languages were
216 Penn, N., ‘Robben Island, 1488-1805,’ pp. 22-27. The drawing of the Island by Colonel Robert Gordon from 1777 notes that the churchyard was located not too far from the gardens. Sleigh, D., Die Buiteposte: VOC-Buiteposte onder Kaapse Bestuur 1652-1795, p. 361.
71
spoken on the Island: these included Portuguese, Dutch, Malay and Bugis. It would
seem that rank and status played an important role in the interactions of prisoners and
exiles serving their sentences, and that stereotypes imposed on Indiaanen prisoners
by the Dutch were somewhat internalised. It is also not unlikely that a Muslim
community, made up of convicts and exiles, existed on the Island – Muslim slaves
often suffered forced migration and several Muslim scholars were placed on Robben
Island during the eighteenth century.
72
Chapter 5
Resistance and Revolts on Robben Island
Introduction
Convicts, political exiles and slaves from the Cape, Dutch East Indies and Europe
could be found on Robben Island – some were also stationed on the batteries and
fortifications around Cape Town, or worked on the docks. Convicts constituted the
unpaid labour force of the Cape colony and prisoners sent to Robben Island often had
various monotonous tasks: such as collecting shells and cutting slate and limestone.
Using convict labour allowed Company officials at the Cape the prospect of combining
profit and punishment, which very well suited the Company’s economic policy of
maximum profit with minimum expenditure.217 Low-ranking VOC employees (usually
soldiers and sailors) and slaves were frequently punished for similar crimes, and those
who contravened Company law were often condemned to hard labour. European
convicts lived and worked in conditions comparable to those of slaves. Consequently,
in the presence of prisoners, exiles and slaves, Cape authorities habitually blurred the
spectrum of servitude. It could therefore be argued that resistance on Robben Island
followed a similar trajectory to that of slaves, soldiers and sailors found on the
mainland. This chapter seeks to explore resistance and rebellion on Robben Island by
comparing the experiences of those found on the Island to those residing at the Cape
of Good Hope. The chapter begins by looking at the forms of resistance used by
slaves, sailors and soldiers at the Cape. It then moves on to discuss the absence of
large-scale slave revolts at the Cape. This will be followed by looking at both resistance
and rebellion on Robben Island.
217 Ward, K., Networks of Empire: Forced Migration in the Dutch East India Company, p. 29. Penn, N., ‘Robben Island, 1488-1805,’ p. 20
73
Resistance at the Cape of Good Hope
Slaves
The primary concern of the Cape VOC authorities was to maintain the monopoly of
control and social hierarchy at the Cape. Slaves at the Cape were subject not only to
the control of the Company’s legal administration (which sought to reinforce the
authority of slave owners) but were also subjected to the control of their masters.
Slaves were not treated in a uniform manner: treatment varied between different
regions and owners, with rural slaves often being subjected to harsher working and
living conditions. They were primarily regarded as the property of their owners and
were legally obliged to obey their masters, or else face punishment.
When slave discipline broke down, slave owners often required assistance from the
authorities. However, slaves, for the most part, were kept under control by their owners
and knegts (‘European servants’). This was mainly enforced through corporal
punishment or through the threat of force. Punishments were brutal with slaves often
being whipped with a sjambok (a hippopotamus-hide whip) while fellow slaves either
watched, assisted with or administered the punishment.218 This in turn frequently led
to violent reactions from slaves. This can be seen in the case of Barkat of Timor, the
slave of former burgher councillor Abraham Cloppenburg. On the evening of Saturday,
22 February 1744, Barkat attacked his owner, fled to the attic and barricaded himself
there until the following morning. According to Barkat, Cloppenburg had ordered some
of his other slaves to undress him, tie him to a ladder in the kitchen and then whip him
for having failed to set the dinner table. Although he begged for forgiveness, it did not
help and in his desperation, he managed to free himself. Barkat then proceeded to
grab a kitchen knife and stab his owner. Following this turn of events, Cloppenburg
and his slaves fled, whereupon Barkat fled to the attic and blocked off the trap-door
with chests he found in the attic. Meanwhile, the wounded Cloppenburg had the
218 For more information on the discipline and control of slaves, see Ross, R., The Cape of Torments: Slavery and Resistance in South Africa, chapters 2 and 3. Also see Worden, N., Slavery in Dutch South Africa, chapter 8
74
geweldiger (‘executioner’) and caffers called, where they tried various methods to get
to Barkat in the attic. Finally, the following morning, the caffer Panaij van Boegies,
managed to get into the attic and not long thereafter Barkat was apprehended and
eventually sentenced to be broken at the wheel.219 This case highlights not only the
violent reactions of slaves to punishment or even the possibility of punishment, but
also sheds light on the immense fear and desperation experienced by slaves. Violent
reactions of slaves could also be seen as both direct and overt subversions of the
social order – slaves did not always accept the system in which they found themselves.
Although slave attacks tended to be more individualistic and spontaneous, there were
some instances of attacks carried out by groups of slaves.220
The way slaves responded to their treatment varied: some passively resisted their
owners by refusing to follow orders or by working slowly and ineffectively, while others
actively resisted their servitude by attacking their owners and their owner’s families,
poisoning their master’s food, committing arson or theft.221 Spontaneous attacks on
masters or fellow labourers often resulted in attempts at escape – either for brutal
punishments received or in efforts to avoid punishments for their crimes. This was
particularly true in the case of Andries van Ceijlon, a slave of farmer Barend Buijs.
Whilst Buijs was away from his farm, Andries managed to steal some brandy and wine
from his owner’s cellar. On Buijs’ return, he was immediately informed of the theft and
acting on this information, Buijs had Andries tied to a beam where he remained until
midday. At midday, Andries was then tied to a ladder, whipped with a sjambok by his
owner and admonished with canes by his fellow slaves for the theft. Following his
beating, a Khoikhoi by the name of Pieter made the mistake of mocking him, leading
Andries to the conclusion that Pieter had to have been the informant. Enraged, Andries
took his knife and managed to slice Pieter across his neck and then fled the farm. He
later attempted to set fire to his master’s wine cellar. Upon his apprehension, Andries
confessed to the crimes and noted that the reason for his crime was sorrow because
of all the punishments he had to endure. He also added that death was preferable to
219 Worden, N., and Groenewald, G. (eds), Trials of Slavery, pp. 220-231. The word caffer is explained in detail later in this chapter. 220 Ulrich, N., ‘Cape of Storms: Surveying and Rethinking Popular Resistance in the Eighteenth Century Cape Colony’ New Contree 73 (2015), p. 32 221 See Worden, N., Slavery in Dutch South Africa, chapter 9
75
living in a world where he had to endure constant punishment.222 Death, for many
slaves was preferable to servitude and suffering.
Slave suicides were perhaps the most drastic demonstration of slave resistance – it
was generally committed by slaves who refused to operate within the slave system
and slaves who sought to avoid punishment for crimes committed. Slaves were
primarily regarded as the property of their owners. They were expensive commodities
and, because of this, owners sought to extract the maximum amount of labour from
their slaves. Consequently, slave suicides acted not only as a form of resistance but
also as a crime against property.223 In 1710, Jan, a slave of farmer Heufke, attempted
suicide with a self-inflicted wound to the head. Jan’s reasoning for the attempted
suicide being: ‘I wish to die or be sold, because I cannot keep up with working.’224
Jan’s case gives insight into the harsh working conditions and desperation
experienced by slaves. Jan’s statement sheds some light on his daily experiences –
his wish to either be sold or killed because of the amount of work he had to perform
indicates that Heufke worked his slaves particularly hard. This suggests that death, for
both Jan and Andries (and probably many other slaves), was preferable to a life of
servitude. Ulrich, also notes that in cases that involved slaves who threatened,
attacked or killed their master and then killed themselves, suicide was probably
preferable to the cruel deaths handed out by the Council of Justice.225
Slave suicides or attempted suicides were frequently accompanied by other crimes
such as arson, murder, running amok etc. Cupido van Bengalen, while stationed on
the farm of his owner’s son-in-law, burgled and murdered a female slave. Following
his transgressions, Cupido subsequently committed suicide. According to his
accomplice, the Khoikhoi Louis, before killing himself Cupido had said to him: ‘You are
222 Worden, N., and Groenewald, G. (eds), Trials of Slavery, pp. 96-101 223 For more information on slave suicides, see Worden, N., Slavery in Dutch South Africa, pp. 135-136. Also see Ward, K., ‘Defining and Defiling the Criminal Body at the Cape of Good Hope: Punishing the Crime of Suicide under the Dutch East India Company Rule, circa 1652-1795’ in Pierce, S. and Rao, A. (eds), Discipline and the Other Body: Correction, Corporeality, Colonialism (Durham and London: Duke University Press, 2006) 224 Worden, N., and Groenewald, G. (eds), Trials of Slavery, pp. 20-21 225 Ulrich, N., ‘Cape of Storms: Surveying and Rethinking Popular Resistance in the Eighteenth Century Cape Colony,’ pp. 34-35
76
not guilty, you go on home, I have murdered a soul, I will murder myself.’226 It is likely
that Cupido not only committed suicide out of remorse, but also due to the realisation
that he would be captured and punished. Suicide, however, did not end the Company’s
jurisdiction over an individual’s body. Slaves that killed themselves had their bodies
defiled and publicly displayed: their bodies were usually left to rot in a visible position.
The desecration of the body acted as both a punishment and a deterrent to other
slaves.227 In 1741, the Stellenbosch Landdrost wrote to the Council of Justice that a
slave named Andries van Bengalen had wounded a female slave in a fit of jealousy
and then proceeded to stab himself. It is, however, interesting to note that the primary
concern of the Landdrost was not that Andries had committed suicide, but rather the
fact that there was no suitable tree or beam on which the body could be displayed.
Andries’ corpse was instead dragged by the legs to a nearby field where his body was
left to decompose.228
If slave suicide was one of the most drastic ways slaves resisted, slave desertions
were one of the most common ways in which slaves expressed their discontent. Both
individual slaves and small groups of slaves frequently attempted to escape their
bondage. The physical lay-out of the Cape aided deserters by providing mountain
hideouts and sometimes refuge in Khoisan communities during the early decades of
the settlement – several Khoisan groups were willing to accept runaways as they
sought to maintain manpower to retain their strength in rivalries with other Khoisan
groups. They also accepted escaped slaves as these individuals easily assimilated
into their informal political structures.229 This was certainly the case of an unnamed
slave belonging to the burgher Johannes Pretorius. Following his escape, Pretorius’
slave managed to live amongst the Guriqua for an entire year. The Guriqua clan were,
however, willing to hand the slave over to VOC authorities on the condition that he
was not to be punished. Cape Company officials were willing to comply with this
stipulation as the slave had managed to assimilate into the Guriqua clan and had
consequently picked up their language – something that almost no European at the
Cape had managed to accomplish. It was for this reason that the Cape authorities
226 Worden, N., and Groenewald, G. (eds), Trials of Slavery, pp. 241-250 227 Worden, N., Slavery in Dutch South Africa p. 135 228 Worden, N., and Groenewald, G. (eds), Trials of Slavery, pp. 202-205 229 Ross, R., The Cape of Torments: Slavery and Resistance in South Africa, pp. 139-140
77
recommended that the slave should be transferred into the Company’s ownership and
that his owner be compensated with a slave from the Slave Lodge.230
It would seem that in the founding years of the colony, the Guriqua clan frequently
accepted runaway slaves as Isacq Schijver discovered after an expedition northwards
into the interior in 1696 – it was discovered that there were a substantial number of
slaves living amongst them. Upon this discovery, the Council of Policy noted that:
The Grigriqua Hottentots, who live on the other side of the Oliphants river, a
nation with whom the Company is used to having not the least correspondence
nor friendship, had the habit of keeping and employing in their service all the
runaway slaves of the inhabitants who reach them, without it being known
where these fugitives hid – a manner of acting totally contrary to the
praiseworthy habit of other Hottentot nations, who, being of more reasonable
temper and faithful to the Company, are accustomed, when they capture a
runaway slave, to deliver them up, so he returns to his rightful owner.231
This quote not only demonstrates that the Guriqua clan readily accepted and provided
sanctuary for runaway slaves but also notes that not all Khoisan communities offered
refuge to runaway slaves. Some runaway slaves were returned to their rightful owners
by Khoisan – often in return for a reward of tobacco and beads.
Runaway slaves however did not only seek refuge from the Khoisan clans in the
interior – many escaped and found sanctuary in the mountain hideouts provided by
Table Mountain and Hanglip (False Bay). Slaves that escaped to these regions often
formed maroon communities and these communities relied on theft from nearby farms,
raids on passing wagons, ties of acquaintance, and fish and mussels found on the
coast to survive.232 Cape authorities and owners of runaway slaves however did
230 Ibid., p. 140 231 Quoted in Ross, R., The Cape of Torments: Slavery and Resistance in South Africa, pp. 140-141 232 For more information on the maroon communities of Hanglip, see ibid., chapter 5
78
everything within their power to retrieve their slaves. Commandos, made-up of free
burghers, Khoisan labourers and sometimes slaves, were established and sent after
deserter slaves. Slaves residing in the urban areas of Cape Town also escaped by
sea – they sometimes stowed away on ships that had docked at the refreshment
station. It was possibly easier for stowaways to hide on shipping vessels during the
latter half of the eighteenth century, as more foreign ships docked at the Cape and the
number of Asians on VOC vessels had significantly increased. However, those who
hid on shipping vessels to escape their bondage still had the possibility of being
caught, but once the ship had sailed, chances of being recaptured was minimal. There
were, however, instances of slaves being recaptured after managing to flee the Cape
by sea. This was certainly the case for Jan van de Caab. Jan managed to flee the
colony on the Hof d’Uno (which was en route to the Netherlands) in May 1750. He,
however, returned to the Cape as a sailor under a pseudonym, Jan Harmensz Grutter,
and was subsequently ‘delivered into the hands of justice.’233
Slaves also attempted to flee the Cape by stealing or building boats and attempting to
sail away. This was certainly the case with nine slaves who attempted to escape the
colony by heading east to the ‘land of the Caffers’ (likely the current Eastern Cape) in
a stolen boat. The slaves managed to steal a boat, fill it with some fresh fruit and
vegetables and set sail to the East. For four days and four nights, they managed to
sail due to favourable weather conditions. However, they soon encountered problems:
bad weather conditions, a leak in the boat and a shortage of food forced them to dock
near Hanglip. After setting sail a second time, bad weather conditions and the leak in
the boat forced them to dock once more, this time near Onrust. The slaves then
attempted to complete the journey by land but were so demoralised and weakened by
hunger that when they were found on the beach, they willingly surrendered.234
233 Worden, N., and Groenewald, G. (eds), Trials of Slavery, pp. 285-288 234 Ibid., pp. 251-263
79
Company Soldiers and Sailors
Soldiers and sailors, who were the lowest-ranked employees in the Dutch East
Company’s hierarchy, also deserted in response to the treatment meted out to them
because of their status. The decision to desert, however, was not taken lightly since
the penalty for desertion might be death. VOC soldiers stationed at the Cape made up
a sizable percentage of the town’s population, and formed the largest group of
Company servants residing at the Cape: between five and twenty soldiers from each
incoming VOC ship could be commandeered to complete their contracts at the
Cape.235 Befitting their low status, VOC soldiers were poorly treated and lived lives in
some respects comparable to those of slaves.
Low-ranking soldiers rarely left the garrison and sentry duty dominated their time.
Soldiers who were absent without leave, drunk on duty, late for duty or who fell asleep
while on duty were subjected to harsh punishments, such as beatings and running the
gauntlet. Soldiers were segregated from locals, had curfews and were housed in
barracks within the Castle. Soldiers, like slaves, were not allowed to marry and were
not fed or clothed much better than slaves. Unsurprisingly, VOC officials believed that
soldiers would be unable to support a wife or family: they were very poorly paid.
Company soldiers earned nine guilders a month, which were paid at the end of their
contracts, but deductions were made for subsistence, uniforms, lodgings and so forth.
Consequently, most soldiers lived on food rations provided by the Company (which
consisted of tea and three pounds of bread per week) and an amount of about two
stuivers a day – a small portion of meat at the cheapest eating house in the colony
was at least two stuivers.236 Wages, however, could be supplemented with labour
outside the garrison. Soldiers who were proficient in a trade and those who worked as
knegts were excluded from military duty on the condition that they pay the garrison
nine guilders and twelve stuivers monthly. These soldiers were known as pasgangers
and the money they earned was known as dienstgeld. Dienstgeld was supposed to be
235 Penn, N., ‘Soldiers and Cape Town Society,’ in Worden, N. (ed.), Cape Town: Between East and West (Johannesburg: Jacana Media, 2012), p. 128. Worden, N., ‘Strangers Ashore: Sailor Identity and Social Conflict in the Mid-18th Century Cape Town,’ Kronos, 33 (2007), p. 74 236 Penn, N., ‘Soldiers and Cape Town Society,’ pp. 183-184
80
divided among those who had not been excused from military duty but was often
pocketed by corrupt officials.237 In theory, soldiers in their uniform had to be well
presented, clean and tidy, but in practice soldiers often dressed in tattered clothes
which did not fit them. New uniforms were issued only every three years and if
shortages were experienced before then, soldiers had to use their own clothing.238
Under these circumstances, it is not surprising that desertion by soldiers was a
common occurrence throughout the VOC period at the Cape. Most soldiers deserted
with fellow soldiers, but some also joined marooned slave communities or fled into the
interior on their own.
Sailors, unlike soldiers, were rarely removed from ships to complete their contracts.
However, a handful of sailors were posted at the wharf in Cape Town. Sailors that
deserted were generally fewer in number – they were temporary visitors of at the Cape
and had little incentive to desert, as the Cape was an isolated settlement that did not
offer the prospect of wealth that awaited them in the East Indies. Sailors were generally
absent for only a few days and usually did not leave town – they frequently claimed
being hungover or suffering from drunkenness for missing ship departure dates. Those
that absconded usually did so when more serious crimes were committed and often
deserted for briefer time periods as they lacked both the geographical knowledge and
local contacts to get very far.239 It could be argued that the desertion of slaves, soldiers
and sailors suggests that these groups of people shared a common consciousness as
those on the bottom rung of Cape colonial society. However, these groups were keenly
aware of their status, and incidents of conflict often broke between these groups –
especially between sailors and soldiers. After long voyages to the Cape, both sailors
and soldiers generally headed for the same locales, usually taverns and other places
offering drink and women. A diverse underclass, both resident and visiting, existed in
these places and, unsurprisingly, in these male-dominated environments, fights often
237 Penn, N., ‘Great Escapes: Deserting Soldiers during Noodt’s Cape Governorship, 1727-1729,’ South African Historical Journal, 59 (2007), pp. 173-175 238 Penn, N., ‘Soldiers and Cape Town Society,’ p. 184 239 Worden, N., ‘Strangers Ashore: Sailor Identity and Social Conflict in Mid-18th Century Cape Town,’ pp. 82-83
81
broke out, especially in instances where a person’s honour or masculinity was
somehow questioned.240
Rebellion at the Cape of Good Hope
No large-scale slave rebellion ever took place at the Cape during the VOC period. This
could be attributed to a variety of reasons. Firstly, no distinctive slave culture emerged
at the Cape during the VOC period – the continual influx of new slaves from various
sources made the development of a unified slave culture difficult. Newly imported
slaves found it difficult to assimilate and often had nothing in common with fellow
slaves other than their bondage. Slaves at the Cape also struggled to find partners
and to develop a stable family life. This was partly due to the legal provision that
prevented slaves from marrying. The imbalanced sex ratio at the Cape (men far
outnumbered women) meant that few slaves were able to find partners, and conflicts
often arose over women. Partners could also be split up through sale and children
born into slavery were often separated from their families.241 Consequently, the
incorporative effects of kinship and socialisation could not be established. This was
compounded by laws that curtailed slave rights of association and movement, as well
as the fact that slaves were widely scattered, in small groupings, across the Cape
colony, thus making communication between slaves difficult. Slaves were locked up
at night, curfews were imposed, gathering of more than three slaves were forbidden,
slaves were not allowed to carry firearms and rural slaves had to have signed passes
in order to leave the farm. Ulrich, however, notes that in the context of both criminality
and violence, there are indications that underclasses at the Cape (slaves, Khoisan
servants, soldiers and sailors) formed autonomous social bonds that allowed them to
not only sustain alternative social networks but also enabled them to develop a
widespread, inclusive fellowship. These connections were shaped by their reality and
could be both flexible and inclusive. Consequently, these bonds often transcended
240 Worden, N., ‘Public Brawling, Masculinity and Honour,’ in Worden, N. (ed.), Cape Town: Between East and West (Johannesburg: Jacana Media, 2012), pp. 194-196 241 Ross, R., The Cape of Torments: Slavery and Resistance in South Africa, chapter 8. Worden, N., Slavery in Dutch South Africa, pp. 94-96
82
divisions founded on legal status, race, places of origin, or language.242 There were
only two attempts at rebellion by slaves, in 1808 and 1825, under British authority at
the Cape. These uprisings however occurred when new ideas of freedom were
emerging and reforms were being made by British authorities.
Resistance and Rebellion on Robben Island
Irrespective of former status, rank or ethnicity, the prisoners of Robben Island were
subjected to harsh living conditions: the Island was particularly susceptible to
fluctuating winds and temperatures, whilst its coastline was lined by stones and rocky
outcrops. Convicts were housed in what was known as the kraal and engaged in
similar types of labour. Working conditions were no better than living conditions; with
most convicts often performing arduous tasks such as slate cutting and shell
collecting. Prisoners were also subjected to harsh and brutal punishments by the
postholder and the soldiers stationed on the Island. It could therefore be argued that
this working environment was similar to that of slaves found on the mainland and that,
like slaves at the Cape, prisoners on the Island sought to either resist or escape their
bondage even though their environment was much more restricted (Robben Island
being tiny and flat).
European convicts who left the Island were generally those who had been pardoned
by the Cape Governor or those who had served their sentence and were repatriated,
sent to the Cape, or sent to various colonies in the Dutch East Indies. Pardons,
however, were issued sparingly with only nine being recorded between 1728 and
1748.243 On the other hand, one way that Indiaanen convicts left the Island was by
becoming caffers – most preferring to act as the fiscal’s ‘assistants’ instead of enduring
a life of hard labour on Robben Island. Caffers acted as something like a police force,
working under the authority of the fiscal and headed by a person styled the geweldiger
242 Ulrich, N., ‘Popular Community in 18th-Century Southern Africa: Family, Fellowship, Alternative Networks, and Mutual Aid at the Cape of Good Hope, 1652-1795’, Journal of Southern African Studies, 40:6 (2014), p. 1156 243 CA: CJ 3188, pp. 1-422 (per Tanap)
83
(‘executioner’). These individuals enforced curfews, arrested trouble makers, meted
out punishment (the Council of Justice often sentenced slaves to be whipped by the
caffers for minor transgressions, and slave owners sometimes sent their disobedient
slaves to caffers for them to be disciplined) and acted as the executioner’s assistants.
Unlike slaves, caffers had greater freedom of movement and were allowed to carry
firearms. However, because of their association with executions and their role as
agents of the fiscal, caffers were actively disliked by the European settlers who
resented that they could possibly be arrested by ex-convicts. Nevertheless, being
appointed a caffer was a significant improvement in one’s lot when compared to life
as a prisoner on Robben Island.244 This, however, was also done sparingly with only
five Indiaanen convicts stationed on Robben Island known to have become caffers
between 1728 and 1748.245
Convicts on Robben Island, like slaves and low-ranking VOC employees at the Cape,
also sought to escape their bondage by absconding. Although the layout of the Island
did not aid desertion, a number of prisoners were in fact able to escape the Island.
This could, in part, be attributed to the mobility of prisoners. Convicts were often
transferred from the Island to the Cape and other parts of the colony (such as
Saldanha Bay) so that they could labour in other VOC public works, and sick prisoners
were frequently hospitalised on the mainland. European convicts, Coenraad van der
Walle and Jan Hendrik Gerritsz, respectively, managed to escape from the hospital in
1736 and 1746.246 Thomas d’ Autrepon, a European sailor who had been sentenced
to ten years in chains for drunkenness and misconduct aboard a ship, also managed
to escape from the hospital in 1740.247 Indiaanen prisoner, Galant van Boegies, is
noted as having gone absent at the Cape in March 1742, while another convict, Jan
Andries Schalant, who had been sentenced for illegally trading in spices, was placed
on a battery on 13 May 1744 and managed to escape on the very same day.248
Robben Island convicts were also occasionally taken to smaller islands, such as
244 Groenewald, G., ‘Panaij van Boegies: Slave – Bandiet - Caffer,’ in Shell, R., (ed.) From Diaspora to Diorama: The Slave Lodge in Cape Town (Cape Town: Ancestry24, 2009), pp. 598-599 245 CA: CJ 3188, pp. 1-422 (per Tanap) 246 CA: CJ 3188, pp. 151-158 and 349-352 (per Tanap) 247 CA: CJ 3188, pp. 269-272 (per Tanap) 248 CA: CJ 3188, pp. 273-276 and 309-312 (per Tanap)
84
Dassen Island, to collect train oil. Frans Dollink, Joseph Baumont and Christiaan
Schooneer mananged to escape Dasssen Island on one such trip in 1740 while convict
Jan Oppe managed to escape Dassen Island in 1742.249 The convict rolls also note
the drowning of Marthen de Wilde and Jan Gijsbert van Os off the coast of Dassen
Island – it is not unlikely that they drowned while attempting to escape.250
Subsequently it could be argued that mobility gave Robben Island convicts the means
and opportunity to escape their bondage.
Prisoners however also escaped and attempted to escape from Robben Island itself.
In January 1673, five Khoikhoi prisoners managed to steal an Island boat and escaped
to the mainland – the boat used by the escapees was later found safely docked at the
Cape.251 However not all attempts at escape were this successful. For example, on 7
September 1731, seven European convicts fled the Island. Four of them returned on
the 21st of the same month but the other three convicts drowned.252 The convict roll of
1746 also notes the escape of European convicts Aart Cornelis Manshart on 31
January 1745 and Arnoldus van Zuilen a year later, although no additional information
is given about their escape.253 During the month of August 1780, three Indiaanen
convicts, two slaves and one Khoisan individual, also managed to escape.254 These
prisoners possibly escaped by sea as passing ships sometimes illegally picked up
keen convicts to supplement their on-board labour. Consequently, it could be argued
that, like the Cape, desertion was a common feature of resistance on Robben Island.
The Almost Rebellion of 1751
Revisionist historians have argued that the Cape colony lacked the features necessary
for a large-scale revolt to take place: the geography of the Cape coupled with the slow
249 CA: CJ 3188, pp. 288-291 (per Tanap) 250 CA: CJ 3188, pp. 368-371 (per Tanap) 251 Moodie, D. (ed.), The Record, Book One: Or a Series of Official Papers Relative to the Condition and Treatment of the Native Tribes of South Africa, p. 323, note 2 252 CA: CJ 3188, pp. 50-55 (per Tanap) 253 CA: CJ 3188, pp. 349-352 (per Tanap) 254 CA: CJ 3189. pp. 207-210 (per Tanap)
85
creolisation rate of slaves at the Cape encouraged desertion and escape instead of
revolt. Resistance, however, could also arise from feelings of discontent and
resentment to a situation. It often manifested itself in the refusal to follow orders of
those deemed responsible for the situation, and ‘rebels’ often took up arms against
those viewed as the oppressors. The harsh working and living conditions experienced
by convicts stationed on the Island, coupled with the brutal punishments endured by
convicts, made Robben Island particularly vulnerable to the possibility of resistance. It
is surprising that, like the Cape, no large-scale rebellion took place on the Island during
the VOC period˗ Robben Island had large numbers of convicts and exiles that were
controlled by a small group of Dutch officials and soldiers. However, an attempt at
rebellion was made by a group of Indiaanen convicts and exiles in 1751.255
During the winter of 1751, a number of Indiaanen convicts and exiles, led by Radja
Boekit and Robbo van Bouton, began to organise a rebellion against European
soldiers and convicts stationed on the Island. Radja Boekit, former Regent of Padang,
had been exiled to the Cape ‘until further instructions were received’ for participating
in a rebellion against the Company.256 Both his background and status possibly
provided him with the ability to convince his fellow convicts into participating in the
proposed rebellion. Unlike Radja, Robbo van Bouton did not have a history of
resistance. The records fail to mention his original conviction (which sentenced him to
the Cape for 25 years in chains), but his second conviction of housebreaking and theft
at the Cape saw him banished for life to Robben Island.257 Their plan was simple but
ambitious: they planned to steal the next provision boat upon its arrival, run amok and
then set sail for the East Indies. The convicts had already begun stealing and burying
knives. They planned to temporarily spare the lives of Indiaanen prisoner, Arend van
de Velde, and European convict, Michiel van Embdneelen, who oversaw the Island’s
boat and were meant to guide them to open waters before being thrown overboard.258
However, the plot was uncovered before it could come to fruition, due to a particularly
255 The main source of this narrative can be found in CA: CJ 788, pp. 81-88, CJ 359, pp. 319-371 and CJ 33, pp. 92-97. 256 CA: CJ 359, pp. 366-368 257 Truter, P. ‘The Robben Island Rebellion of 1751’, p. 40. CA: CJ 359, pp. 366-368 258 CA: CJ 359, pp. 325-327
86
harsh beating received by one of the conspirators, Indiaanen convict, September van
Ternaten. The following account led to the uncovering of the plot.
On 24 May 1751, September van Ternaten was accused by Corporal F. Deen of
stealing seven and a half rixdollars from his trunk. September vehemently denied
stealing the money and proclaimed that no one aside from the ‘old prince’, Daing
Mangenam, had that kind of money.259 The following month two knives belonging to
European convict, Lodewijk Rets, went missing and, upon informing the postholder,
Rets was instructed to try and pinpoint the culprits who had taken his knives and stolen
Corporal Deens’ money the previous month. Rets conveyed to the postholder that
some of the Indiaanen convicts on the Island had information regarding the stolen
money but were keeping their lips sealed. He also implicated September van
Ternaten, who was summarily summoned and tied to the rack. 260
According to the postholder, before September received a single lash he implicated
fellow Indiaanen convict, Djan Marrowang, claiming that he had seen Marrowang with
half a ducat. Not long thereafter Marrowang was fastened to the rack alongside
September; Marrowang admitted to being in possession of the half ducat, but asserted
that the money was given to him by September. September however denied these
claims and in light of the uncertainty this created, the postholder proceeded to having
both convicts whipped. Eventually the harsh flogging prompted September to admit
that he had indeed stolen and buried the money. September was then released by the
postholder so that he could show him where he had hidden the money; but not long
after the hiding spot was revealed, September was once again fastened to the rack
alongside Marrowang for the respective roles they played with regards to the stolen
money.261
The morning of the 26th of June was reserved for their punishment and this beating
was so severe, that in his attempts to get the postholder to stop, September promised
259 CA: CJ 359, pp. 357-363 260 Ibid. 261 Ibid.
87
to tell the postholder something of great importance. Intrigued, the postholder paused
the beating and September proceeded to unveil the carefully concealed plan. He also
implicated Radja Boekit, Robbo van Bouton, Toerbattoe, Joermoedi, Pannowaar,
Carre Tojeeng, Djan Marrowang, Pomade and both convicts named Jeptha van
Boegies. In light of this revelation, September was provisionally released. The
following day, he was further interrogated by the postholder about the proposed
rebellion. However, upon further investigation by the postholder, September revealed
that the story he had given the previous day had been concocted to evade further
punishment. September’s word was accepted by the postholder as Lodewijk Rets had
informed him on that very day that his knives had been found in the same place that
he had originally hidden them.262
However, on the 6th of July, the postholder’s suspicions were once again aroused
when European convict, Marthen van der Klugt, found the sharpened seal-
slaughtering knife that Michiel van Embdneelen had been trying to find. Bearing in
mind September’s previous confession, the postholder had Radja Boekit chained.
Boekit declared that he had no knowledge of the knife. Leander van Coridon, a
mardijker convict, then tipped-off the postholder that Carre Tojeeng had some valuable
information regarding the matter and that he would have to interrogate him if he wanted
to determine the truth. Acting on this tip-off, the postholder had Tojeeng and
September van Ternaten fastened together and showed them the sharpened knife.
Both Tojeeng and September assured the postholder that they had seen the knife in
the possession of Boekit.263
The following morning the rest of the convicts implicated by September were
summoned and questioned about the proposed rebellion, but the postholder was
unable to coerce any further confession until Robbo van Bouton himself admitted to
the allegations. Bouton implicated Boekit as the leader and attested that those named
by September were indeed involved in the plot. He also noted that September himself
was in fact part of the conspiracy. Upon Bouton’s confession, the postholder further
262 Ibid. 263 Ibid.
88
interrogated Boekit, who finally conceded that Bouton and September were indeed
telling the truth. He then proceeded to show the postholder where he had hidden a
knife that had gone missing several months before.264 With this confirmation, the
postholder had those implicated arrested and sent to the Cape to stand trial.
The circumstances that led to the uncovering of the plot shed some light on the daily
experiences of convicts on Robben Island. One of the most distinctive features of this
particular case was the cooperation between some of the convicts (primarily
European) and the postholder and soldiers stationed on the Island. Certainly, without
the help of certain convicts, it is highly unlikely that the plot would ever have been
uncovered. Although Cape authorities habitually blurred the spectrum of servitude,
European convicts on the Island may have had closer ties of association with the
soldiers stationed on the Island – after all, most European convicts on the Island were
previously VOC employees from the lowest rungs of the Company’s hierarchy. In
addition to this, the European convicts who played a role in revealing the plot, had
been longer on the Island than the Indiaanen convicts that who been involved in the
plot. This could have enabled the development of a more amicable relationship
between the convicts and soldiers stationed on the Island. The Indiaanen convicts
involved in the rebellion planned on killing all the Europeans on the Island, suggesting
that there was probably some tension between East Indian convicts and European
convicts, or that all Europeans were considered untrustworthy by the Indiaanen
prisoners. The cooperation between some convicts and officials stationed on the
Island somewhat resembles the use of caffers and mandoors (‘slave overseers’) on
the mainland.265 The help of certain convicts might even have been crucial to the
postholder since he and the soldiers on the Island were in the minority, and it is unlikely
that they would have been able to control all the convicts on the Island.
The case also reveals that a multitude of languages were spoken on the Island, as
mentioned before. The conspirators were able to keep their plans hidden as they
conspired in their own languages. However, some European convicts on the Island
264 Ibid. 265 Truter, P. ‘The Robben Island Rebellion of 1751’, p. 12
89
had some means of communicating or, at the very least, an understanding of the
languages of the Asian convicts: Rets had known that some of the Indiaanen convicts
had been withholding information and it was his testimony to the postholder that led to
the interrogation of September van Ternate.266 It is more than likely that some
European convicts, like Rets, had picked up a basic understanding of either Malay or
Portuguese during their time stationed in the Dutch East Indies since both these
languages served as lingua francas in the Indian Ocean World. Portuguese was
certainly spoken on the Island as Chinese convict Limoeijko, who had been implicated
in the plot but was not convicted, asserted in his testimony that he could not have been
part of the conspiracy since he did not understand the Bugis and Portuguese
languages spoken by those involved in the plot.267
The defence of the Prince of Ternate, Daing Mangenam, who was also implicated but
not convicted, also rested on his inability to understand the language. The Prince had
been exiled to the Cape in 1749 as a prisoner of state on the order of the Council of
the Indies. Although the Council of Justice at the Cape noted that it was highly unlikely
that the Prince would not have understood Bugis or Malay, the Court still failed to
convict the Prince, even though there was more evidence against him than some of
the other convicts who were in fact convicted.268 One possible reason for this was the
reluctance of Cape officials to convict prisoners of high political status. The
postholder’s testimony also aided the Prince’s defence: the postholder asserted that
he had never seen the Prince conversing with any of the Bugis convicts on the
Island.269 However it must be noted that it was probably in the postholder’s best
interest to keep the Prince on the Island. The Prince received a monthly stipend of ten
rixdollars, possibly making him the richest person on the Island, and an important
source of income for the postholder. September van Ternate’s assertion that no-one
on the Island, aside from the ‘old Prince,’ had that kind of money and that he had
already promised it to the postholder, certainly attests to this.270 The possibility of
repatriation could also have prevented the Prince from participating in the conspiracy:
266 CA: CJ 359, pp. 357-363 267 CA: CJ 359, pp. 364-365 268 CA: CJ 359, pp. 369-371 269 Ibid. 270 CA: CJ 359, pp. 357-363
90
he had no fixed sentence and was to be held until further notice. Repatriations usually
occurred when prisoners were no longer seen as a threat to Company interests, or
when prisoners were too old to pose a threat to the Company. Although the age of the
Prince is not specified in the records, the fact that other convicts on the Island referred
to him as the ‘old Prince’ indicates that his age may have supported a request for
repatriation.
Robben Island was not only a meeting place of East Indian convicts and Europeans,
it was also a meeting place of East Indian convicts originating from various regions
within the Dutch East Indies. Like slaves on the mainland, East Indian convicts were
frequently categorised according to their place of origin. Consequently, a number of
stereotypes emerged with regards to individuals who originated from certain regions
within the Dutch East Indies. Individuals of Bugis origin were seen as particularly
dangerous.271 It was believed that these individuals were more likely to run amok and
kill their owners and their owner’s families.272 This stereotype certainly applied to the
slaves, September van Bugis and Jephta van Bugis (both participated in the
conspiracy), who had been banished to the Robben Island for threatening to kill their
owners after receiving harsh beatings from them.273 Malays on the other hand were
looked upon more favourably: they were admired for their intelligence and
craftsmanship.274 Ross has argued that slaves at the Cape were not overly concerned
with ethnic differentiation and did not internalise stereotypes perpetuated by Dutch
settlers.275 However, this case paints a different picture: Radja Boekit, according to
Djan Marrowang and confirmed by September van Bugis, would not bother speaking
to Bugis convicts to seek their allegiance. This, taken with postholder’s assertion that
he had never seen Daing Mangenam converse with Bugis convicts, indicates that to
a certain extent, individuals of East Indian origin did in fact internalise stereotypes
imposed on them by Dutch settlers.276
271 See, Koolhof, S. and Ross, R., ‘Upas and the Bugis at the Cape of Good Hope: The Context of a Slave’s Letter’, Archipel, 70 (2005), pp. 285-287 272 Ross, R., Status and Respectability in the Cape Colony, 1750-1870, pp. 34-37 273 CA: CJ 359, pp. 366-368 274 Ross, R., Status and Respectability in the Cape Colony, 1750-1870, pp. 34-37 275 Ibid., p. 37 276 CA: CJ 359, pp. 339, 356 and 370.
91
All those convicted in the planned rebellion had their sentences carried out at the
Cape: the convicts were to be delivered to the executioner at the execution site (which
was a walled compound situated outside the Castle). The first nine prisoners, including
Boekit and Bouton, had their limbs broken on the cross – Boekit and Bouton were not
given the coup de grace blow, while the remainder were given the coup de grace. The
remaining six prisoners were all hung. The bodies of all fifteen deceased convicts were
then taken to the ‘outer’ gallows, which was situated on the outskirts of town (in
modern-day Greenpoint), where they were either fastened to the wheel or placed on
crosses so that they could be devoured by the birds and serve as a reminder of the
wages of crime.277 The public manner of their execution was not only used as a
punishment for those involved in the plot, but also served to reaffirm the Company’s
authority. In addition to this, it demonstrated the consequences of challenging the
Company’s authority and was meant to act as a deterrent for both slaves and convicts
at the Cape. Overt rebellion on Robben Island was not attempted again: security on
the Island was probably strengthened.
Conclusion
In conclusion, resistance and rebellion on Robben Island followed similar trends to
those of slaves, soldiers and sailors at the Cape – prisoners sought to resist or escape
their bondage even in the restrictive environment of Robben Island. Mobility gave
convicts both the means and opportunity to escape their bondage because convicts
were frequently transferred from the Island to the Cape and other parts of the colony
to labour in other VOC Company public works. It is, however, important to note that
there are instances of prisoners escaping the Island itself. These prisoners probably
escaped by sea (passing ships sometimes illegally picked up convicts to supplement
their labour). Consequently, it could be argued that prisoners on Robben Island, like
slaves and low-ranking Company employees at the Cape, sought to escape their
bondage by absconding even though the Island’s layout did not aid desertion.
277 CA: CJ 33, pp. 92-97. CA: CJ 359, pp. 81-88
92
Like the Cape, no large-scale rebellion took place on Robben Island during the VOC
period. However, an attempt at rebellion was made by a group of Indiaanen convicts
and exiles in 1751. Although their plan failed, the circumstances that led to the plot
being uncovered sheds some light on the experiences of convicts on the Island. It
highlights the fact that there was some cooperation between some convicts (mainly
European) and the postholder and that there might have been some tension between
European and Indiaanen prisoners since the Indiaanen prisoners involved in the
rebellion planned to kill all the Europeans on the Island. It also highlights the fact that
multiple languages were spoken on the Island, and that stereotypes placed on
individuals that originated from certain territories with the Dutch East Indies were
somewhat internalised.
93
Chapter 6
Conclusion
This dissertation discussed Robben Island as both a penal colony and a community
during the period when the Cape of Good Hope fell under Dutch administration (1652-
1795). The study adopted a socio-cultural historical approach by focusing on convict
experience on the Island; in short, it is a history from below. The social identities of the
Island’s various inhabitants were examined in an attempt to gauge how these identities
related to the various social identities which existed in early Dutch South Africa.
The aim of this dissertation was to link two distinct histories: namely the workings of
criminal justice, in particular punishment, in the VOC Empire, and the social history of
early Cape inhabitants. This dissertation sought to answer the following questions:
Where did the prisoners come from and why were they banished to Robben Island?
How did prisoners communicate and interact with each other? How did prisoners
interact with the Dutch authorities on the Island? What social and cultural distinctions
existed between prisoners on the Island? Did their social perceptions mirror the
perceptions of the mainland’s inhabitants? And what were the daily experiences of
those living on the Island? What forms of resistance did they use, and did uprisings on
the Island lead to a greater feeling of cohesion among the various prisoners? In short,
the study sought to provide a better understanding of both the place of Robben Island
in the administration of criminal justice in the VOC Empire and the experience of
prisoners in this location off the shore of early colonial Cape Town.
There has been no extensive, systematic work done on Robben Island as a penal
colony in the VOC period, although some historians have explored certain aspects of
the history of the Island during this period. Perhaps the most detailed and factual
account of Robben Island history during this period is provided by Dan Sleigh. In
chapter six of Die Buiteposte, Sleigh examines the general transformation of the Island
over the period of VOC occupation at the Cape of Good Hope. Sleigh’s work provides
valuable insights into the administration of the Island and the relationship between the
94
‘postholder’ (administrative head of the service station), his staff and the inhabitants
of the Island. However, Sleigh is more interested in the experiences and activities of
the Dutch administrators than in those of their prisoners. Penn provides a brief
overview of the Island’s varied functions from 1488 to 1805 and argues that, had it not
been for Robben Island, the ‘initial Dutch settlement would have miscarried.’ In trying
to reconstruct a rebellion that took place on the Island in 1751, Truter attempts briefly
to highlight both the daily experiences and social relations of convicts that stayed on
the Island. Most of the scholarly literature which deals with Robben Island are case
studies of various topics, and for this reason not much importance is placed on the
Island itself. This is evident in the case studies of specific events which happened on
Robben Island by Groenewald and Newton King which refer to Robben Island. More
recently, the eighteenth century history of the Island has garnered some public
attention thanks to the art film, Proteus, which is set in Robben Island in the 1730s.
However, historians’ commentary (such as those of Newton King and Worden) on
Proteus focusses more on historical inaccuracies than on exploring daily experiences
of life on the Island, or on the Island’s status as a penal colony.
To understand VOC policies that dealt with crime and punishment, it is important to
understand how the laws, customs and sensibilities surrounding crime and
punishment within the Company were influenced by developments in Western Europe.
For this reason, chapter 2 above traced how trends in Europe were reflected in or
differed in the Company settlements of Batavia and the Cape of Good Hope. It argued
that although European legal systems and punishment techniques influenced the
practice of criminal justice, the composition of the criminal population in Company
settlements altered the social dynamics of crime and therefore the prosecution of
crimes. Profiles of offenders were highly stereotyped, and the status of the offender
played a role in the punishments handed out by Company officials. Certain groups
were targeted by the justice system – laws were targeted at specific crimes but certain
crimes could only be committed by certain groups of people.
Chapters 3, 4 and 5 discussed the administration of and the inhabitants on Robben
Island. Chapter 3 outlined the administration of and infrastructure on Robben Island:
95
during the VOC period at the Cape, Robben Island variously acted as a prison, an
emergency refreshment station, a quarantine station, signal post and a scout’s post.
It noted that the administration of the Island was carried out by the postholder who not
only acted as a warden for the prisoners and exiles imprisoned on the Island, but who
also had to ensure that the signal fires were lit, and that the Island’s livestock and
vegetable garden were tended to. Not much is known about the buildings and where
on Robben Island they were located during the early years of the Dutch settlement.
However, it appears that there were several buildings erected close to the landing
beach at Murray’s Bay, and that the postholder’s house was about three or four metres
to the west of the anchoring place. The Island also contained a flag house from which
the signals fires were lighted, the kraal (which housed the convicts), housing for
Company soldiers and people living on the Island by choice, a graveyard, a Company
garden and a slave garden.
Chapter 4 discussed the Island’s transformation from a pantry to a prison by studying
the convicts and exiles serving their sentences at the Cape. It not only explained how
convicts ended up on the Island, but it also used case studies that came before the
Cape’s Council of Justice in order to explore the living and working conditions of
prisoners and exiles on the Island. It highlighted the fact that convicts and exiles
serving their sentences on Robben Island originated from a variety of territories within
the VOC Empire, including the Cape. For convicts and exiles serving their sentences
on Robben Island, life was extremely harsh – they engaged in hard labour and were
harshly disciplined. Prisoners and exiles were housed in the kraal, were given
inadequate clothing, and were provided with insufficient food rations. Multiple
languages were spoken on the Island: these included Portuguese, Dutch, Malay and
Bugis. Rank and status played an important role in the interactions of prisoners and
exiles serving their sentences, and that stereotypes imposed on Indiaanen prisoners
by the Dutch were somewhat internalised. It is not unlikely that a Muslim community,
made up of convicts and exiles, existed on the Island – Muslim slaves often suffered
forced migration, and several Muslim scholars were placed on Robben Island during
the eighteenth century.
96
Chapter 5 discussed the role of resistance and rebellion on the Island. It argues that
both resistance and rebellion there followed a similar trajectory to those of the
underclasses (slaves, soldiers and sailors) on the mainland. It argued that prisoners
on Robben Island, like slaves and low-ranking Company employees at the Cape,
sought to escape their bondage by absconding, even though the Island’s layout did
not aid desertion. Like the Cape, no large-scale rebellion took place on Robben Island
during the VOC period. However, an attempt at rebellion was made by a group of
Indiaanen convicts and exiles in 1751. The circumstances that led to the plot being
uncovered shed some light on the experiences of convicts on the Island. It highlights
the fact that there was some cooperation between some convicts (mainly European)
and the postholder, and that there might have been some tension between European
and Indiaanen prisoners since the Indiaanen prisoners involved in the rebellion
planned to kill all the Europeans on the Island. It also reiterates the fact that multiple
languages were spoken on the Island, and that stereotypes placed on individuals who
originated from certain territories with the Dutch East Indies became somewhat
internalised. As such, this dissertation provided information and arguments to qualify
our existing picture of the social history of the seventeenth- and eighteenth-century
Cape of Good Hope, in particular the much-overlooked class of convicts on Robben
Island.
97
Appendices
Appendix A: Convicts and Exiles on Robben Island, 1728-1788.278
Year Slaves Khoikhoi Chinese Exiles and Mahometaanse Priesters
Other
1728 6 1 1 2 6
1748 11 2 0 2 6
1768 32 5 9 3 14
1788 50 24 1 23 4
278 This table was compiled using figures from CA: CJ 3188, pp. 6-11, 410-411 and CJ 3189, pp. 93-94, 283-285 (per Tanap). The table compares the make-up of prisoners that were not of European descent serving their time on Robben Island. This allows one to see how the make-up of Asian and African prisoners gradually changed over time.
98
Appendix B: European and Indiaanen Prisoners on Robben Island, 1728-1748.279
Year Europeans Indiaanen Total Convict Population
1728 26 16 42
1729 29 18 47
1730 28 18 46
1731 27 23 50
1732 26 23 49
1733 26 20 46
1734 20 23 43
1735 19 19 38
1736 23 18 41
1737 20 20 40
1738 18 21 39
1739 22 21 43
1740 29 22 51
1741 26 19 45
1742 32 22 54
1743 29 22 51
1744 28 21 49
1745 27 19 46
1746 27 21 48
1747 27 21 48
1748 25 21 46
279 This table was compiled using CA: CJ 3188, pp. 6-428 (per Tanap) – it, however, only uses the registers of prisoners on Robben Island. There are two registers in the convict rolls for the years 1728, 1747 and 1748 – for these years, the first register was always used. The table compares the number of Europeans and Indiaanen on the Robben Island during the first half of the eighteenth century. Based on this table, we can see that the convict population on Robben Island during this time period remained fairly constant, with Europeans generally making up the bulk of the prisoner population.
99
Appendix C: Convicts on Robben Island, 1765-1795.280
Year Europeans Indiaanen Total Convict Population
1765 27 45 72
1766 29 56 85
1767 23 58 81
1768 21 63 84
1769 24 66 90
1769 24 73 97
1770 19 75 94
1771 19 82 101
1772 20 85 105
1773 19 89 108
1774 18 91 109
1775 18 91 109
1776 23 91 114
1778 23 97 120
1779 23 113 136
1780 23 120 143
1781 1 87 88
1782 1 55 56
1783 5 63 68
1784 8 62 70
1785 15 75 90
1786 26 92 118
1787 32 101 133
1788 33 102 135
1789 33 99 132
1790 32 95 127
1791 28 93 121
1792 36 51 87
1793 34 92 126
1794 27 93 120
1795 24 99 123
280 This table was compiled using CA: C J3189, pp. 63-363 (per Tanap). There are anywhere from two to four registers for any given year, but for the purpose of this table the last register available for each year was used. The table compares the number of Europeans and Indiaanen on Robben Island during the latter part of eighteenth century. Based on this table, we can see that Robben Island saw a significant increase in the number of prisoners during this time period. There is also an overall increase in the number of Indiaanen prisoners serving their sentences on the Island – the European prisoner population was now in the minority.
100
Appendix D: Places Where Robben Island Convicts Were Sentenced, 1728-1788.281
Year Dutch East Indies Cape Other
1728 14 21 7
1748 23 20 3
1768 45 59 0
1788 17 117 1
281 This table was compiled using figures from CA: CJ 3188, pp. 6-11, 410-411 and CJ 3189, pp. 93-94, 283-285 (per Tanap). This table compares where convicts received their sentences throughout most of the eighteenth century. Based on this table, it is evident that, as the eighteenth century progressed, convicts and exiles serving their time on Robben Island were increasingly sentenced at the Cape itself.
101
Bibliography
PRIMARY SOURCES
Western Cape Archives Repository, Cape Town (CA)
C Council of Policy
C 16 Resolutions, 1682-1684
C 29 Resolutions, 1711-1712
C 56 Resolutions, 1721
C 66 Resolutions, 1723
C 138 Resolutions, 1760
C 141 Resolutions, 1763
C 144 Resolutions, 1766
CJ Council of Justice
CJ 17 Original Rolls and Minutes, 1735
CJ 33 Original Rolls and Minutes, 1751
CJ 339 Documents in Criminal Cases, 1735
CJ 359 Documents in Criminal Cases, 1751
CJ 786 Criminal Sentences, 1736-1743
CJ 788 Criminal Sentences, 1750-1755
CJ 3188 Convict Rolls, 1728-1795
CJ3 189 Lists of Convicts sent to Robben Island, 1758-1802
102
Published Primary Sources
Moodie, D., The Record: Or a Series of Official Papers Relative to the Conditions
and Treatment of the Native Tribes of South Africa (Amsterdam and Cape Town:
A.A. Balkema, 1960)
Raven-Hart, R., Before van Riebeeck: Callers at South Africa from 1488 to 1652
(Cape Town: A.A. Balkema, 1967)
TEPC (Transcription of Estate Papers at the Cape Project), Cape Transcripts: TEPC
- Two Centuries Transcribed, 1673-1834. CD-ROM. (Cape Town: TEPC, 2008). Also
available online: http://www.tanap.nl/content/activities/documents/index.htm
Worden, N. and Groenewald, G. (eds), Trials of Slavery: Selected Documents
concerning Slaves from the Criminal Records of the Council of Justice at the Cape of
Good Hope, 1705-1794 (Cape Town: Van Riebeeck Society, 2005)
SECONDARY SOURCES
Published Articles, Chapters and Books
Alexander, N. Robben Island Dossier, 1964-1974 (Cape Town: UCT Press, 1994)
Armstrong, J. ‘The Slaves, 1652-1795’ in Elphick, R. and Giliomee, H. (eds) The
Shaping of South African Society (Cape Town: Maskew Miller Longman, 1979), pp.
75-115
Armstrong, J.C. ‘The Chinese Exiles,’ in Worden, N. (ed.), Cape Town between East
and West: Social Identities in a Dutch Colonial Town (Johannesburg: Jacana Media),
pp. 101-127
Buntman, F.L. Robben Island and Prisoner Resistance to Apartheid (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2003)
103
Deacon, H. (ed) The Island: A History of Robben Island, 1488-1990 (Bellville:
University of the Western Cape, 1997)
Desai, A. Reading Revolution: Shakespeare on Robben Island (London: Haymarket
Books, 2014)
Diederiks, H. In een Land van Justitie. Criminaliteit van Vrouwen, Soldaten en
Ambtenaren in de Achttiende-Eeuwse Republiek (Hilversum: Verloren, 1992)
Eisner, M. ‘Long-term Historical Trends in Violent Crimes’, Crime and Justice 30
(2003), pp. 83-142
Elphick, R. and Shell, R., ‘Intergroup Relations: Khoikhoi, Settlers, Slaves and Free
Blacks, 1652-1795,’ in Elphick, R., and Giliomee, H. (eds), The Shaping of South
African Society, 1652-1840, 2nd edition, (Cape Town: Maskew Miller Longman,
1989), pp. 184-242
Groenewald, G. ‘Panaij van Boegies: Slave – Bandiet – Caffer,’ in Shell, R. (ed.),
From Diaspora to Diorama: The Slave Lodge in Cape Town (Cape Town:
Ancestry24, 2009), pp. 595-614
Groenewald, G. ‘Southern Africa and the Atlantic World,’ in Coffman, D., Leonard, A.
and O’Reilly, W (eds), The Atlantic World (London & New York: Routledge, 2015),
pp. 100-116
Heese, H.F. Reg en Onreg: Kaapse Regspraak in die Agtiende Eeu (Bellville:
University of the Western Cape, 1994)
Koolhof, S. and Ross, R., ‘Upas and the Bugis at the Cape of Good Hope: The
Context of a Slave’s Letter’, Archipel, 70 (2005), pp. 281-308
Linebaugh, P. The London Hanged: Crime and Civil Society in the Eighteenth
Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992)
104
Liebenberg, H. ‘Introduction to the Documents of the Court of Justice at the Cape of
Good Hope regarding Convicts and Exiles,’ in TEPC (Transcription of Estate Papers
at the Cape Project), Cape Transcripts: TEPC - Two Centuries Transcribed, 1673-
1834. CD-ROM. (Cape Town: TEPC, 2008).
Malherbe, V.C. Krotoa, Called Eva: A Woman Between (Cape Town: University of
Cape Town, Centre of African Studies, Communications no. 19, 1990),
McVay, P. ‘‘I am the Devil’s Own’: Crime, Class and Identity in the Seventeenth
Century Dutch East Indies’ (PhD thesis). Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois, 1995
Newton King, S. ‘History and Film: A Roundtable Discussion of ‘Proteus’’ Kronos 31
(2005), pp. 6-33
Newton King, S., ‘For the Love of Adam: Two Sodomy Trials at the Cape of Good
Hope’, Kronos 28 (2002), 21-42.
Penn, N. ‘Robben Island, 1488-1805’ in Deacon, H. (ed.), The Island: A History of
Robben Island, 1488-1990 (Bellville: University of the Western Cape, 1997), pp. 9-32
Penn, N., ‘Great Escapes: Deserting Soldiers during Noodt’s Cape Governorship,
1727-1729,’ South African Historical Journal, 59 (2007), pp. 171-203
Penn, N., ‘Soldiers and Cape Town Society,’ in Worden, N. (ed), Cape Town
between East and West: Social Identities in a Dutch Colonial Town (Johannesburg:
Jacana Media, 2012), pp. 176-193
Ross, R. Cape of Torments: Slavery and Resistance in South Africa (London:
Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1983)
Ross, R. Status and Respectability in the Cape Colony, 1750-1870: A Tragedy of
Manners (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999)
105
Ruff, J.R. Violence in Early Modern Europe, 1500-1800 (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2001)
Shell, R. Children of Bondage: A Social History of the Slave Society at the Cape of
Good Hope, 1652-1838 (Johannesburg: Wits University Press, 1994)
Sleigh, D. Die Buiteposte onder Kaapse bestuur, 1652-1795 (Pretoria: Protea
Publishers, 2004)
Spierenburg, P. A History of Murder: Personal Violence in Europe from the Middle
Ages to the Present (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2008)
Spierenburg, P. The Spectacle of Suffering: Execution and the Evolution of
Repression, from a Pre-industrial Metropolis to the European Experience
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984)
Taylor, J.G. ‘The Painted Ladies’, South African Historical Journal 59 (2007), pp. 47-
78
Taylor, J.G., The Social World of Batavia: European and Eurasian in Dutch Asia
(Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1983)
Tosh, J. The Pursuit of History: Aims Methods and New Directions in the Study of
Modern History (5th ed., London: Routledge, 2010)
Truter, P. ‘The Robben Island Rebellion of 1751: A Study of Convict Experience at
the Cape of Good Hope,’ Historical Approaches 3 (2004), pp. 34-49
Ulrich, N., ‘Popular Community in 18th-Century Southern Africa: Family, Fellowship,
Alternative Networks, and Mutual Aid at the Cape of Good Hope, 1652-1795’,
Journal of Southern African Studies, 40:6 (2014), pp. 1139-1157
Ulrich, N., ‘Cape of Storms: Surveying and Rethinking Popular Resistance in the
Eighteenth Century Cape Colony’ New Contree 73 (2015), pp. 16-39
106
Van der Heijden, M. Misdadige Vrouwen: Criminaliteit en Rechtspraak in Holland,
1600-1800 (Amsterdam: Bert Bakker, 2014)
Vink, M. ‘Freedom and Slavery: The Dutch Republic, the VOC World, and the
Debate over the ‘World’s Oldest Trade’’, South African Historical Journal, Vol. 59,
2007, pp. 19-46
Visagie, G.G., Regspleging en Reg aan die Kaap van 1652 tot 1806 (Cape Town:
Juta, 1969).
Ward, K., ‘Defining and Defiling the Criminal Body at the Cape of Good Hope:
Punishing the Crime of Suicide under the Dutch East India Company Rule, circa
1652-1795’ in Pierce, S. and Rao, A. (eds), Discipline and the Other Body:
Correction, Corporeality, Colonialism (Durham and London: Duke University Press,
2006), pp. 36-60
Ward, K., Networks of Empire: Forced Migration in the Dutch East India Company
(New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009).
Ward, K., ‘Southeast Asian Migrants’ in Worden, N. (ed.), Cape Town between East
and West: Social Identities in a Dutch Colonial Town (Johannesburg: Jacana Media,
2012), pp. 84-100
Weisner, M.R., Crime and Punishment in Early Modern Europe (Sussex: Harvester
Press, 1979)
Wijsenbeek, T. ‘Identity Lost: Huguenot Refugees in the Dutch Republic and its
Frontier Colonies in North America and South Africa, 1650-1750: A Comparison’,
South African Historical Journal 59 (2007), pp. 79-102
Worden, N. Slavery in Dutch South Africa (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1985)
107
Worden, N. ‘‘What Are We? : Proteus and the Problematising of History’ in Smith, V.
B. and Mendelsohn, R. (eds), Black and White in Colour: African History on Screen
(Cape Town: Double Story Books, 2007), pp. 82-96
Worden, N., ‘Strangers Ashore: Sailor Identity and Social Conflict in Mid-18th Century
Cape Town,’ Kronos, 33 (2007), pp. 72-83
Worden, N., ‘Public Brawling, Masculinity and Honour,’ in Worden, N. (ed.), Cape
Town between East and West: Social Identities in a Dutch Colonial Town
(Johannesburg: Jacana Media, 2012), pp. 194-211
Worden, N. (ed.) Cape Town between East and West: Social Identities in a Dutch
Colonial Town (Johannesburg: Jacana Media, 2012)
Worden, N. ‘‘Unbridled Passions’: Honour and Status in Late Eighteenth-Century
Cape Town,’’ in Strange, C., Cribb, R. and Forth, C.E. (eds), Honour, Violence and
Emotions in History (New York: Bloomsbury, 2014), pp. 89-106
Unpublished Theses and Papers
Bergemann, K.J. ‘Council of (in)Justice: Crime, Status, Punishment and the
Decision-Makers in the 1730s Cape Justice System’ (MA Dissertation, University of
Cape Town, 2011)
Deacon, H. ‘A History of the Medical Institutions on Robben Island, 1846-1910’ (PhD
Thesis, Cambridge University, 1994)
Groenewald, G. ‘In a Land of Justice? Crime, Punishment and Slavery in Dutch
Colonial South Africa, 1652-1795’, Paper delivered at the European Social Science
History Conference, Vienna, Austria, 23-26 April 2014
Potgieter, T.D., ‘Defence against Maritime Power Projection: The Case of the Cape
of Good Hope, 1756-1803’ (PhD Thesis, University of Stellenbosch, 2006)