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

44

people living on the Island by choice, a graveyard, Company garden and a slave

garden.

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)

108

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)