Whydah

in squared kilometers. Area calculated using a sketch-map provided in the following reference for political boundaries of the various kingdoms in approximately 1700 CE: ^[1]

[1]: Norman, Neil L. “Hueda (Whydah) Country and Town: Archaeological Perspectives on the Rise and Collapse of an African Atlantic Kingdom.” The International Journal of African Historical Studies, vol. 42, no. 3, 2009, pp. 387–410: 388. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/5UK64SQ5/collection

1) Capital city (Savi); 2) Chief towns; 3) Villages/hamlets. “Astley, A New General Collection, 9, summarizing from the account of Des Marchais, reports that the residences of community leaders resembled towns, each of which was surrounded by radiating settlements: "Each of these twenty-six ... [chief towns] has fewer smaller villages, or hamlets, which are subordinate to it; and although the bounds of the kingdom are small, and consequently the provinces [proportionally] little, yet the country is so populous and full of hamlets, that the whole kingdom seems to be one town, divided into many quarters, and separated only by cultivated lands, which appear like gardens." The Astley account suggests that the king gave each of these twenty-six regional provinces to a prominent man of the kingdom who occupied a "Chief Town" within the provinces.” ^[1] “These architectural clusters are interpreted as sprawling house compounds and associated collections of smaller residential structures, administrative structures, and market facilities. Apparently, Huedans constructed these architectural clusters as accretional and evolving connections of architectural features; they added later building efforts to open zones adjacent to earlier structures. While accretional, this landscape appears to be a purposefully organized one, the negative spaces of the boundary ditches/borrow pits often abutted structures. When viewing the system in plan and in aggregate, interior structures are surrounded by non-contiguous yet radiating collections of structures and ditches. As this pattern repeated itself throughout the landscape, systems of the negative space created by ditches/borrow pits connected to larger structures checked terrestrial movement. During the Hueda era it was, as it is today, difficult to traverse the landscape without passing through or adjacent to a structure. Indeed, it is highly likely that Huedans created these enclosed architectural systems as a form of protection against foreign and domestic threats.” ^[2]

[1]: Norman, Neil L. “Hueda (Whydah) Country and Town: Archaeological Perspectives on the Rise and Collapse of an African Atlantic Kingdom.” The International Journal of African Historical Studies, vol. 42, no. 3, 2009, pp. 387–410: 395. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/5UK64SQ5/collection

[2]: Norman, Neil L. “Hueda (Whydah) Country and Town: Archaeological Perspectives on the Rise and Collapse of an African Atlantic Kingdom.” The International Journal of African Historical Studies, vol. 42, no. 3, 2009, pp. 387–410: 394. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/5UK64SQ5/collection

1) King (Ahosu); 2) Aplogan (in charge of all cults); 3) Dangbe priesthood. It is likely there were further, finer, gradations of seniority in the priesthood and cults, but there are no clear descriptions available in the literature. “Understanding of the distribution of political power in Whydah also requires consideration of the sphere of religion, which both legitimated and circumscribed the actions of the ruling elite. The most important national cult in Whydah was that of the god Dangbe (incarnated in the royal python), which was celebrated by annual public processions to the principal Dangbe shrine. Dangbe was primarily concerned with regulation of the weather and of agricultural fertility, but was also invoked for political purposes, "on all occasions relating to their government." Some European accounts imply that the worship of Dangbe was controlled by the king, the head of the cult being an official of the royal palace. It appears, however, that the Dangbe priesthood had rather more autonomy vis-a-vis the king than this suggests, since other evidence shows that King Agbangla in the 1690s expressed resentment at the scale of offerings which he was obliged to make to the cult and sought to reduce the expense which they involved. There was also a publicly celebrated cult of the deceased kings of the royal dynasty, with annual processions to offer sacrifices at their tombs. These did not, however, attain the elaboration of the comparable "Annual Customs" of the kingdom of Dahomey later, where these rather than the worship of any of the gods constituted the principal national religious ceremony. The "Annual Customs" in Whydah are mentioned only in a single contemporary account, and were clearly of much less political significance than the cult of the snake god Dangbe.” ^[1] “The most important of the Whydah chiefs had the titles of Gogan and Aplogan, which were also those of the highest-ranking officials in the later kingdom of Porto-Novo. In Porto-Novo the Gogan was the head of the royal lineage (and as such, conducted the ceremony of the king’s own installation) and the Aplogan had general charge of the community’s religious cults, and these may well also have been the functions of their namesakes in Whydah. In addition to their specific individual functions, the more important chiefs also served as hereditary governors of the component villages of the Whydah kingdom: the Gogan and the Aplogan, for example, served as governors respectively of the important settlements of Paon and Gome, both in the north of the kingdom.” ^[2]

[1]: Law, Robin. “‘The Common People Were Divided’: Monarchy, Aristocracy and Political Factionalism in the Kingdom of Whydah, 1671-1727.” The International Journal of African Historical Studies, vol. 23, no. 2, 1990, pp. 201–29: 209. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/8JKAH2V5/collection

[2]: Law, Robin. “‘The Common People Were Divided’: Monarchy, Aristocracy and Political Factionalism in the Kingdom of Whydah, 1671-1727.” The International Journal of African Historical Studies, vol. 23, no. 2, 1990, pp. 201–29: 207–208. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/8JKAH2V5/collection

1) Chiefs/governors; 2) Soldiers. There is no clear description of the formation or size of the army in Whydah in the literature consulted, though clearly they had a military presence. “The governors exercised an independent local judicial authority in minor cases, acted as spokesmen before the king on behalf of those under their government, and transmitted their tribute to him. They also raised contingents of soldiers for the national army, and commanded them in battle.” ^[1] “Whydah was probably already in rebellion against Allada by the mid- seventeenth century, when a contemporary source reports that the coastal village of "Foulaen" (as noted earlier, probably Glehue, the port of Whydah), although subject to the king of Allada, defied his authority, and even sent brigands by night to raid the coastal villages of his kingdom.” ^[2]

[1]: Law, Robin. “‘The Common People Were Divided’: Monarchy, Aristocracy and Political Factionalism in the Kingdom of Whydah, 1671-1727.” The International Journal of African Historical Studies, vol. 23, no. 2, 1990, pp. 201–29: 209. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/8JKAH2V5/collection

[2]: Law, Robin. “‘The Common People Were Divided’: Monarchy, Aristocracy and Political Factionalism in the Kingdom of Whydah, 1671-1727.” The International Journal of African Historical Studies, vol. 23, no. 2, 1990, pp. 201–29: 213. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/8JKAH2V5/collection

1) King (Ahosu); 2) Council of elders (possibly including the most important hereditary chiefs); 3) Palace officials; 4) King’s wives; 5) King’s servants, guards, and messengers (possibly only from 1710s); 6) the great men/grand captains (may be considered part of the caboceers level); 7) Caboceers (chiefs/captains/headmen); 8) Governors of villages/areas. “Whydah was a monarchy, whose ruler had the indigenous title of ahosu, generally (and reasonably) translated by Europeans as "king." The kingship was hereditary, in the sense that succession to it was restricted to a single patrilineally defined family. Some contemporary European sources assert that succession to the kingship was by primogeniture, the reigning king’s eldest son being the heir apparent, but this is an oversimplification. Rather, it appears that the reigning king could appoint one of his sons, normally but not necessarily the eldest, as his heir apparent; but this designated heir did not succeed automatically, since the leading men of the kingdom could set aside his claim in favor of another of his brothers. In practice, in any case, effective occupation of the royal palace was as important as seniority, designation, or election: as one European observer explicitly observed, a claimant to the succession sought primarily "to take possession of the late King’s court and wives," since ‘the commonalty will not easily consent that after that he shall be driven from the throne.’” ^[1] “Under the king, the affairs of the palace were administered by a number of male officials, who had responsibility for the management of the king’s wives and the supply of provisions: whether these officials were free men or (as analogy with other kingdoms would suggest) royal slaves is not made clear. The bulk of the palace staff consisted of women, legally regarded as the king’s "wives" although clearly including servants engaged in menial tasks as well as "wives" properly speaking, who are said to have numbered several hundreds. Besides ministering to the king’s needs within the palace, these women played an important role in enforcing his authority outside it. Their status as royal wives made them sacrosanct, merely touching them being a capital offence, so that they could not be effectively obstructed or resisted. The king in consequence was able to use them to execute his judicial decisions, sending them to destroy the houses of condemned offenders. They might also be employed to impose peace in disputes which threatened to lead to civil war, by literally interposing their bodies between the two factions to prevent them fighting. In addition to his wives, the king is also said to have had a group of 200-300 male servants, distinguished by having half of their heads shaved bare, who served as his guards and carried messages outside the palace: these are not, however, attested earlier than the 1710s, and may possibly have been then a recent innovation. In addition to the king and the officials of his palace, there were numerous other office-holders in the Whydah kingdom. In contemporary European sources, these are generally called "captains" or "caboceers" (from the Portuguese cabeceiro, "head man"), both of which terms appear to have been employed to translate the vernacular generic suffix -gan; the more familiar modern term "chiefs" is employed in this article as an equivalent. Some accounts distinguish, within the generality of chiefs, a smaller group of higher rank, termed the "grand [or great] captains," or simply "the great men," who are said to have shared political authority with the king. Most of these offices were evidently hereditary, passing like the monarchy normally from father to eldest son, it being explicitly noted that the king "cannot grant them to anyone else." The senior chiefs can thus be regarded as forming a sort of hereditary nobility or aristocracy. The most important of the Whydah chiefs had the titles of Gogan and Aplogan, which were also those of the highest-ranking officials in the later kingdom of Porto-Novo. In Porto-Novo the Gogan was the head of the royal lineage (and as such, conducted the ceremony of the king’s own installation) and the Aplogan had general charge of the community’s religious cults, and these may well also have been the functions of their namesakes in Whydah. In addition to their specific individual functions, the more important chiefs also served as hereditary governors of the component villages of the Whydah kingdom: the Gogan and the Aplogan, for example, served as governors respectively of the important settlements of Paon and Gome, both in the north of the kingdom.” ^[2] “It appears that the king was expected to act in conjunction with a council of "elders," who normally included the principal hereditary chiefs, but whether the membership of this council was fixed or variable according to the king’s choice is not clearly indicated.” ^[3] “What is clear is that those chiefs who served as governors of subordinate villages of the kingdom enjoyed a considerable degree of autonomy in their local administration: as was noted in the 1690s, "these in the King’s absence and in their Vice-royalties, command as arbitrarily and keep up as great state as the King himself.’ The governors exercised an independent local judicial authority in minor cases, acted as spokesmen before the king on behalf of those under their government, and transmitted their tribute to him. They also raised contingents of soldiers for the national army, and commanded them in battle. The king’s power in practice was clearly limited by that of these provincial governors, and its effectiveness dependent upon their cooperation.” ^[4]

[1]: Law, Robin. “‘The Common People Were Divided’: Monarchy, Aristocracy and Political Factionalism in the Kingdom of Whydah, 1671-1727.” The International Journal of African Historical Studies, vol. 23, no. 2, 1990, pp. 201–29: 205. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/8JKAH2V5/collection

[2]: Law, Robin. “‘The Common People Were Divided’: Monarchy, Aristocracy and Political Factionalism in the Kingdom of Whydah, 1671-1727.” The International Journal of African Historical Studies, vol. 23, no. 2, 1990, pp. 201–29: 206-208. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/8JKAH2V5/collection

[3]: Law, Robin. “‘The Common People Were Divided’: Monarchy, Aristocracy and Political Factionalism in the Kingdom of Whydah, 1671-1727.” The International Journal of African Historical Studies, vol. 23, no. 2, 1990, pp. 201–29: 208. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/8JKAH2V5/collection

[4]: Law, Robin. “‘The Common People Were Divided’: Monarchy, Aristocracy and Political Factionalism in the Kingdom of Whydah, 1671-1727.” The International Journal of African Historical Studies, vol. 23, no. 2, 1990, pp. 201–29: 208-209. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/8JKAH2V5/collection

1) King (Ahosu); 2) Council of elders (possibly including the most important hereditary chiefs); 3) Palace officials; 4) King’s wives; 5) King’s servants, guards, and messengers (possibly only from 1710s); 6) the great men/grand captains (may be considered part of the caboceers level); 7) Caboceers (chiefs/captains/headmen); 8) Governors of villages/areas. “Whydah was a monarchy, whose ruler had the indigenous title of ahosu, generally (and reasonably) translated by Europeans as "king." The kingship was hereditary, in the sense that succession to it was restricted to a single patrilineally defined family. Some contemporary European sources assert that succession to the kingship was by primogeniture, the reigning king’s eldest son being the heir apparent, but this is an oversimplification. Rather, it appears that the reigning king could appoint one of his sons, normally but not necessarily the eldest, as his heir apparent; but this designated heir did not succeed automatically, since the leading men of the kingdom could set aside his claim in favor of another of his brothers. In practice, in any case, effective occupation of the royal palace was as important as seniority, designation, or election: as one European observer explicitly observed, a claimant to the succession sought primarily "to take possession of the late King’s court and wives," since ‘the commonalty will not easily consent that after that he shall be driven from the throne.’” ^[1] “Under the king, the affairs of the palace were administered by a number of male officials, who had responsibility for the management of the king’s wives and the supply of provisions: whether these officials were free men or (as analogy with other kingdoms would suggest) royal slaves is not made clear. The bulk of the palace staff consisted of women, legally regarded as the king’s "wives" although clearly including servants engaged in menial tasks as well as "wives" properly speaking, who are said to have numbered several hundreds. Besides ministering to the king’s needs within the palace, these women played an important role in enforcing his authority outside it. Their status as royal wives made them sacrosanct, merely touching them being a capital offence, so that they could not be effectively obstructed or resisted. The king in consequence was able to use them to execute his judicial decisions, sending them to destroy the houses of condemned offenders. They might also be employed to impose peace in disputes which threatened to lead to civil war, by literally interposing their bodies between the two factions to prevent them fighting. In addition to his wives, the king is also said to have had a group of 200-300 male servants, distinguished by having half of their heads shaved bare, who served as his guards and carried messages outside the palace: these are not, however, attested earlier than the 1710s, and may possibly have been then a recent innovation. In addition to the king and the officials of his palace, there were numerous other office-holders in the Whydah kingdom. In contemporary European sources, these are generally called "captains" or "caboceers" (from the Portuguese cabeceiro, "head man"), both of which terms appear to have been employed to translate the vernacular generic suffix -gan; the more familiar modern term "chiefs" is employed in this article as an equivalent. Some accounts distinguish, within the generality of chiefs, a smaller group of higher rank, termed the "grand [or great] captains," or simply "the great men," who are said to have shared political authority with the king. Most of these offices were evidently hereditary, passing like the monarchy normally from father to eldest son, it being explicitly noted that the king "cannot grant them to anyone else." The senior chiefs can thus be regarded as forming a sort of hereditary nobility or aristocracy. The most important of the Whydah chiefs had the titles of Gogan and Aplogan, which were also those of the highest-ranking officials in the later kingdom of Porto-Novo. In Porto-Novo the Gogan was the head of the royal lineage (and as such, conducted the ceremony of the king’s own installation) and the Aplogan had general charge of the community’s religious cults, and these may well also have been the functions of their namesakes in Whydah. In addition to their specific individual functions, the more important chiefs also served as hereditary governors of the component villages of the Whydah kingdom: the Gogan and the Aplogan, for example, served as governors respectively of the important settlements of Paon and Gome, both in the north of the kingdom.” ^[2] “It appears that the king was expected to act in conjunction with a council of "elders," who normally included the principal hereditary chiefs, but whether the membership of this council was fixed or variable according to the king’s choice is not clearly indicated.” ^[3] “What is clear is that those chiefs who served as governors of subordinate villages of the kingdom enjoyed a considerable degree of autonomy in their local administration: as was noted in the 1690s, "these in the King’s absence and in their Vice-royalties, command as arbitrarily and keep up as great state as the King himself.’ The governors exercised an independent local judicial authority in minor cases, acted as spokesmen before the king on behalf of those under their government, and transmitted their tribute to him. They also raised contingents of soldiers for the national army, and commanded them in battle. The king’s power in practice was clearly limited by that of these provincial governors, and its effectiveness dependent upon their cooperation.” ^[4]

[1]: Law, Robin. “‘The Common People Were Divided’: Monarchy, Aristocracy and Political Factionalism in the Kingdom of Whydah, 1671-1727.” The International Journal of African Historical Studies, vol. 23, no. 2, 1990, pp. 201–29: 205. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/8JKAH2V5/collection

[2]: Law, Robin. “‘The Common People Were Divided’: Monarchy, Aristocracy and Political Factionalism in the Kingdom of Whydah, 1671-1727.” The International Journal of African Historical Studies, vol. 23, no. 2, 1990, pp. 201–29: 206-208. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/8JKAH2V5/collection

[3]: Law, Robin. “‘The Common People Were Divided’: Monarchy, Aristocracy and Political Factionalism in the Kingdom of Whydah, 1671-1727.” The International Journal of African Historical Studies, vol. 23, no. 2, 1990, pp. 201–29: 208. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/8JKAH2V5/collection

[4]: Law, Robin. “‘The Common People Were Divided’: Monarchy, Aristocracy and Political Factionalism in the Kingdom of Whydah, 1671-1727.” The International Journal of African Historical Studies, vol. 23, no. 2, 1990, pp. 201–29: 208-209. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/8JKAH2V5/collection

Reference to a “national army”: “The governors exercised an independent local judicial authority in minor cases, acted as spokesmen before the king on behalf of those under their government, and transmitted their tribute to him. They also raised contingents of soldiers for the national army, and commanded them in battle.” ^[1] “Snelgrave’s explanation of the unexpected defeat of the Whydahs was essentially their cowardice, which he attributed to the enervating effects of their involvement in the Atlantic trade: ‘Trade having likewise flourished for a long time, had greatly enriched the People; which, with the Fertility of their Country, had unhappily made them so proud, effeminate, and luxurious, that tho’ they could have brought at least one hundred thousand Men into the Field, yet so great were their fears, that they were driven out of their Principal City, by two hundred of their Enemies...’” ^[2]

[1]: Law, Robin. “‘The Common People Were Divided’: Monarchy, Aristocracy and Political Factionalism in the Kingdom of Whydah, 1671-1727.” The International Journal of African Historical Studies, vol. 23, no. 2, 1990, pp. 201–29: 209. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/8JKAH2V5/collection

[2]: Law, Robin. “A Neglected Account of the Dahomian Conquest of Whydah (1727): The ‘Relation de La Guerre de Juda’ of the Sieur Ringard of Nantes.” History in Africa, vol. 15, 1988, pp. 321–38: 322. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/U957EGQV/collection

“Understanding of the distribution of political power in Whydah also requires consideration of the sphere of religion, which both legitimated and circumscribed the actions of the ruling elite. The most important national cult in Whydah was that of the god Dangbe (incarnated in the royal python), which was celebrated by annual public processions to the principal Dangbe shrine. Dangbe was primarily concerned with regulation of the weather and of agricultural fertility, but was also invoked for political purposes, "on all occasions relating to their government." Some European accounts imply that the worship of Dangbe was controlled by the king, the head of the cult being an official of the royal palace. It appears, however, that the Dangbe priesthood had rather more autonomy vis-a-vis the king than this suggests, since other evidence shows that King Agbangla in the 1690s expressed resentment at the scale of offerings which he was obliged to make to the cult and sought to reduce the expense which they involved. There was also a publicly celebrated cult of the deceased kings of the royal dynasty, with annual processions to offer sacrifices at their tombs. These did not, however, attain the elaboration of the comparable "Annual Customs" of the kingdom of Dahomey later, where these rather than the worship of any of the gods constituted the principal national religious ceremony. The "Annual Customs" in Whydah are mentioned only in a single contemporary account, and were clearly of much less political significance than the cult of the snake god Dangbe.” ^[1]

[1]: Law, Robin. “‘The Common People Were Divided’: Monarchy, Aristocracy and Political Factionalism in the Kingdom of Whydah, 1671-1727.” The International Journal of African Historical Studies, vol. 23, no. 2, 1990, pp. 201–29: 209. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/8JKAH2V5/collection

“In local thought, the king’s primary function was the exercise of judicial authority and the maintenance of judicial order. This idea was given symbolic expression in the interval between the death of one king and the installation of his successor, when crimes could be committed with impunity, as one European observer explained, ‘as tho’ the death of the king put an end to all manner of reason and justice.’” ^[1] “A similar ambiguity of perception can be seen in European accounts of the administration of justice in Whydah. Although the king was clearly regarded as the supreme judicial authority in the kingdom (and in particular seems to have enjoyed the sole right to inflict capital punishment), he normally exercised his judicial functions in serious cases with the advice of a council of leading chiefs. But whereas one account asserts that he could only condemn offenders to death "on the advice of his great men," another claims that he was not obliged to follow the council’s advice but could act "according to his royal will and pleasure." This contradiction, as suggested earlier, may reflect dis- agreements about the legitimate extent of the royal prerogative within the Whydah ruling elite itself.” ^[2] “What is clear is that those chiefs who served as governors of subordinate villages of the kingdom enjoyed a considerable degree of autonomy in their local administration: as was noted in the 1690s, ‘these in the King’s absence and in their Vice-royalties, command as arbitrarily and keep up as great state as the King himself.’ The governors exercised an independent local judicial authority in minor cases, acted as spokesmen before the king on behalf of those under their government, and transmitted their tribute to him.” ^[3] “The second letter of the third section of the 1688 Description comprises an extended description of the kingdom of "Juda" or Whydah (133-38). Barbot describes the natural resources of the country, the conduct of the European trade there, the local king and his court, the local religion (especially the veneration of snakes), the administration of justice (including a form of trial by ordeal, the accused being obliged to swim across a crocodile-infested river), burial customs (including human sacrifice), the ceremony of the blood pact, agriculture and crafts, weaponry, the local currency (of cowry shells), domestic slavery and polygamy, and much else besides.” ^[4]

[1]: Law, Robin. “‘The Common People Were Divided’: Monarchy, Aristocracy and Political Factionalism in the Kingdom of Whydah, 1671-1727.” The International Journal of African Historical Studies, vol. 23, no. 2, 1990, pp. 201–29: 205. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/8JKAH2V5/collection

[2]: Law, Robin. “‘The Common People Were Divided’: Monarchy, Aristocracy and Political Factionalism in the Kingdom of Whydah, 1671-1727.” The International Journal of African Historical Studies, vol. 23, no. 2, 1990, pp. 201–29: 208. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/8JKAH2V5/collection

[3]: Law, Robin. “‘The Common People Were Divided’: Monarchy, Aristocracy and Political Factionalism in the Kingdom of Whydah, 1671-1727.” The International Journal of African Historical Studies, vol. 23, no. 2, 1990, pp. 201–29: 208–209. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/8JKAH2V5/collection

[4]: Law, Robin. “Jean Barbot as a Source for the Slave Coast of West Africa.” History in Africa, vol. 9, 1982, pp. 155–73: 159. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/N4D6NU7J/collection

“The king also enjoyed extensive rights of disposition over the property and persons of his subjects. He levied taxes on all goods sold in markets or carried along the roads of the kingdom, and on fish taken in the coastal lagoons, and received a share of his subjects’ agricultural crops.” ^[1] “If these architectural concentrations can be interpreted as the residences of regional community leaders, the spacing between these complexes is suggestive of the distance of political administration operating at the local level as well as the distance between mark smaller than the large regional market historically recorded at Savi.” ^[2]

[1]: Law, Robin. “‘The Common People Were Divided’: Monarchy, Aristocracy and Political Factionalism in the Kingdom of Whydah, 1671-1727.” The International Journal of African Historical Studies, vol. 23, no. 2, 1990, pp. 201–29: 205. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/8JKAH2V5/collection

[2]: Norman, Neil L. “Hueda (Whydah) Country and Town: Archaeological Perspectives on the Rise and Collapse of an African Atlantic Kingdom.” The International Journal of African Historical Studies, vol. 42, no. 3, 2009, pp. 387–410: 395-396. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/5UK64SQ5/collection

Markets: “The king also enjoyed extensive rights of disposition over the property and persons of his subjects. He levied taxes on all goods sold in markets or carried along the roads of the kingdom, and on fish taken in the coastal lagoons, and received a share of his subjects’ agricultural crops.” ^[1] “If these architectural concentrations can be interpreted as the residences of regional community leaders, the spacing between these complexes is suggestive of the distance of political administration operating at the local level as well as the distance between mark smaller than the large regional market historically recorded at Savi.” ^[2]

[1]: Law, Robin. “‘The Common People Were Divided’: Monarchy, Aristocracy and Political Factionalism in the Kingdom of Whydah, 1671-1727.” The International Journal of African Historical Studies, vol. 23, no. 2, 1990, pp. 201–29: 205. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/8JKAH2V5/collection

[2]: Norman, Neil L. “Hueda (Whydah) Country and Town: Archaeological Perspectives on the Rise and Collapse of an African Atlantic Kingdom.” The International Journal of African Historical Studies, vol. 42, no. 3, 2009, pp. 387–410: 395-396. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/5UK64SQ5/collection

“The king also enjoyed extensive rights of disposition over the property and persons of his subjects. He levied taxes on all goods sold in markets or carried along the roads of the kingdom, and on fish taken in the coastal lagoons, and received a share of his subjects’ agricultural crops.” ^[1]

[1]: Law, Robin. “‘The Common People Were Divided’: Monarchy, Aristocracy and Political Factionalism in the Kingdom of Whydah, 1671-1727.” The International Journal of African Historical Studies, vol. 23, no. 2, 1990, pp. 201–29: 205. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/8JKAH2V5/collection

“Whydah was probably already in rebellion against Allada by the mid-seventeenth century, when a contemporary source reports that the coastal village of "Foulaen" (as noted earlier, probably Glehue, the port of Whydah), although subject to the king of Allada, defied his authority, and even sent brigands by night to raid the coastal villages of his kingdom.” ^[1]

[1]: Law, Robin. “‘The Common People Were Divided’: Monarchy, Aristocracy and Political Factionalism in the Kingdom of Whydah, 1671-1727.” The International Journal of African Historical Studies, vol. 23, no. 2, 1990, pp. 201–29: 213. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/8JKAH2V5/collection

Burial sites: “These references to embarkation in a canoe are usually understood to be purely metaphorical, the remains of the dead being in fact buried in the ground. A contemporary report of the funeral ceremonies for a king of Hueda in 1708, however, refers to the making of an actual model canoe (a foot and a half by two feet in size), which was carried with an image of the king, to be placed on the road to the ancestral homeland of the royal family.” ^[1] “The second letter of the third section of the 1688 Description comprises an extended description of the kingdom of "Juda" or Whydah (133-38). Barbot describes the natural resources of the country, the conduct of the European trade there, the local king and his court, the local religion (especially the veneration of snakes), the administration of justice (including a form of trial by ordeal, the accused being obliged to swim across a crocodile-infested river), burial customs (including human sacrifice), the ceremony of the blood pact, agriculture and crafts, weaponry, the local currency (of cowry shells), domestic slavery and polygamy, and much else besides.” ^[2] Enclosures: “Astley, in summarizing Desmarchais, supports such findings when he suggests that ditches/borrow pits were common in the area surrounding Savi, where: "As the ...[Huedans] build with Earth, which they dig-up as near as possible to their Habitations, their Houses are surrounded with such Holes, or Pits." Astley continues the description of the ditches to suggest that they were filled with all manner of trash and that the area surrounding Savi was so populated that the slopes of ditches were under cultivation, such that: “The Borders of the Hedges, the Sides of Ditches, and the Foot of their [enclosures, are planted with Melons of different Kinds, besides Pulse; so that not an inch of Ground lies unimproved, and that without Interruption”. Alongside their use as borrow pits, researchers argue for connections between ditches in the region of Abomey and the Savi palace zone and the Huedan python deity Dangbe, who Huedans considered to have the ability to check movement and create zones of inclusion and protection. Beyond their cosmological associations, Huedans placed structures and house compounds abutting ditches/borrow pits to maximize the defensive potential of various features. Thus, the contiguous architectural system of ditches/borrow pits together with the walls of house compounds presented an unbroken boundary between the interior of the compound and exterior spaces. As the opening paragraph suggests, these cosmological and physical attempts to bracket and buttress the Huedan countryside and palace were ultimately unsuccessful.” ^[3]

[1]: Law, Robin. “West Africa’s Discovery of the Atlantic.” The International Journal of African Historical Studies, vol. 44, no. 1, 2011, pp. 1–25: 12. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/WA6SG9KW/collection

[2]: Law, Robin. “Jean Barbot as a Source for the Slave Coast of West Africa.” History in Africa, vol. 9, 1982, pp. 155–73: 159. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/N4D6NU7J/collection

[3]: Norman, Neil L. “Hueda (Whydah) Country and Town: Archaeological Perspectives on the Rise and Collapse of an African Atlantic Kingdom.” The International Journal of African Historical Studies, vol. 42, no. 3, 2009, pp. 387–410: 397. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/5UK64SQ5/collection

“Astley, in summarizing Desmarchais, supports such findings when he suggests that ditches/borrow pits were common in the area surrounding Savi, where: "As the ...[Huedans] build with Earth, which they dig-up as near as possible to their Habitations, their Houses are surrounded with such Holes, or Pits." Astley continues the description of the ditches to suggest that they were filled with all manner of trash and that the area surrounding Savi was so populated that the slopes of ditches were under cultivation, such that: “The Borders of the Hedges, the Sides of Ditches, and the Foot of their [enclosures, are planted with Melons of different Kinds, besides Pulse; so that not an inch of Ground lies unimproved, and that without Interruption”. Alongside their use as borrow pits, researchers argue for connections between ditches in the region of Abomey and the Savi palace zone and the Huedan python deity Dangbe, who Huedans considered to have the ability to check movement and create zones of inclusion and protection. Beyond their cosmological associations, Huedans placed structures and house compounds abutting ditches/borrow pits to maximize the defensive potential of various features. Thus, the contiguous architectural system of ditches/borrow pits together with the walls of house compounds presented an unbroken boundary between the interior of the compound and exterior spaces. As the opening paragraph suggests, these cosmological and physical attempts to bracket and buttress the Huedan countryside and palace were ultimately unsuccessful.” ^[1]

[1]: Norman, Neil L. “Hueda (Whydah) Country and Town: Archaeological Perspectives on the Rise and Collapse of an African Atlantic Kingdom.” The International Journal of African Historical Studies, vol. 42, no. 3, 2009, pp. 387–410: 397. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/5UK64SQ5/collection

“These references to embarkation in a canoe are usually understood to be purely metaphorical, the remains of the dead being in fact buried in the ground. A contemporary report of the funeral ceremonies for a king of Hueda in 1708, however, refers to the making of an actual model canoe (a foot and a half by two feet in size), which was carried with an image of the king, to be placed on the road to the ancestral homeland of the royal family.” ^[1] “The second letter of the third section of the 1688 Description comprises an extended description of the kingdom of "Juda" or Whydah (133-38). Barbot describes the natural resources of the country, the conduct of the European trade there, the local king and his court, the local religion (especially the veneration of snakes), the administration of justice (including a form of trial by ordeal, the accused being obliged to swim across a crocodile-infested river), burial customs (including human sacrifice), the ceremony of the blood pact, agriculture and crafts, weaponry, the local currency (of cowry shells), domestic slavery and polygamy, and much else besides.” ^[2]

[1]: Law, Robin. “West Africa’s Discovery of the Atlantic.” The International Journal of African Historical Studies, vol. 44, no. 1, 2011, pp. 1–25: 12. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/WA6SG9KW/collection

[2]: Law, Robin. “Jean Barbot as a Source for the Slave Coast of West Africa.” History in Africa, vol. 9, 1982, pp. 155–73: 159. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/N4D6NU7J/collection

No writing system in Allada the year before Whydah became independent, so likely the same in Whydah: “Another question arising from the incidence of credit in both the local economy and the overseas trade is the nature of the indigenous system of recordkeeping. In Allada the local people, it was noted in 1670, in the absence of writing used knotted strings to keep records of various matters, including commercial transactions (“the price of goods”). Several later accounts allude to other mechanical devices for keeping financial (and fiscal) records in Dahomey.” ^[1]

[1]: Austin, Gareth, et al. “Credit, Currencies, and Culture: African Financial Institutions in Historical Perspective.” The International Journal of African Historical Studies, vol. 34, no. 1, 2001, p. 144: 33. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/SPXH2IUW/collection

No writing system in Allada the year before Whydah became independent, so likely the same in Whydah: “Another question arising from the incidence of credit in both the local economy and the overseas trade is the nature of the indigenous system of recordkeeping. In Allada the local people, it was noted in 1670, in the absence of writing used knotted strings to keep records of various matters, including commercial transactions (“the price of goods”). Several later accounts allude to other mechanical devices for keeping financial (and fiscal) records in Dahomey.” ^[1]

[1]: Austin, Gareth, et al. “Credit, Currencies, and Culture: African Financial Institutions in Historical Perspective.” The International Journal of African Historical Studies, vol. 34, no. 1, 2001, p. 144: 33. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/SPXH2IUW/collection

No writing system in Allada the year before Whydah became independent, so likely the same in Whydah: “Another question arising from the incidence of credit in both the local economy and the overseas trade is the nature of the indigenous system of recordkeeping. In Allada the local people, it was noted in 1670, in the absence of writing used knotted strings to keep records of various matters, including commercial transactions (“the price of goods”). Several later accounts allude to other mechanical devices for keeping financial (and fiscal) records in Dahomey.” ^[1]

[1]: Austin, Gareth, et al. “Credit, Currencies, and Culture: African Financial Institutions in Historical Perspective.” The International Journal of African Historical Studies, vol. 34, no. 1, 2001, p. 144: 33. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/SPXH2IUW/collection

Present in Allada and Dahomey, so very likely also in Whydah: “Another question arising from the incidence of credit in both the local economy and the overseas trade is the nature of the indigenous system of recordkeeping. In Allada the local people, it was noted in 1670, in the absence of writing used knotted strings to keep records of various matters, including commercial transactions (“the price of goods”). Several later accounts allude to other mechanical devices for keeping financial (and fiscal) records in Dahomey. After the conquest of Allada in 1724, the King’s officers counted the captives taken (over 8,000) by “giving a booge [cowrie] to every one.” An English trader visiting the Dahomean court in 1772 recorded that the royal gunner showed him a calabash containing fifteen pebbles to indicate the number of cannon fired in a salute in his honour.” ^[1]

[1]: Austin, Gareth, et al. “Credit, Currencies, and Culture: African Financial Institutions in Historical Perspective.” The International Journal of African Historical Studies, vol. 34, no. 1, 2001, p. 144: 33. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/SPXH2IUW/collection

No writing system in Allada the year before Whydah became independent, so likely the same in Whydah: “Another question arising from the incidence of credit in both the local economy and the overseas trade is the nature of the indigenous system of recordkeeping. In Allada the local people, it was noted in 1670, in the absence of writing used knotted strings to keep records of various matters, including commercial transactions (“the price of goods”). Several later accounts allude to other mechanical devices for keeping financial (and fiscal) records in Dahomey.” ^[1]

[1]: Austin, Gareth, et al. “Credit, Currencies, and Culture: African Financial Institutions in Historical Perspective.” The International Journal of African Historical Studies, vol. 34, no. 1, 2001, p. 144: 33. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/SPXH2IUW/collection

No writing system in Allada the year before Whydah became independent, so likely the same in Whydah: “Another question arising from the incidence of credit in both the local economy and the overseas trade is the nature of the indigenous system of recordkeeping. In Allada the local people, it was noted in 1670, in the absence of writing used knotted strings to keep records of various matters, including commercial transactions (“the price of goods”). Several later accounts allude to other mechanical devices for keeping financial (and fiscal) records in Dahomey.” ^[1]

[1]: Austin, Gareth, et al. “Credit, Currencies, and Culture: African Financial Institutions in Historical Perspective.” The International Journal of African Historical Studies, vol. 34, no. 1, 2001, p. 144: 33. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/SPXH2IUW/collection

No writing system in Allada the year before Whydah became independent, so likely the same in Whydah: “Another question arising from the incidence of credit in both the local economy and the overseas trade is the nature of the indigenous system of recordkeeping. In Allada the local people, it was noted in 1670, in the absence of writing used knotted strings to keep records of various matters, including commercial transactions (“the price of goods”). Several later accounts allude to other mechanical devices for keeping financial (and fiscal) records in Dahomey.” ^[1]

[1]: Austin, Gareth, et al. “Credit, Currencies, and Culture: African Financial Institutions in Historical Perspective.” The International Journal of African Historical Studies, vol. 34, no. 1, 2001, p. 144: 33. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/SPXH2IUW/collection

No writing system in Allada the year before Whydah became independent, so likely the same in Whydah: “Another question arising from the incidence of credit in both the local economy and the overseas trade is the nature of the indigenous system of recordkeeping. In Allada the local people, it was noted in 1670, in the absence of writing used knotted strings to keep records of various matters, including commercial transactions (“the price of goods”). Several later accounts allude to other mechanical devices for keeping financial (and fiscal) records in Dahomey.” ^[1]

[1]: Austin, Gareth, et al. “Credit, Currencies, and Culture: African Financial Institutions in Historical Perspective.” The International Journal of African Historical Studies, vol. 34, no. 1, 2001, p. 144: 33. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/SPXH2IUW/collection

No writing system in Allada the year before Whydah became independent, so likely the same in Whydah: “Another question arising from the incidence of credit in both the local economy and the overseas trade is the nature of the indigenous system of recordkeeping. In Allada the local people, it was noted in 1670, in the absence of writing used knotted strings to keep records of various matters, including commercial transactions (“the price of goods”). Several later accounts allude to other mechanical devices for keeping financial (and fiscal) records in Dahomey.” ^[1]

[1]: Austin, Gareth, et al. “Credit, Currencies, and Culture: African Financial Institutions in Historical Perspective.” The International Journal of African Historical Studies, vol. 34, no. 1, 2001, p. 144: 33. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/SPXH2IUW/collection

No writing system in Allada the year before Whydah became independent, so likely the same in Whydah: “Another question arising from the incidence of credit in both the local economy and the overseas trade is the nature of the indigenous system of recordkeeping. In Allada the local people, it was noted in 1670, in the absence of writing used knotted strings to keep records of various matters, including commercial transactions (“the price of goods”). Several later accounts allude to other mechanical devices for keeping financial (and fiscal) records in Dahomey.” ^[1]

[1]: Austin, Gareth, et al. “Credit, Currencies, and Culture: African Financial Institutions in Historical Perspective.” The International Journal of African Historical Studies, vol. 34, no. 1, 2001, p. 144: 33. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/SPXH2IUW/collection

No writing system in Allada the year before Whydah became independent, so likely the same in Whydah: “Another question arising from the incidence of credit in both the local economy and the overseas trade is the nature of the indigenous system of recordkeeping. In Allada the local people, it was noted in 1670, in the absence of writing used knotted strings to keep records of various matters, including commercial transactions (“the price of goods”). Several later accounts allude to other mechanical devices for keeping financial (and fiscal) records in Dahomey.” ^[1]

[1]: Austin, Gareth, et al. “Credit, Currencies, and Culture: African Financial Institutions in Historical Perspective.” The International Journal of African Historical Studies, vol. 34, no. 1, 2001, p. 144: 33. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/SPXH2IUW/collection

No writing system in Allada the year before Whydah became independent, so likely the same in Whydah: “Another question arising from the incidence of credit in both the local economy and the overseas trade is the nature of the indigenous system of recordkeeping. In Allada the local people, it was noted in 1670, in the absence of writing used knotted strings to keep records of various matters, including commercial transactions (“the price of goods”). Several later accounts allude to other mechanical devices for keeping financial (and fiscal) records in Dahomey.” ^[1]

[1]: Austin, Gareth, et al. “Credit, Currencies, and Culture: African Financial Institutions in Historical Perspective.” The International Journal of African Historical Studies, vol. 34, no. 1, 2001, p. 144: 33. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/SPXH2IUW/collection

No writing system in Allada the year before Whydah became independent, so likely the same in Whydah: “Another question arising from the incidence of credit in both the local economy and the overseas trade is the nature of the indigenous system of recordkeeping. In Allada the local people, it was noted in 1670, in the absence of writing used knotted strings to keep records of various matters, including commercial transactions (“the price of goods”). Several later accounts allude to other mechanical devices for keeping financial (and fiscal) records in Dahomey.” ^[1]

[1]: Austin, Gareth, et al. “Credit, Currencies, and Culture: African Financial Institutions in Historical Perspective.” The International Journal of African Historical Studies, vol. 34, no. 1, 2001, p. 144: 33. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/SPXH2IUW/collection

No writing system in Allada the year before Whydah became independent, so likely the same in Whydah: “Another question arising from the incidence of credit in both the local economy and the overseas trade is the nature of the indigenous system of recordkeeping. In Allada the local people, it was noted in 1670, in the absence of writing used knotted strings to keep records of various matters, including commercial transactions (“the price of goods”). Several later accounts allude to other mechanical devices for keeping financial (and fiscal) records in Dahomey.” ^[1]

[1]: Austin, Gareth, et al. “Credit, Currencies, and Culture: African Financial Institutions in Historical Perspective.” The International Journal of African Historical Studies, vol. 34, no. 1, 2001, p. 144: 33. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/SPXH2IUW/collection

Cowries: “The second letter of the third section of the 1688 Description comprises an extended description of the kingdom of "Juda" or Whydah (133-38). Barbot describes the natural resources of the country, the conduct of the European trade there, the local king and his court, the local religion (especially the veneration of snakes), the administration of justice (including a form of trial by ordeal, the accused being obliged to swim across a crocodile-infested river), burial customs (including human sacrifice), the ceremony of the blood pact, agriculture and crafts, weaponry, the local currency (of cowry shells), domestic slavery and polygamy, and much else besides.” ^[1] “These cowries, brought in the early sixteenth century by the Portuguese, and in the first place by way of Sao Tome, were in use on the coast in the sixteenth century, in both the Benin and Forcados areas; by the seventeenth century they were in use at Whydah and Ardra,"l and we have discussed above the possibility that cowries may have been already in use in these areas before the arrival of the Portuguese." In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries Whydah was the main centre of cowrie imports, though cowries were in use as far west as Lay (a little west of modern Ada, west of the Volta) in the 1680s, and in Christiansborg by the early eighteenth century, and probably in the later seventeenth century.” ^[2]

[1]: Law, Robin. “Jean Barbot as a Source for the Slave Coast of West Africa.” History in Africa, vol. 9, 1982, pp. 155–73: 159. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/N4D6NU7J/collection

[2]: Johnson, Marion. “The Cowrie Currencies of West Africa. Part I.” The Journal of African History, vol. 11, no. 1, 1970, pp. 17–49: 34-35. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/XZMB8INB/collection

Iron bars: “Pre-colonial Dahomey (and Allada and Whydah before it) had a money economy, employing a currency of cowrie shells (called locally àkué). Many commercial transactions, most taxes, and to some extent social payments such as bride wealth were monetized. In particular, exchange in local markets was fully monetized, all transactions being normally for cash. This applied not only to local people but also to Europeans who wanted to purchase in the market. The European factories, for example, found that if they ran out of cowries they could not procure provisions by bartering other commodities, but had to sell goods such as iron bars or even slaves to obtain cowries for use in purchasing food.” ^[1]

[1]: Austin, Gareth, et al. “Credit, Currencies, and Culture: African Financial Institutions in Historical Perspective.” The International Journal of African Historical Studies, vol. 34, no. 1, 2001, p. 144: 21-22. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/SPXH2IUW/collection

“One consequence of the introduction of the cowrie currency was to facilitate the storage of wealth, since the shells were relatively imperishable.” ^[1]

[1]: Austin, Gareth, et al. “Credit, Currencies, and Culture: African Financial Institutions in Historical Perspective.” The International Journal of African Historical Studies, vol. 34, no. 1, 2001, p. 144: 30-36. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/SPXH2IUW/collection

“One feature of the operation of the Atlantic trade which is often overlooked is that credit was not extended only by Europeans to Africans, but often in the opposite direction as well. An English merchant who traded at Whydah in the early eighteenth century before its conquest by Dahomey in 1727, noted that the Whydah traders were happy to grant him credit “for ten days together” when the state of the sea prevented the landing of goods from his ship—though he found the King of Dahomey’s traders after the conquest much less tolerant of such delays.” ^[1] “These accounts seem to imply that such credit was essentially shortterm—being cleared within a few days, or at least at the end of a ship’s trading—but other evidence shows that it could be extended by Africans to Europeans over longer periods. In 1697 the Dutchman Bosman, having got his slaves on board his ship but unable to land the goods to pay for them due to a storm lasting for several days, mooted the idea of dispatching the ship without paying for its slaves. He found the King and “other Great Men” of Whydah quite happy to have him promise “that they receive payment at the arrival of other ships” (though in the event the weather improved, and Bosman was able to pay them in the normal way).” ^[2] “Although there is far less evidence in regard to the strictly domestic economy, clearly credit was extended in purely intra-African transactions, as well as in the trade with Europeans. The principal evidence for this relates to the practice of enslaving and selling insolvent debtors, referred to in contemporary European sources from the late seventeenth century onwards. Although generally cast in the language of slavery, such references should probably be interpreted as relating to the pawning of a debtor (or one or more of his household) as security for a debt; in principle, such pawns were distinct from slaves, and were protected from sale into the trans-Atlantic trade, though it is evident that this prohibition was often violated in practice.” ^[3]

[1]: Austin, Gareth, et al. “Credit, Currencies, and Culture: African Financial Institutions in Historical Perspective.” The International Journal of African Historical Studies, vol. 34, no. 1, 2001, p. 144: 27. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/SPXH2IUW/collection

[2]: Austin, Gareth, et al. “Credit, Currencies, and Culture: African Financial Institutions in Historical Perspective.” The International Journal of African Historical Studies, vol. 34, no. 1, 2001, p. 144: 27-28. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/SPXH2IUW/collection

[3]: Austin, Gareth, et al. “Credit, Currencies, and Culture: African Financial Institutions in Historical Perspective.” The International Journal of African Historical Studies, vol. 34, no. 1, 2001, p. 144: 30-31. https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/collections/GWWIKDDM/items/SPXH2IUW/collection