is less surprising when considered in terms of supply. As discussed in Chapter 5, the raiders who captured most Black Sea slaves tended to take women and kill men.
Slaves as Social and Financial Assets
All slaves were assets of significant value. Their prices were comparable to those of a house, ten pieces of woolen cloth, 150 kg of wool, 160 kg of grain, 25 to 30 percent of a notary’s income, or three years of a sailor’s income.62 Purchasing slaves was an investment. Their value might increase as they learned the language, developed skills, and grew to maturity, but it might also decrease through illness, injury, and aging.
Selling slaves for cash was not the only way to utilize them financially. Slaves could be rented to others, especially craftsmen who could teach them new skills and thereby raise their value.63 Lactating slaves could be rented as wet nurses for twice as much money as domestic slaves, and their contracts included provisions regarding the quantity and quality of their milk.64 Because wet nurses were entrusted with the health of babies, they tended to be older than the average slave woman. Slaves could also be bartered in lieu of monetary payment;65 pledged as collateral against debts;66 granted to a daughter as part of her dowry;67 stolen;68 confiscated by the state;69 appraised in estate inventories;70 and inherited in wills.71 As a result of these activities, it was not unusual for slaves to be jointly owned. For example, one slave in fourteenth-century Jerusalem was inherited collectively by six women (two wives, two sisters, and two young daughters of the deceased).72 Another slave was jointly purchased by an Egyptian couple and given to their two sons as co-owners.73 Two Venetian brothers, Petrus and Georgius de Manfredis, had joint ownership of a single slave woman, as did a Genoese couple, Petrus and Isolta de Vignolo, and two Genoese dyers, Damiano of Castagna and Antonius of Rapallo.74 The fourteen joint owners of one slave sold in Genoa in 1274 were probably the pirate crew who had captured him.75
In addition to their monetary value, slaves had social value. A Mamluk saying held that “slaves, even if they consume your wealth, increase your prestige.”76 Slave ownership was a way to display power and wealth. A slave attendant or retinue might accompany their master in public. Italian elites liked to include their slaves in portraits.77 Slave dancers, singers, lute players, and other musicians entertained guests in elite Mamluk homes.78 Fourteenth-century amirs had slave orchestras with up to fifty musicians. Slave women also participated in public mourning for Mamluk elites. Civilians who owned mamluks signaled their pretensions to equality with the military ruling class. For example, the treasury clerk ‘Abd al-Bāsiṭ ibn Khalīl was criticized for aspiring beyond his station when he flaunted a retinue of “mamluks of the widely-available kinds.”79 The civilian supervisor of the two shrines in Jerusalem brought his mamluks on hunting excursions and to audiences with the military governor.80
When slaves were given as gifts, their value was both monetary and social.81 Rulers exchanged slaves through diplomatic channels alongside gold, silver, jewels, luxury textiles, and horses. Among the gifts that Sultan Baybars gave Berke, the khan of the Golden Horde, upon the occasion of his conversion to Islam were black male slaves and slave cooks.82 Tokhta Khan gave Sultan al-Nāṣir Muḥammad eighty male and twenty female slaves, and Janibak Khan made a similar gift to Sultan al-Nāṣir Ḥasan.83 Mamluk sultans also exchanged slaves with the sultan of Baghdad, the Ottoman sultan, the Ilkhan, and the king of Nubia.84 One mamluk, Arghūnshāh al-Nāṣiri, was first sent as a gift from China to Persia, then regifted to the Mamluks.85
Within the Mamluk kingdom, the sultan and high-ranking amirs exchanged slaves as signs of respect and favor. It was common for the governor of Syria to send large groups of slaves, including mamluks and eunuchs, to the sultan.86 The amir of Ṣafad also sent a eunuch to Sultan Barqūq, whom Barqūq regifted to his secretary.87 A more subtle aspect of gifting slaves involved plays on their personal ties. Al-Nāṣir Muḥammad reinforced his relationship with the amir Yalbughā al-Yaḥyāwī by giving him one of a pair of slave sisters and keeping the other for himself.88 When the amir Tanibak al-Yaḥyāwī discovered that his brother Taybars had been purchased by the governor of Malaṭya, the governor obligingly sent Taybars and a group of other mamluks to Cairo as a gift for the sultan.89 Refusing to give a slave requested by the sultan could be interpreted as an act of rebellion. When the sultan of Mārdīn substituted two mamluks and a slave woman for a beautiful harpist requested by al-Nāṣir Muḥammad, al-Nāṣir Muḥammad threatened to sack the city.90
Finally, in both Mamluk and Italian households, slaves were given as gifts to family members and close friends.91 Family gifts were often implemented through wills. Lionello Cattaneo gave his slave to a priest before departing on a journey, while Regina Morosini, a Venetian widow, gave a slave to her parish priest because “you have conferred so many services and indulgences on me [that] it would be unfitting if I were ungrateful to you.”92 Doctors also received slaves as gifts from their patients.93
Slaves as Domestic and Manual Labor
Most slaves in the late medieval Mediterranean were purchased for domestic service. Their tasks included cooking, cleaning, washing and maintaining clothes and linens, carrying water, buying food, collecting firewood and tending the fire, spinning, sewing, weaving, running errands, caring for and nursing children, tending animals, and personal service.94 Most worked under a wife’s supervision or managed bachelor households.95 Since Italian households usually had one or two domestic servants, free or enslaved, they were expected to be flexible. Wet nurses were the exception: they were expected to devote themselves fully to childcare. In the Mamluk context, elite households had large numbers of slaves (rarely free women) in domestic service, so they were more likely to specialize.96 Men in domestic service usually cared for horses (boats in Venice), acted as guards or doormen, and provided personal service for male masters.97
Although racial stereotypes seem to have affected the use of domestic slaves in Italy, the evidence is anecdotal. Black men were prized as gondoliers in Venice.98 Circassians were said to be beautiful and of “great aspect” (grande aspecto), and Circassian women were reputed to be very domestic.99 Tatars were known for loyalty, “since it may be taken as a certainty that no Tartar ever betrayed a master.”100 Tatar women were preferred for wet nursing and hard labor. A Florentine mother advising her son in Naples on the purchase of a female slave recommended “one of the Tartar nation, who are rough and advantageous for long hard work. The Russians, i.e. those from Russia, are more sensitive and more beautiful; but, it seems to me, a Tartar would be better. The Circassians have a passionate nature; although all the others have that too.”101 Yet in 1368, the Venetian Senate considered and ultimately rejected a proposal to ban “any newly purchased male slave of the Tatar language” because many had already been imported and turned out to be “corrupt and wicked of condition, and they cause daily disputes and rumors, and they can easily introduce scandals and errors in this land.”102
In contrast, Mamluk slave-buying guides included lists of racial stereotypes to help buyers choose the right slave for the right purpose. Black Africans were recommended for domestic work, and mamluks often had black male slaves to look after their horses and collect their food rations from the citadel each day.103 Alans were also recommended for domestic service. They were described as sturdy, gentle, good-natured, agreeable, and morally upright, but also careless and lazy.104 Greeks (rūmī) were characterized as obedient, sincere, loyal, reliable, and intelligent, but also stingy.105 Greek men were valued for their education and good manners, whereas Greek women were supposedly accurate and conservative in managing resources and therefore made good housekeepers. Armenians were said to be strong, sound of constitution, and beautiful, but also dishonest, greedy, rude,
