Year	Brazil
	Embarked	Disembarked
1576-1600	2615	2208
1601-1625	184100	156468
1626-1650	193549	163938
1651-1675	237860	204575
1676-1700	294851	259475
1701-1725	476813	423161
1726-1750	535307	468690
1751-1775	528156	476010
1776-1800	670655	621156
1801-1825	1130752	1012762
1826-1850	1236577	1041964
1851-1875	8812	6899
Totals	5500047	4837306

Source: slavevoyages.org

 

Newspapers were an important medium of the time that published not only reports about occurrences in the cities and the ships, but also advertisements for the sale or renting of slaves.[28] Slave ship cooks were rarely offered for sale or rent in the daily newspapers. This suggests that that most captains and shipowners had found their crews through recommendation, personal contact, or already knew them from earlier voyages. Captains and other higher ranked crew members also invested in slaves themselves.

 After the prohibition of the slave trade, the handling of slaves working on board had to be regulated by law in order to determine how to deal with them in case their ships were seized. For example, according to these regulations, slaves were allowed to continue working on board ships because the legally acquired property of Brazilian slave owners was also protected on the open sea (Mamigonian, 2010).[29] However, this only applied if the crew slaves had been legally acquired: The owners had to be able to prove that the person had come into their possession before the ban on slave trade.[30] If this was not the case, the person could be placed “under the protection” of the English Navy if they were captured.[31] They received the legal status of a liberated African, (africanos livre. On them see Mamigonian, 2017). For a certain period in Brazil, 14 years by law, they had to work for a specified owner. Cooks on British control ships were partly recruited from this category.[32] It was a new form of long-term legal commitment to a specific person, which was enforced with the help of the states. The British had already experienced with this form of labor management, which were implemented beside “the spread of ideologies of free labor” (Lima, 2013: 153; Welskopp, 2017: 207; FN angeben).

This could also mean that after years at sea some seaman preferred life on the ship to other possibilities that opened up for them in the 19th century. The slave George, for example, preferred to continue working on the slave ship Emilia rather than being “freed” with the captives after the British had captured the ship and given the status of a liberto. Walther Hawthorne interpreted this to mean that George preferred the limited freedom of carrying trade goods in small quantities and the familiar community on the ship to a new form of forced labor. (Hawthorne, 2010; Rodrigues, 2013:175-176).[33]

Due to the new conditions on the Atlantic Ocean, the seizure of ships and the “spread of ideologies of free labor” led to discussions about the status of people employed as cooks with different legal status (Lima, 2013: 153). An example of these discussions, which dealt with further connections between freedom and lack of freedom, is that of the ship’s cook Antonio Ferrer. The case of Antonio Ferrer was brought to light by the incidents on the ship Panda, which was involved in piracy and slave trade. The ship had sailed from Havana to the coast of Africa to take up to 450 people on board. It was not the first voyage of the ship’s Captain Gibert, who is said to have been a well-known person in the mercantile houses in Havana. On the way there, the crew of the Panda raided the American merchant ship Mexican. Because news of the attack on the merchant ship spread quickly, the fugitive crew was arrested at Cape Lopez and its surroundings by the British naval ship Curlew. In 1834, the crew was presented to the judges in Salem (USA), the home port of the Mexican (Gibert, 1834: 44). George S. Hillard, who acted as defense counsel in the trial, made a special plea for the release of the ship’s cook and a fifteen-year-old cabin boy Nicolau Costa. In defence of Antonio Ferrer, George S. Hillard tried to convince the judges of his lack of freedom. He argued that it was possible that Antonio was not in fact a former slave (as noted on the crew list), but still a slave who had been included in the ship’s crew list deliberately. As a slave, however, he could not be held responsible for the criminal machinations of a captain (Gibert, 1834). The abolitionist newspaper The Liberator reported on the man in an article published on 31 January 1835. According to the article, Antonio Ferrer came from the hinterland of the Slave Coast of Guinea. Through the media interest in the case, we know more about him than about many other workers in a similar position. He had grown up in a village of 40 houses. When he was seven years old, he was stolen by human traffickers while gathering fruit in the mountains.[34] He was taken first to Spain and then to Havana. There he worked for several years to buy his freedom. Manumission through self-purchase, as Antonio had done, was a common practice in both Brazilian and Cuban 19th-century slavery (Silva Júnior, 2015. Cf. van der Linden, 2008; Drescher, 2009; Zeuske, 2013). His scars and body painting, by which he was recognized by a sailor on the ship, were from the time before his enslavement. This practice of scarification, which was widespread in some African cultures, disappeared in the African Diasporas in the Americas (see Lovejoy 2010). Referring to the origin of the scars, he explained that an older woman had come to his village, whereupon all the children of the community were brought to her to have the scars tattooed with a small knife. In court, he was advised by his defense counsel to declare himself a slave in order to escape a possible conviction that would have meant the death penalty (Gibert, 1834).

Antonio did not want to declare himself a slave again after his purchase of freedom. According to the newspaper report he said that he was not a slave, but had bought his freedom for $500 with money he had earned in Cuba. Therefore he would never say in court that he was a slave (“I will never say I am a slave. I have always refused to say it, and always shall”).[35] In the end, seven of the men were sentenced to death, Antonio Ferrer, however, was not one of them (Gibert, 1834). The jury followed the lawyer’s recommendations not to treat all members of the crew equally. The verdict stated that seafarers in lower positions did not have the same decision-making power as those in higher positions, although they were free by law. The defense counsel called the fifteen-year-old Costa (a free man) a “prisoner” because he had been at the mercy of the higher parts of the crew and could not leave the ship once it had left. The different legal categories were discussed very carefully in this court case. For example, the attorneys discussed the extent to which the temporary sale of labor for the time of the crossing was in practice different from slavery. Economic coercion could be as effective as direct physical force to make people temporarily accept dubious working conditions and the total control over their bodies by a captain (Rediker, 1987; Mintz, 1974; Frank, 2004; Platonina & Welskopp, 2011; Welskopp, 2017. See also Weber’s comments on self-motivation in Weber, 1980). The seafarers’ survival depended on “selling (or hiring out) their labor power to capital owners in industry” (Komlosy, 2012: 39). 

Figure 2. Antonio Ferrer, the Tattooed Cook
Source: Dickenson 1859, S. 135.

 

As Frank notes,

there is a continuum between the raw coercion imposed on some slaves to force them to do work they would otherwise not do, running through a whole series of intermediate steps, to the opposite end where hunger rather than the whip compels people to do jobs they would not otherwise avoid (Frank, 2004: 25. Cf. Marx & Engels, 1848 –In Dowe & Klotzbach, 1990:66-67–).

Free wage labor, as in the case of the cabin boy, also means a temporary subordination, within which the owner of the labor force places his whole person under the control of the company for the duration of the working hours (Welskopp, 2017; Rediker, 1987). On the ship, it was not possible to separate work from leisure: Everyday life was structured according to the requirements of shipping and the freedom of movement of the individual was limited by the space of the ship. On the other hand, this meant being available to the captain for an unlimited period, which implied a subordination that went far beyond the duration of working hours, regardless of the legal status of the individual. This type of labor can be compared with services within the household, where an actual exchange ratio is difficult to control (Rockman, 2009). Nevertheless, it is a different understanding of work. Work in the household still refers to the concept of domesticitas (Welskopp, 2017: 212). Complete control over their bodies only ended when the voyage ended; until then, the crew’s freedom of movement remained very limited, even during stopovers. An incident on the slave ship Kentucky shows this very clearly.

On the ship Kentucky, which sailed from Rio de Janeiro to Inhambane (Mozambique) on the East African coast in February 1844 under the United States flag, a conflict arose between Captain Paulo Douglass and some crew members, as the former did not want to continue to employ some of the crew, but the latter did not want to leave the ship.[36] During stopovers, captains tried to get rid of personnel that they did not need at that moment, but which incur costs, and sometimes without paying them the previously agreed-upon payment (Stikkers, 2015). In these cases there was no way to go back home, because it was not until the 20th century that agreements were made that provided for workers to be repatriated in such cases (Gerstenberger & Welke, 2004). Douglass took the dismissed sailors to the Porpoise ship, where they were officially supposed to travel as passengers, but in reality, they were to do unpaid work. The men rejected this idea. The sailor William Page, on whose testimony the account of the events is largely based, and the cook William Patterson rowed ashore without permission. The next morning, they were arrested and punished with 86 lashes to the bare back, as Page told in a later interrogation. The Porpoise’s ship’s cook, Peter Johnson, was also able to report the incident later, although he was not immediately present, but had heard Patterson’s cries and later had also seen his wounds.[37] The harsh punishments set a precedent to deter potential ‘copycats’ from similar plans. The fact that the cook was also severely physically punished supports the findings of other studies, according to which the lowest ranking members of the crew, such as cooks and stewards, were the most frequently and often severely punished (Morgan, 2010: 325). It was a way of introducing the lower ranks into the discipline and cruelty of the business and at the same time to nip any rebellion in the bud. As a condition of reaching his high rank, even the captain himself had to go through this cruel tradition as he rose up the hierarchy on board. (Foucault, 2008; Rediker, 2010; Stikkers 2015). The captain’s power was not absolute, however. In order to ensure support among the higher-ranking men on board, he had to accept the crew’s structure of authority. For this reason, the punishment of the lowest crew members was most accepted as a way of showing who was in charge (Pietsch, 2016).

These forms of corporal punishment of some crew members were still the norm in the 19th century, creating a regime of violence on board the ships (Rediker, 2007; Eltis & Engerman, 2010; Stikkers, 2015). After having been flogged, both were held for 48 hours without food or water and then given only the bare necessities. Captain Douglass told them that they did not need to get their hopes up of appealing to any legal authorities other than himself, the captain of the ship (“‘Well,’ said he, ‘you may do as you have a mind to when you get to Rio or the States, but I am the Consul here, and have my own laws;’ that he did not care a d--n for the American Consul, nor for the American laws”). He continued by asking them the rhetorical question of whether or not they had intended to “take the law into their own hands”. The cook’s story shows the total control and the nearly unlimited power that captains had, both on board the ships and at some ports. In this context, the juridical category, did not play a role in the temporary control either, because in both cases the workers’ freedom of movement was completely restricted for a fixed period of time. It was not until after the voyage, if at all, that the captains had to render accounts to the financiers of the voyages. After the voyages, the legal status of seaman could again play a more important role when it came to the possibilities and access to justice; for example, to sue for unpaid wages or being unlawfully taken on board the ships, which was lucrative for press gangs everywhere. Some seamen took advantage of the possibility of access to justice, thus fighting for better working conditions within the slave trade.

 

Rebellious cooks and the kitchen knife

While the tool of the soup ladle symbolized the appeasement of the many captives on board, it is now the kitchen knife, as a symbol of the cook’s power, which takes center stage.

Rebellions on the ships were reported in detail especially in the English language press.[38] It is not possible to quantify the exact number of rebellions on ships. Far more rebellions are known for the British and US-American trade than for the Portuguese-Brazilian trade. In the slavevoyages database, only four rebellions for the Portuguese-Brazilian slave trade are recorded for the 19th century.[39] In contrast, approximately 500 have been recorded for the slave trade in general.[40] What greater impact rebellions had on the prohibition of the slave trade and slavery in general is the subject of an ongoing debate in research (Drescher 2010; see also Parron 2016). David Eltis and Stanley Engermann (2010) argue that the increasing and very accurate reporting in English and US-American newspapers on slave rebellions, which peaked at the end of the 18th century, had an impact on the attitudes of the readership. The extraordinary growth of newspaper culture in the United States and Great Britain was what made it possible for an interested readership to access information of these events. These often very detailed reports were written to illustrate the cruelty aboard slave ships for readers.  They demonstrate how abolitionists were influenced by these events and vice versa, while at the same time pointing out the division regarding the question of abolition. As it has been illustrated with respect to cooks on the ships, not all ex-slaves became abolitionists after buying their own freedom, some even became involved in the slave trade themselves. There were cooks, for example, who participated in mutinies directed against the British after the ships had been captured, and therefore supported the slave traders.

Media attention was drawn to a case in which a rebellious ship’s cook and his allies were acquitted because they had been illegally arrested by the British Navy. On 2 March, 1845, cook Manus Majaval, (a Spanish man, who hoped for a career in the slave trade after he had flee from Spain)[41] left the ship’s galley to call on his colleagues to rebel from the deck with the cry “Mata!!!”.[42] Manus Majaval was the ship’s cook on the schooner Felicidade,[43] which left Salvador da Bahia on 6 January for Onim (in today’s Nigeria). After about a month of travelling, the crew had to be patient; they stayed in coastal waters to pass the time until enough slaves had been assembled to fill the holds of the ship (Basset Hewson & Fereira Santa Serva, 1846: 18).[44] There, the Felicidade was sighted, pursued, and seized by the English naval vessel Wasp, and the crew was finally brought aboard the English ship. Only Majaval and Captain Joaquim Antonio Cerquiera were able to return to their schooner the next day.[45] After a chase, the British captured another ship called Echo carrying 430 captives.[46] Some sailors, including Francisco Ferreira dos Santos Serva, the captain, were sent to the Felicidade that had already been captured. The English presence was weakened by the fact that three ships with the same number of sailors were to be taken to Sierra Leone to bring the ship there to trial.[47] This situation was exploited by Serva, who, in an unnoticed moment, presented his plan to recapture the ship to the motley crew. Although he was the initiator of the recapture, he himself did not directly take part in the fighting. Rather, the ship’s cook Manus Majaval was the driving force, although his actual superior, Cerqueira, did not support the rebellion.[48] Thus, after the order to kill all the English, Majaval also took the initiative himself. First, he rammed his kitchen knife into the body of officer Palma, then grabbed him by the legs and threw him overboard.[49] Other sailors also took up the fight and fought until they had killed all the English. After the revolt, the men cleaned the ship and threw everything overboard that could have indicated a previous presence of the English. Serva took control, wanting to take the ship to Santos (Brazil) to replace the lost ship for the owners of the Echo. However, the plan was never realized, the Felicidade was raised by another English ship. The men were finally arrested and tried in Plymouth (England).[50] The cook was to be sentenced to death for the murder of Palma. However, after a lengthy legal battle and a very skillful defense by the defendant’s lawyers, the judges decided that under existing law the Felicidade should not have been detained because there were no captives on board (Bethell, 1970).[51] This case demonstrates that the position of the ship’s cook was not exclusively occupied by slaves and former slaves, but that this position also seemed to be interesting for other people and was seen by them as an entry into a business with which enormous profits could be generated especially in the heyday of the 19th century. 

 
Figure 3: Janus Majaval, unknown artist, 1845
Source: Michael Graham-Stewart collection, Royal Museums Greenwich

 

Slave ship cooks held a very ambivalent position. As stated above, they were part of the crew, but at the same time they had contact to the captives. For this reason, they could play a decisive role for the recapture of a ship. The slave ship’s cook Palma, who coincidentally had the same name as the English officer killed by Majaval, opened the hatches for the captives and participated actively in their rebellion. In contrast to the rebellion against the English on the slave ship Felicidade, the cook had not only been persuaded to participate in the fight on deck, but the whole plan was his idea. He had a special closeness to the captives. Since the 241 male and 195 female captives had been brought on board at Novo Redondo, a port on the Angolan coast, he had been exclusively responsible for their care. On the slave ship Aventureira there were two cooks, one who cooked exclusively for the crew and Palma himself, who prepared food for the captives twice a day. On these occasions he was able to communicate with them, because although Palma’s mother tongue was Portuguese, he had acquired knowledge of various African languages through years of experience in transatlantic trade. Unfortunately, the sources do not indicate which specific languages he spoke, where he was born, or what his ethnic background was.[52] He used the captives’ need, “an ardent desire to return to their own country”, as the English later put it, for his own ends.[53] Rebellions already in the first days after departure were not uncommon according to this statement, and captains exercised special caution during this time. By stirring up further fears, Palma is said to have set the rebellion in motion. He told the captives “that they would be taken to a distant part of the world, and there ill-treated; and also, that it was doubtful if the water would last the voyage.”[54] The cook’s interest was to recapture the ship, while the captives rebelled against their enslavement and wanted to escape the inhumane conditions below deck. In this sense, the cook tried to manipulate the captives by allying himself with them in order to get rid of the English on board.

One day, while five of the rest of the crew were eating, no one expected an attack and Palma seized the moment. During this time, he was relatively unobserved and freed some of the captives; he then proceeded to stab the surprised crew members with his kitchen knife, wounding them. Led by Palma, the captives also took part in the fight using kitchen utensils like pieces of firewood Palma had given them.[55] Nevertheless, the rebellion was unsuccessful because the British sailors, who had noticed the commotion, came to the aid of their fellow crew members. The insurgents, equipped with kitchen knives, firewood and other kitchen utensils, had no chance against firearms and ultimately lost the battle. Having been seriously wounded, Palma was taken to a hospital in Jamestown on Santa Helena. After the rebellion, the situation of the slaves on board was restricted even more because of the danger they posed. During the day, only a few of them were allowed on the upper deck together, and after 6 pm the entrance to the slave deck was closed.

Not only were chickens, goats, sheep, and pigs killed on slave ships, but some members of the British Navy met the same fate. Manus Majaval, for example, fatally wounded the English officer Palma with his kitchen knife during the above-mentioned rebellion on the ship Felicidade. The kitchen knife also played a decisive role in the rebellion against the British on the slave ship Aventuera. Since the British understandably strove to prevent rebellions as much as possible, access to weapons was blocked for the crew members of the seized ship. Various items from the kitchen, however, could – if misused – endanger the lives of potential enemies on the ship. These cases indicate that the integration of the cooks through corporal punishment was effective.

 

Conclusion

The analysis of this heterogeneous group of workers has shown that the ideal types of the free worker, on the one hand, and the unfree worker, on the other hand, by no means adequately represent the manifold forms of labor in 19th century ship galleys. By focusing on the materiality of the galley, it is possible to gain insights into the knowledge of groups that have left almost no record of themselves, but who were indispensable for the infrastructure of the slave trade. The theoretical possibility of upward mobility within the slave society, which opened up the possibility of relatively high wages on board, the hope of additionally working as a small trader or perhaps even making it to a high position on board, ensured the supply of workers in the infrastructure of the slave trade and made the nineteenth-century slave system function.

Despite the theoretical possibility, the vast majority of ship workers lived in slavery, in slavery-like conditions, or at least in extremely precarious and dependent working conditions, their entire lives (cf. Imbusch, 2017). It is precisely the diverse forms of labor (enslaved, freed or free) that can be found on board after the official ban on the slave trade that make it possible to analyze the history of slavery with a broader perspective. An approach that brings this enormous variety of labor relations on board a ship in dialogue with other parts of the world and other epochs promises to be a fruitful one for future studies.

References

1. Barickman, B. J. (2003). Um contraponto Baiano. Açúcar, fumo, mandioca e escravidão no recôcavo, 1780-1860. Civilização Brasileira.

2. Barlösius, E. (2016). Soziologie des Essens. Eine sozial- und kulturwissenschaftliche Einführung in die Ernährungsforschung. Beltz.

3. Basset Hewson, W. & Fereira Santa Serva, F. (1846). The Case of the Queen against Serva and the others, inclusive of the Trial and the Argument before the Judges. W. Benning.

4. Beckert, S. & Rockman, S. (2016). Introduction. Slavery’s Capitalism. In S. Beckert & S. Rockman (eds.), Slavery’s Capitalism. A New History of American Economic Development (pp. 1-28). University of Pennsylvania Press.  

5. Bezerra, N. R. (2011). Escravidão, farinha e comércio no Recôncavo do Rio de Janeiro, século XIX. APPH-CLIO.

6. Bolster, J. W. (1990). Black Seamen in the Northern States, 1800-1860. Journal of American History, 76, 1173-1199. ISSN: 1945-2314.

7. Braudel, F. (1987). Die Welt des Mittelmeers. Zur Geschichte und Geographie kultureller Lebensformen. Fischer.

8. Burton, A. & Ballantyne, T. (2016). Keywords: ‘World History’, ‘Below’ and ‘Dissent and Disruption’. In A. Burton & T. Ballantyne (eds.), World Histories from Below. Disruption and Dissent, 1750 to the Present (pp. 1-10). Bloomsbury Academic.

9. Candido, M. (2010). Different Slave Journeys. Enslaved African Seamen on Board of Portuguese Ships, c. 1760-1820s. Slavery and Abolition 31 (3), 395-409. ISSN: 0144-039X.

10. Carney, J.A. & Rosomoff, R.N. (2009). In the Shadow of Slavery. Africa’s Botanical legacy in the Atlantic World. University of California Press.

11. Chalhoub, S. (2006). The politics of Silence. Race and Citizenship in Nineteenth-Century Brazil. Slavery and Abolition, 27, 73-87. ISSN: 0144-039X.

12. Christopher, E. (2006). Slave Ship Sailors and their Captive Cargoes, 1730- 1807. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

13. Conrad, R. (1997). Children of God’s Fire. A documentary history of black slavery in Brazil, 3th edition. Pennsylvania State University Press.

14. Conrad, S. (2016). What is Global History? Princeton University Press.

15. Curto, J.C. (2004). Enslaving Spirits. The Portuguese-Brazilian Alcohol Trade at Luanda and its Hinterland, c. 1550-1830 (The Atlantic World. Europa, Africa and the Americans, 1500-1830; 2). Brill.

16. Dancer, T. (1801). The Medical Assistant or Jamaica Practice of Physic. Designed Chiefly for the Use of Families and Plantations. Alexander Aikman.

17. Dazille, J.B. (1776). Observations sur le maladies des nègres, leurs causes, leurs traitements et les movens de les prévenir, Paris: Didot le jeune.

18. Dias, M. (1995). Power and everyday life. The lives of working women in nineteenth-century Brazil. Translated by Ann Frost. Polity Press in association with Blackwell.

19. Drescher, S. (2009). Abolition. A History of Slavery and Antislavery. Cambridge University Press.

20. Eltis, D. & Engerman, S.L. (2010). Shipboard Slave Revolts and Abolition. In S. Drescher & P. Emmer (eds.), Who Abolished Slavery? (pp. 145-155).  Berghahn.

21. Equiano, O. (2002). The Interesting Narrative of the Life of Olaudah Equiano, or Gustavus Vassa, the African: Slave Narratives. Library of America.

22. Falconbridge, A. (1973) [1788]. An Account of the Slave Trade on the Coast of Africa. AMS Press.

23. Farias, J. ; Soares C. & Santos Gomes, F. (2005). No labirinto das nações. Africanos e identidades no Rio de Janeiro. Arquivo Nacional.

24. Fittkau, T. (2010). In die neue Welt, von Bremerhaven nach Amerika. Atlantiküberquerungen im 19. Jahrhundert und die Bedingungen an Bord der Schiffe. Ibidem.

25. Florentino, M. (1995). Em costas negras. Uma história do tráfico atlântico de escravos entre a África e o Rio de Janeiro, séculos XVIII e XIX. Arquivo Nacional.

26. Frank, Z. L. (2004). Dutra’s World. Wealth and Family in Nineteenth-Century Rio de Janeiro. University of New Mexico Press.

27. Freyre, G. (2015). Escravo nos Anuncios de Jornais Brasileiros do século XIX. Global Editora.

28. Foucault, M. (2008). Überwachen und Strafen. Die Geburt des Gefängnisses. Suhrkamp.

29. Gerstenberger, H. & Wilke, U. (2004). Arbeit auf See. Zur Ökonomie und Ethnologie der Globalisierung. Verlag Westfälisches Dampfboot.

30. Gibert, P. (1834). Trial of the twelve Spanish Pirates of the schooner Panda, a Guinea Slaver, consisting of Don Pedro Gibert, Captain; Bernado de Soto, Mate; Francisco Ruiz, Carpenter; Antonio Ferrer, the tattooed Cook; Nicola Costa, Manuel Boyga, Domingo de Guzman, Juan Antonio Portana, Manuel Castillo, Angel Garcia, Jose Velazquez, and Juan Montenegro, seamen, for robbery and piracy, committed on board the brig Mexican, 20th Sept. 1832. Lemuel Gulliver.

31. Hawthorne, W. (2010). From Africa to Brazil. Culture, Identity, and an Atlantic Slave Trade, 1600-1830 (African Studies). Cambridge University Press.

32. Hierholzer, V. (2006). Nahrung nach Norm. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

33. Komlosy, A. (2012). Work and Labour Relations. In J. Kocka & M. van der Linden (eds.), Capitalism. The Reemergence of a Historical Concept (pp. 33-69). Bloomsbury Academic.

34. Latour, B. (1999). Pandora´s Hope. An Essay on the Reality of Science Studies. Cambridge University Press.

35. Lima, H. (2013). What can we find in Augusto’s Trunk? About Little Things and Global Labor History. Workers of the world, 3, 139-157. ISSN: 2182-8938.

36. Löhrer, G. (2012). Arbeiten. In Netzwerk Körper (ed.), What can a Body do? Praktiken des Körpers in den Kulturwissenschaften (pp. 16-29). Campus.

37. Lopes dos Santos, Y. (2010). Além da Senzala: Arranjos escravos de moradia no Rio de Janeiro (1808-1850). Hucitec.

38. Lovejoy, P. (2010). Scarification and the Loss of History in the African Diaspora. In A. Apter, L. Derby (eds.), Activating the Past. History and Memory in the Black Atlantic World (pp. 99-138). Cambridge: Scholar Publishing.

39. Löw, M. (2004). Raum. Die topologischen Dimensionen der Kultur. In F. Jaeger & J. Rüsen (eds.), Handbuch der Kulturwissenschaften. Edition 1. Grundlagen und Schlüsselbegriffe (pp. 46-59). Metzler.

40. Luccock, L. (1820). Notes on Rio de Janeiro, and the southern parts of Brazil. Taken during a residence of ten years in that country, from 1808 to 1818. S. Leigh.

41. Magalhães, L. & Silva Santos, L. (2014). Corporeality and the cooking of the Baianas de Acarajé. In Cardoso, R. & Companion, M. & Marras, S. (eds.), Street Food. Culture, Economy, Health and Governance (pp. 180-191). Routledge.

42. Mamigonian, B. (2002). To be a liberated African in Brazil. Labour and Citizenship in the nineteenth century. (PhD thesis). University of Waterloo, Ontario.

43. Mamigonian, B. (2010). José Majojo e Francisco Moçambique, marinheiros das rotas atlânticas: notas sobre a reconstitução de trajetórias da era da abolição. Topoi, 11 (20), 75-91. ISSN : 2237-101X.

44. Mamigonian, B. (2017). Africanos livres, A abolição do tráfico de escravos no Brasil. Companhia das Letras.

45. Marx, K. & Engels, F. (1990). Manifest der Kommunistischen Partei [1848]. In D. Dowe & K. Klotzbach (eds.), Programmatische Dokumente der deutschen Sozialdemokratie (pp. 59-90). Dietz.

46. Mattos, H. M. (1998). Das cores do silêncio: os significados da liberdade no Sudeste escravista; Brasil século XIX. Nova Fronteira.

47. Miller, D. (2005). Materiality. Duke University Press.

48. Miller, J. C. (1988). Way of Death. Merchant Capitalism and the Angolan Slave Trade 1730-1830. The University of Wisconsin Press 1988

49. Miller, J. C. (2012). Slaving as a Historical process. Examples from ancient Mediterranean and the modern Atlantic. In E. Dal Lago & C. Katsari (eds.), Slave Systems. Ancient and Modern (pp. 70-102). Cambridge University Press.

50. Mintz, S. (1974). Caribbean Transformations. Aldine.

51. Morgan, P. D. (2010). Introduction, Maritime Slavery. Slavery and Abolition 31 (3), 311-326. ISSN: 0144-039X.

52. Mustakeem, S.W. (2016). Slavery at Sea. Terror, Sex, and Sickness in the Middle Passage. University of Illinois Press.

53. Nogueira, A. (2011). Cativeiro e „enfermidades dos negros“ pelos cirurgiões régios Dazille e Vieira de Carvalho. V Encontro Escravidão e Liberdade no Brasil Meridional, Porto Alegre.

54. Nogueira, A. (2012). Universos coloniais e ‚enfermidades dos negros‘ pelos cirurgiões régios Dazille e Viera de Carvalho. História, Ciências, Saúde, Manguinhos, 19, 179-196. ISSN: 0104-5970.

55. Osterhammel, J. (2009). Die Verwandlung der Welt. Eine Geschichte des 19. Jahrhunderts. C.H. Beck.

56. Osterhammel, J. (2016). Hierarchien und Verknüpfungen, Aspekte einer globalen Sozialgeschichte. In S. Conrad & J. Osterhammel (eds.), Wege zur modernen Welt. 1750-1870 (pp. 627-836). C. H. Beck. 

57. Parron, T. (2015). A política da escravidão na era da liberdade: Estados Unidos, Brasil e Cuba, 1787-1846. (Tesis doctoral) Faculdade de Filosofia, Letras e Ciências Humanas, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo.

58. Pietsch, T. (2016). Bodies at Sea. Travelling to Australia in the Age of Sail.  Journal of Global History, 11 (2), 209-228. ISSN: 1740-0236.

59. Platonina, C. & Welskopp, T. (2011). Marx’ negative historische Evolutionslehre der Arbeit. In Internationale Marx-Engels Stiftung (ed.), Marx-Engels-Jahrbuch 2010 (pp. 28-52). Akademie Verlag.

60. Putman, L. (2006). To Study the Fragments/Whole. Microhistory and the Atlantic World. Journal of Social History, 39 (3), 615-630. ISSN: 0022-4529.

61. Rediker, M. (1989). The Common Seaman in the Histories of Capitalism and the Working Class. International Journal of Maritime History, 1 (2), 337-357. ISSN: 0843-8714.

62. Rediker, M. (2007). The Slave Ship. A Human History. Murray.

63. Rediker, M. (2017). Gesetzlose des Atlantiks. Piraten und rebellische Seeleute in der frühen Neuzeit. Mandelbaum Kritik & Utopie.

64. Rediker, M. (2019). Afterword. Reflections on the Motley Crew as Port City Proletariat. In P. Brandon; N. Frykman & P. Røge (eds.), Free and Unfree Labor in Atlantic and Indian Ocean Port Cities (1700-1850) (pp. 255-262). Cambridge University Press.

65. Reis, J. (1997). ‘The Revolution of the Ganhadores’. Urban Labour, Ethnicity and the African Strike of 1857 in Bahia, Brazil. Journal of Latin American Studies 29 (2), 355-393. ISSN: 0022-216X.

66. Reis, J. (2008). Domingos Sodré. Um sacerdote africano. Escravidão, liberdade e candomblé na Bahia do século XIX. Companhia das Letras.

67. Reis, J. ; Gomes, F. & Carvalho, M. (2004). África e Brasil entre margens. Aventura e desaventura do africano Rufinho José Maria. Estudos Afro-Asiáticos 26 (2), 257-302. ISSN: 0101-546X.

68. Reis, J.; Gomes, F. & Carvalho, M. (2010). O alufá Rufinho. Tráfico, escravidão e liberdade no Atlântico Negro (c. 1822-1853). Companhia das Letras.

69. Rockman, S. (2009). Scraping By. Wage Labor, Slavery, and Survival in early Baltimore. Johns Hopkins University Press.

70. Rodrigues, J. (2005). De costa a costa. Escravos, Marinheiros e intermediários do tráfico negreiro de Angola ao Rio de Janeiro (1780-1860). Companhia das Letras.

71. Rodrigues, J. (2013). Escravos, senhores e vida maritima no Atlântico, Portugal, África e América portuguesa, c. 1760-c.1825. Almanack, 5, 145-177. ISSN: 2236-4633.

72. Rubner, M. (1908). Volksernährungsfragen. Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft.

73. Sanz, V. & Zeuske, M. (2017). Microhistoria de esclavos y esclavas. Millars. Espai i Història 42 (1), 9-21. ISSN: 1132-9823.

74. Schiebinger, L. (2017). Secret Cures of Slaves. Peoples, plants, and medicine in the eighteenth-century Atlantic world. Stanford University Press.

75. Schmieder, U. (2003). War die iberoamerikanische Sklaverei milde? Zeitschrift für Weltgeschichte, 4 (1), 115-132. ISSN: 1615-2581.

76. Scott, R. J. (2000). Small-Scale Dynamics of Larger-Scale Processes. The American Historical Review, 105 (2), 472-479. ISSN: 0002-8762.

77. Scott, R. J. & Hébrard, J. M. (2014). Freedom Papers. An Atlantic Odyssey in the Age of Emancipation. Harvard University Press.

78. Silva, J. (2007). Transformacoes no espaco doméstico – o fogao a gás e a cozinha paulistna, 1870-1930. Anais do Museu Paulista: História e Cultura Material, 15 (2), 197-220. ISSN: 0101-4714.

79. Silva, J. (2008). Cozinhamodelo. O impacto do gás e da electricidade na casa paulistana (1870-1930). Edusp.

80. Silva Júnior, W. (2015). Entre a escrita e a prática: direito e escravidão no Brasil e em Cuba, c.1760-1871. (Tese de doutorado). Departamento de História, Universidade de São Paulo.

81. Soares, L. (1988). Os Escravos de Ganho no Rio de Janeiro do Século XIX. Revista Brasileira do Historia 8, 107-142. ISSN: 0102-0188.

82. Stikkers, K.W. (2015). The Spirit of Capitalism and the Caribbean Slave Trade. The Pluralist 10 (2), 194-204. ISSN: 19307365.

83. Tannenbaum, F. (1946/1992). Slave and Citizen. The Negro in the Americas. Alfred A. Knopf.

84. Tanner, J. (1999). Fabrikmahlzeit. Ernährungswissenschaft, Industriearbeit und Volksernährung in der Schweiz, 1890-1950. Chronos.

85. Tomich, D. (2004). Through the Prism of Slavery. Labor, Capital, and World Economy. Rowman & Littlefield.

86. Tomich, D. & Zeuske, M. (2008). The Second Slavery. Mass Slavery, World Economy and Comparative Microhistories. Journal of the Fernand Braudel Center, 21 (3), 91-100. ISSN: 0147-9032.

87. Van der Linden, M. (2008). Workers of the World. Essays toward a global labor history. Brill.

88. Van der Linden, M. (2010). Unanticipated consequences of ‘humanitarian intervention’: The British campaign to abolish the slave trade, 1807-1900. Theory and Society, 39, 281-298. ISSN: 0304-2421.

89. Van der Linden, M. (2016). Dissecting Coerced Labor. In M. Van der Linden & M. Rodríguez García (eds.), On Coerced Labor. Work and Compulsion after Chattel Slavery (pp. 293-322). Brill. 

90. Van der Linden, M. & Rodríguez García, M. (2016). Introduction. In M. Van der Linden & M. Rodríguez García (eds.), On Coerced Labor. Work and Compulsion after Chattel Slavery (pp. 1-7). Brill. 

91. Wätzold, T. (2011). Vom kaiserlichen Koch zum nationalen Koch. Ernährungsgeschichte des brasilianischen Kaiserreichs. Proklamierung der ‘brasilianischen Küche’ als Teil des nationalen Identitätsbildungsprozesses im Kaiserreich Brasilien 1822-1889. Brasilienkunde-Verlag.

92. Weber, M. (1980) [1922]. Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Grundriss der verstehenden Soziologie, besorgt von Johannes Winckelmann Fifth edition.

93. Welskopp, T. (2017). Kapitalismus und Konzepte von Arbeit. Wie systemisch ist „freie Lohnarbeit“ für den Kapitalismus? Geschichte und Gesellschaft, 43, 197-216. ISSN: 0340-613X.

94. Williamson, J. (1817). Medical and Miscellaneous Observations relative to the West India Islands. Smellie.

95. Windus, A. (2013). Putting Things in Order: Material Culture and Religious Communication in the Bolivian Altiplano (17th Century). In A. Windus & E. Crailsheim (eds.), Image, Object, Performance. Mediality and Communication in Cultural Contact Zones of Latin America and the Philippines (16th-19th Centuries) (pp. 241-261). Waxmann.

96. Wissenbach, M. (2004). Texto integrante dos Anais do XVII Encontro Regional de História. Olugar da História.

97. Zeuske, M. (2009). Out of the Americas. Sklavenhändler und Hidden Atlantic im 19. Jahrhundert. Ein Forschungsprojekt am Historischen Seminar der Universität zu Köln. http://www.ahf- muenchen.de/Forschungsberichte/Jahrbuch2009/AHF_Jb2009_Zeuske.pdf.

98. Zeuske, M. (2012). Die Geschichte der Amistad. Sklavenhandel und Menschenschmuggel auf dem Atlantik im 19. Jahrhundert. Reclam.

99. Zeuske, M. (2013). Handbuch Geschichte der Sklaverei. Eine Globalgeschichte von den Anfängen bis zur Gegenwart. De Gruyter.

100. Zeuske, M. (2015). Sklavenhändler, Negreros und Atlantikkreolen. Eine Welt Geschichte des Sklavenhandels im atlantischen Raum. De Gruyter.

101. Zeuske, M. (2018). Sklaverei. Eine Menschheitsgeschichte von der Steinzeit bis heute. Reclam.

 

Notes